The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism [2 ed.] 9781032080536, 9781032103488, 9781003214908

Citation preview

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF MULTILINGUALISM

The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism provides a comprehensive survey of the field of multilingualism for a global readership and an overview of the research which situates multilingualism in its social, cultural and political context. This fully revised edition not only updates several of the original chapters but introduces many new ones that enrich contemporary debates in the burgeoning field of multilingualism. With a decolonial perspective and including leading new and established contributors from different regions of the globe, the handbook offers a critical overview of the interdisciplinary field of multilingualism, providing a range of central themes, key debates and research sites for a global readership. Chapters address the profound epistemological and ontological challenges and shifts produced since the first edition in 2012. The handbook includes an introduction, five parts with 28 chapters and an afterword. The chapters are structured around sub-​themes, such as Coloniality and Multilingualism, Concepts and Theories in Multilingualism, and Multilingualism and Education. This ground-​breaking text is a crucial resource for researchers, scholars and postgraduate students interested in multilingualism from areas such as sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, anthropology and education. Carolyn McKinney is Professor in Language Education, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Pinky Makoe is Associate Professor in the Department of Education and Curriculum Studies, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Virginia Zavala is Professor of Sociolinguistics, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú in Lima.

ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOKS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics provide comprehensive overviews of the key topics in applied linguistics. All entries for the handbooks are specially commissioned and written by leading scholars in the field. Clear, accessible and carefully edited Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics are the ideal resource for both advanced undergraduates and postgraduate students. THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Second Edition Edited by Michael Handford and James Paul Gee THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING Edited by Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-​Hollman THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS Volume 1 Language Learning and Language Education, Second Edition Edited by Li Wei, Zhu Hua, and James Simpson THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS Volume 2 Applied Linguistics in Action, Second Edition Edited by Li Wei, Zhu Hua, and James Simpson THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING Edited by Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF MULTILINGUALISM Second Edition Edited by Carolyn McKinney, Pinky Makoe and Virginia Zavala For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routle​dge.com/​Routledge-​­Handbooks​in-​­Applied-​Linguistics/book-series/RHAL

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF MULTILINGUALISM Second Edition

Edited by Carolyn McKinney, Pinky Makoe and Virginia Zavala

Designed cover image: © Getty Images | Jorgeinthewater Second edition published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Carolyn McKinney, Pinky Makoe and Virginia Zavala; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Carolyn McKinney, Pinky Makoe and Virginia Zavala to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Routledge 2012 British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: McKinney, Carolyn, 1973– editor. | Zavala, Virginia, editor. | Makoe, Pinky, editor. Title: The Routledge handbook of multilingualism / edited by Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala, Pinky Makoe. Description: Second edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | Series: Routledge handbooks in applied linguistics | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2023011114 (print) | LCCN 2023011115 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032080536 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032103488 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003214908 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Multilingualism. | LCGFT: Essays. Classification: LCC P115 .R593 2024 (print) | LCC P115 (ebook) | DDC 306.44/6–dc23/eng/20230523 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023011114 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023011115 ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​08053-​6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​10348-​8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​21490-​8 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003214908 Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

This volume is dedicated to the memory of three outstanding critical scholars of multilingualism: Jan Blommaert 1961–​2021 Alexandra ‘Misty’ Jaffe 1960–​2018 Tope ‘Sky’ Omoniyi 1956–​2017 Their legacies continue through their contribution to the field.

Editorial advisory board Peter de Costa (Michigan State University, United States of America) Catherine Kell (University of Cape Town, South Africa) Beatrice Lorente (University of Bern, Switzerland) Marilyn Martin-​Jones (University of Birmingham, United Kingdom) Luisa Martín Rojo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain) Virginia Unamuno (CONICET, CELES Centro de Estudios del Lenguaje en Sociedad, Argentina) Quentin Williams (University of the Western Cape, South Africa)

Further reviewers Muzna Awayed-​Bishara (Tel Aviv University, Israel) Suresh Canagarajah (Pennsylvania State University, United States of America) Monica Heller (University of Toronto, Canada) Leila Kajee (University of Johannesburg, South Africa) Sibonile Mpendukana (University of Cape Town, South Africa) Alastair Pennycook (University of Technology Sydney, Australia) Mastin Prinsloo (University of Cape Town, South Africa) Cristine Severo (Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil) Jaspal Naveel Singh (The Open University, United Kingdom) Lucia Thesen (University of Cape Town, South Africa)

CONTENTS

List of contributors Acknowledgements Introduction: Critical and decolonial approaches to multilingualism in global perspective Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe PART I

xi xix xx

Coloniality and multilingualism

1

1 Lessons for decolonization from pre-​colonial translingualism Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah

3

2 Looking at multilingualisms from the Global South Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook 3 (De)colonial multilingual/​multimodal practices: Resisting and re-​existing voices from Latin America Mario E. López-​Gopar, Lorena Córdova-​Hernández and Jorge Valtierra Zamudio

17

31

4 Raciolinguistic ideologies Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro

47

5 Unequal Englishes in the Global South Ruanni Tupas

63

vii

Contents PART II

Concepts and theories in multilingualism

77

6 Materialities and ontologies: Thinking multilingualism through language materiality, post-​humanism and new materialism Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach

79

7 Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing Marianne Turner and Angel M.Y. Lin

96

8 Multilingualism and multimodality Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set

110

9 Indigenous language and education rights Stephen May

127

10 Linguistic citizenship Christopher Stroud

144

11 Multilingual literacies Doris S. Warriner, Anjanette Griego and Agra Rajapakse

160

12 Digital multilingualism Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana

175

PART III

Multilingualism and education

191

13 Indigenous education and multilingualism: Global perspectives and local experiences Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-​Roa and Elsie Rockwell

193

14 Multilingualism and languages of learning and teaching in post-​colonial Sub-​Saharan Africa Feliciano Chimbutane

207

15 Decolonizing multilingual pedagogies Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García 16 Opening (up) spaces for multilingual learning and teaching practices in South African higher education: A decolonial perspective Kate le Roux and Pinky Makoe viii

223

240

Contents

17 Translanguaging pedagogies in the Global South: Review of classroom practices and interventions Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris 18 Language education and the COVID-​19 global pandemic Kathryn Henderson, Zhongfeng Tian, Bedrettin Yazan, Fabiana Stalnaker and Madhavi Usgaonker PART IV

252 269

Multilingualism in social and cultural change

283

19 Multilingualism, the new economy and the neoliberal governance of speakers Luisa Martín Rojo

285

20 Sociolinguistics and (in)securitization as another mode of governance Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous 21 The multilingualism of global academic research and communication practices Mary Jane Curry, Theresa Lillis, Adel Alshehri, Onesmo Mushi and Xiatinghan Xu

300

318

22 Multilingualism and hip hop Quentin Williams

336

23 Media as sites of multilingualism Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-​Holmes

352

PART V

Multilingualism in public life

367

24 Multilingualism in the workplace: Issues of space and social order Kamilla Kraft and Mi-​Cha Flubacher

369

25 Multilingualism during disasters and emergencies Jia Li, Jie Zhang and Ingrid Piller

383

26 Multilingualism in asylum and migration procedures Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-​Khan and Marie Jacobs

394

ix

Contents

27 Multilingualism and translation Philipp Angermeyer

415

28 Multilingualism and linguistic landscapes Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala

428

Afterword Marilyn Martin-​Jones Index

443 463

x

CONTRIBUTORS

Adel Alshehri is a PhD student at the Warner Graduate School of Education, University of Rochester, and earned an MS in TESOL from Nazareth College and a BA in English from King Abdulaziz University. He has taught English as an additional language in Saudi Arabia. Philipp Angermeyer is Associate Professor in linguistics at York University. His research examines the relationship between multilingualism and inequality, with foci on court interpreting and linguistic landscape. He is co-​editor of the International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law. Yonas Mesfun Asfaha is an Associate Professor of Language Education at Asmara College of Education, Eritrea. His research interests include multilingual literacy acquisition, literacy instruction, multilingual language policy and practice, and contextual factors in literacy interventions in the global South. Susana Ayala-​Reyes is an anthropologist and linguist and holds a PhD in Educational Research. She is Professor at the Center for Research and Advanced Studies in Mexico, and has done research among Highland Mayas, as well as in Indonesia and at the Ibero-​American Institute in Berlin. She works on communication in multilingual educational processes and linguistic policies. She has published in Paedagogica Historica, Runa and other academic journals. Felix Banda is a Senior Professor in the Department of Linguistics, University of the Western Cape, South Africa. His research interests are located at the intersection of multilingualism in society and education, linguistic landscapes, language planning and policy, multimodal analysis, multimodal critical pedagogies and comparative Bantu linguistics. Julieta Briseño Roa is an Anthropologist and PhD in Educational Research, Professor at Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS) in Mexico. For 13 years she has worked with indigenous community-​based education in Oaxaca and has researched land-​ based education and multilingualism. She has published in RUNA, Indiana, and EEPA.

xi

List of contributors

Gabriele Budach is an Associate Professor at the University of Luxembourg. She is a sociolinguist and ethnographer focusing on collaborative research at the intersection of multilingualism, multimodality and arts-​based methods in the manual/​physical and digital realms, inspired by new materialist conceptual frameworks. Suresh Canagarajah is Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Applied Linguistics and English, Pennsylvania State University. He teaches courses on World Englishes, Language Socialization, and Post-​colonial Studies. His latest publication is Language Incompetence: Learning to Communicate through Cancer, Disability, and Anomalous Embodiment (Routledge, 2022). Sofía E. Chaparro is an Assistant Professor at the University of Colorado Denver, in the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education programme at the School of Education and Human Development. Her research investigates policies, practices and ideologies within multilingual educational settings. Constadina Charalambous is Assistant Professor of Language Education and Literacy at the European University Cyprus. Her work focuses on the interplay between language and larger sociopolitical ideologies, including processes of (in)security. She co-​authored Peace Education in a Conflict-​affected Society (2016), and co-​edited Security, Ethnography & Discourse: Transdisciplinary Encounters (2022). Feliciano Chimbutane is Associate Professor of Educational Sociolinguistics at Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Mozambique. His research interests include languages and education (planning, policies and practices), with focus on classroom practice and the relationship between classroom discourse, day-​to-​day talk and the wider sociopolitical order. Lorena Córdova-​Hernández is Professor at Facultad de Idiomas, Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, Mexico. She has written articles on cultural policies, discourse analysis, semiotic landscape, and critical sociolinguistics. Her research focuses on teacher and community advocates training for intercultural education. Mary Jane Curry, associate professor at the Warner Graduate School of Education, University of Rochester, is co-​author or co-​editor of seven books including Academic Writing in a Global Context; A Scholar’s Guide to Getting Published in English; and Global Academic Publishing. Frances Kvietok Dueñas is an educational linguist who researches, teaches and consults on bilingual education, Indigenous language revitalization and language policy. She is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan (University of Oslo). Mi-​Cha Flubacher is studying and teaching critical sociolinguistic issues related to multilingualism and work, language integration policies, migrant economies and racialization processes, currently as postdoctoral researcher in Applied Linguistics at the Department of Linguistics, University of Vienna. xii

List of contributors

Ofelia García is Professor Emerita in the PhD programmes in Urban Education and of Latin American, Iberian and Latino Cultures at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. She has published extensively and has received many distinguished awards. See www.ofeli​agar​cía.org. Anjanette Griego has a PhD in Writing, Rhetorics and Literacies from Arizona State University. She is a Procedural Writer and Readiness Liaison at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Her research interests include multilingualism, writing studies, and the formation of professional identities. Kathryn I. Henderson is Associate Professor in the Department of Bicultural-​Bilingual Studies, College of Education and Human Development at The University of Texas at San Antonio. Her education interests include language ideologies, language policy and dual-​language, bilingual education. Patience A. hMensa is an independent researcher in the UK and Ghana and has taught in universities in Ghana. Her research interests are in language and media, particularly advertising discourse and multilingualism in the media, as well as ethnography. Khalid Idris is a doctoral researcher at the University of Oulu, Finland and Eotvos Lorand University, Hungary. His research interests include teacher education, pedagogy, participatory research approaches and language education. Marie Jacobs is a post-doctoral researcher in the field of sociolinguistics and a member of the MULTIPLES Research Centre for Multilingual Practices and Language Learning in Society at Ghent University. Using a linguistic ethnographic approach, she studies the role of language in legal assistance by analyzing the interactional management of linguistically diverse lawyer–​client consultations in the field of asylum law. Catherine Kell is an Associate Professor of Language and Literacy Education at the University of Cape Town. Her research is based in linguistic anthropology and focuses on changing theories of literacy, literacy as everyday social practice and digital literacies. Helen Kelly-​Holmes is Professor of Applied Languages at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Her research focuses on the interrelationship between media, markets, technologies and languages, with a particular interest in the economic aspects of multilingualism. Kamilla Kraft is studying and teaching critical sociolinguistics and the sociology of language, particularly in relation to multilingualism, work, culture and norm formation. She currently works as Assistant Professor at the Department of English, Germanic and Romance Studies, University of Copenhagen. Sirpa Leppänen is Professor Emerita of English at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. She has directed several research projects on multilingualism in Finnish society and has published widely on social and sociolinguistic meanings of multilingual and multimodal practices on social media. Kate le Roux is an Associate Professor at the University of Cape Town. Her scholarship is located at the intersection of language, mathematics and knowledge in science and engineering, focusing on equity, power and identity in multilingual university contexts. xiii

List of contributors

Jia Li is Associate Professor and the Center Director of Foreign Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Yunnan University, China. Her research interests include language learning and multilingualism. She is an assistant editor of Journal of International Students. Theresa Lillis is Professor Emerita, English Language and Applied Linguistics, The Open University, UK. She has been researching academic and professional writing for over 30 years focusing on the politics of production and participation. Angel M.Y. Lin is Professor and Canada Research Chair in Plurilingual and Intercultural Education at Simon Fraser University, Canada. She researches translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing in education contexts with implications for equity, diversity and inclusion. Indika Liyanage is Professor of English Language and Literature Studies at Beijing Normal University-​Hong Kong Baptist University United International College (UIC), Zhuhai, China, and an honorary fellow at Deakin University, Australia. Indika has worked as a language teacher educator and international TESOL consultant. Mario López-​Gopar is Professor at the Facultad de Idiomas of Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, Mexico. His research interests include intercultural and multilingual education of Indigenous peoples. His latest book is International Perspectives on Critical Pedagogies in ELT (Palgrave-​Macmillan). Leketi Makalela is full Professor and founding Director of the Hub for Multilingual Education and Literacies at the University of the Witwatersrand. He obtained his PhD from Michigan State University with combined specializations in linguistics, literacy and education. His research areas include translanguaging, multilingual education and literacies. Pinky Makoe is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education and Curriculum Studies at University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Her research focuses on language ideologies, language and identity/​subjectivity, and heteroglossic practices in culturally and linguistically diverse education contexts. Sinfree B. Makoni holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Edinburgh. He has worked at several universities in southern Africa. He currently serves as Director of the African Studies Program and Professor in the Department of Applied Linguistics at Pennsylvania State University. Marilyn Martin-​Jones is an Emeritus Professor and a founding member of the MOSAIC Group for Research on Multilingualism, University of Birmingham, UK. She served as series editor (with Joan Pujolar, Open University of Catalonia) for the Routledge book series ‘Critical Studies in Multilingualism’, from 2012 to 2023 Luisa Martín-​Rojo is a Full Professor in Linguistics at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Director of the MIRCo Research Center for Multilingualism, Discourse and Communication at UAM, and founding member/​former President of Iberian Association for Discourse Studies and Society (EDiSo). Her publications include Constructing Inequality in Multilingual Classrooms (Martín Rojo, 2010), Occupy (Martin Rojo 2016), and Language and Neoliberal Governmentality (Martín Rojo & Del Percio 2019). xiv

List of contributors

Katrijn Maryns is Associate Professor in the Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication at Ghent University, Belgium. Her linguistic–​ethnographic research examines multilingual practices and linguistic inequality in institutional contexts of globalization. She is the author of The Asylum Speaker: Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure (Routledge 2006) and co-​editor of the book series ‘Translation, Interpreting and Social Justice in a Globalised World’ (Multilingual Matters). Stephen May is Professor of Education in Te Puna Wānanga (School of Māori and Indigenous Education) in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. He is an international authority on language rights, language policy, bilingualism and bilingual education and critical multicultural approaches to education. Additional research interests are in the wider politics of multiculturalism, ethnicity and nationalism, social theory (particularly the work of Bourdieu), sociolinguistics, and critical ethnography. Carolyn McKinney is Professor in Language Education, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Her teaching, research and advocacy focus on (racialized) language ideologies, language policy, and bi/​multilingual education in post-​colonial contexts. Recent books include Decoloniality, Language and Literacy: Conversations with Teacher Educators (Multilingual Matters) and Language and Power in Post-​Colonial Schooling: Ideologies in Practice (Routledge). Onesmo Mushi, a PhD student at the Warner Graduate School of Education, University of Rochester, taught English as an additional language in Tanzania for five years. He works as a consultant in two writing-​centres at the University of Rochester. Alastair Pennycook is Professor Emeritus at the University of Technology Sydney. His most recent books include Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from the Global South (with Sinfree Makoni) and Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Reintroduction. Prem Phyak is an Associate Professor at Teachers College Columbia University, New York. His research areas include language policy; multilingual, Indigenous and mother tongue education; teacher education; social justice; decolonial praxis and community engagement. Ingrid Piller is Distinguished Professor of Applied Linguistics at Macquarie University. Her research expertise includes intercultural communication, language learning, multilingualism and bilingual education. She serves as editor-​in-​chief of Mutilingua and edits the sociolinguistics portal Language on the Move. Agra Rajapakse has a PhD in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics from Arizona State University. She is a Senior Lecturer at the Post Graduate Institute of English, Open University of Sri Lanka. Her research interests are sociolinguistics, language ideology, multilingualism, language policy and planning and World Englishes. Ben Rampton works at King’s College London. He does interactional sociolinguistics, covering urban multilingualism; youth, ethnicity and social class; conflict and (in)securitization; language education policy and practice. He co-​edits www.wpull.org and is closely involved in adult migrant language teaching.

xv

List of contributors

Elsie Rockwell is Emeritus Professor at El Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados in Mexico City. Her work has contributed to the historical and anthropological knowledge of literacy, languages and school cultures in Mexico and France. Her publications include La experiencia etnográfica (Paidós, 2009), Comparing Ethnographies (with K. Anderson-​Levitt, 2016) and Vivir entre Escuelas (CLACSO 2019). She received the CAE-​AAA Slindler award in 2013. Maite T. Sánchez is an Assistant Professor of Bilingual Education at Hunter College, CUNY. Her research focuses on language education policy and practice, translanguaging pedagogy, and bilingual teachers’ preparation. Further information can be found on her website: www.maite​sanc​hez.org. Beatha Set is a lecturer at the University of Namibia. She teaches and supervises undergraduate and postgraduate students in the School of Education. Beatha’s research focuses on multi-​literacy, language and multilingualism, language ideologies and diversity in bilingual Science classroom discourse. Daniel Silva teaches applied linguistics and pragmatics at Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil. His research focuses on language, violence and the practice of hope. His fieldwork in Brazilian peripheries has led to publications and collaborative work on language and resistance, including ‘Marielle, presente: metaleptic temporality and the enregisterment of hope in Rio de Janeiro’ (with Jerry Lee, 2021). Gabriel Simungala is a lecturer at The University of Zambia and a PhD Candidate in Linguistics at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa. His research interests revolve around language education, youth and popular culture and linguistic/​semiotic landscapes. Laura Smith-​Khan is a Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Faculty of Law at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia. She has a PhD in Linguistics, has been admitted as a lawyer, and has worked with asylum seekers in a pro-​bono and paralegal capacity. Her research examines linguistic diversity and social justice in legal contexts, with a special interest in migration law and policy. She is the co-​founder of the Law and Linguistics Interdisciplinary Researchers’ Network. Massimiliano Spotti is an Associate Professor at the Department of Culture Studies, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences as well as director of the research programme Rapid Socio-​Cultural Transformations Online and Offline at the same institution. Dr. Spotti has been engaged in work on migration, super-​diversity and digital literacies practices of asylum seekers in educational and institutional power-​saturated environments. Fabiana Stalnaker is currently pursuing a PhD in Culture, Literacy and Language at The University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research interests include second language education, foreign language anxiety, and English-​speaking anxiety among EFL learners. Christopher Stroud is an Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and former Director of the Centre for Multilingualism and Diversities Research (CMDR) at the University of the Western Cape. He is also Professor of Transnational Multilingualism at Stockholm University, and a Fellow of the Academy of Sciences of South Africa (ASSAf). xvi

List of contributors

Shaila Sultana is a Professor in the Department of English Language, Institute of Modern Languages, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. She has published extensively on topics relevant to applied linguistics and sociolinguistics in different international top-​tiered, peer-​reviewed journals. Her areas of interest include decolonization and de-​eliticization of English language education in post-​colonial contexts; language and nation, religion, gender, space, specifically, digital space; and trans-​approaches to language and identity in the post-​humanist era. Zhongfeng Tian is Assistant Professor of Bilingual Education at Rutgers University–​Newark, USA. His research centers on working with pre-​and in-​service teachers to provide bi/​multilingual students with equitable and inclusive learning environments in ESL and dual language immersion contexts. He is the co-​editor of two books Envisioning TESOL through a Translanguaging Lens (Springer, 2020) and English-​Medium Instruction and Translanguaging (Multilingual Matters, 2021). Ruanni Tupas is an Associate Professor in the TESOL, Applied Linguistics and Language and Intercultural Communication programmes at the Institute of Education, University College London. He has been awarded joint lifetime and honorary membership by the Linguistic Society of the Philippines for his contributions to language studies in the country. Marianne Turner is an Associate Professor in the Education Faculty at Monash University, Australia. She researches context-​sensitive approaches to language and content integration with a particular focus on the leveraging of students’ linguistic and cultural resources for learning. Robyn Tyler is a researcher in the Centre for Multilingualism and Diversities Research at the University of the Western Cape. She also teaches and supervises pre-​service teachers. Robyn’s research focuses on language, literacy and identity in education with a special interest in language across the curriculum in multilingual contexts. Madhavi Usgaonker is currently pursuing a PhD in Culture, Literacy and Language at The University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research interests include teacher identities, teacher empathy, and social emotional learning in K-​5 and early childhood studies. Doris S. Warriner is Professor of English at Arizona State University. Her scholarship and teaching draws on approaches from applied linguistics and literacy studies to examine social and language practices in relation to processes such as displacement, mobility and transnationalism. Quentin Williams is Director of the Centre for Multilingualism and Diversities Research (CMDR) and an Associate Professor of Sociolinguistics in the Linguistics Department at the University of the Western Cape (UWC). Xiatinghan Xu, a PhD student at the Warner Graduate School of Education, University of Rochester, has taught English as an additional language and Mandarin. She serves as a consultant and coordinator of the Writing Support Services at the Warner School. Bedrettin Yazan is Associate Professor of Bicultural–​Bilingual Studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio. His interests include language teacher identity, teacher collaboration, language policy and planning, and world Englishes. Methodologically, he is interested in autoethnography, narrative inquiry and case study. xvii

List of contributors

Jorge Valtierra Zamudio is Professor at the Facultad de Idiomas of Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, Mexico. He has written several papers on cultural rights, cultural strengthening and rituality in indigenous contexts. He has developed his research in the field of cultural governance, cultural practices and indigenous religiosity. Virginia Zavala is Professor of sociolinguistics at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú in Lima. Her research concerns issues surrounding language and education, with a focus on the Andes, and from a discursive, sociocultural and ethnographic perspective. She is currently co-​ editor in chief of the Journal of Sociolinguistics. Jie Zhang is Professor of Sociolinguistics at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China. She obtained her PhD from Macquarie University, Australia. Her research interests focus on language policy and planning and foreign language education.

xviii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Marilyn Martin-​Jones for having the faith in us to co-​edit the second edition of the excellent The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism which she originally co-​edited together with Adrian Blackledge and Angela Creese. We are tremendously grateful for her intellectual generosity and support of this project. We would also like to thank the editorial advisory board and further reviewers for their expertise and hard work as well as research assistants Babalwayashe Molate, Sandile Shabangu and Kyomi Vargas. Carolyn would like to thank her partner John and children, Luka and Noah, for their support and not complaining about her never-​ending working hours! Enkosi kakhulu, Obrigada/​o, Ke a leboga, Gracias.

xix

INTRODUCTION Critical and Decolonial Approaches to Multilingualism in Global Perspective Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

Introduction the diversity of the world is infinite; succinctly, the world is made up of multiple worlds, multiple ontologies or reals that are far from being exhausted by the Eurocentric experience or reducible to its terms. Escobar, 2016: 15 Framed by an ethnographic tradition, the first edition of The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (2012) presented innovative reviews of the lived dynamics of communicative life as heteroglossic practices embedded in wider social, historical and cultural processes. This first edition took up a critical, post-​structuralist approach, providing a mapping of our developing understanding of multilingualism as a rapidly growing social phenomenon in daily communication in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics. Its publication coincided with a burgeoning of critical approaches to conceptualizing and researching multilingualism as a range of highly complex, global and local practices deeply intertwined with inequality and power relations. In the last decade, theoretical developments in the study of multilingualism have been profound, producing key epistemological and ontological challenges which involve the rethinking of ‘language/​s’ as the object/​s of study. Consequently, this field of study has been broadened, enriched but also troubled by research on coloniality/​decoloniality, southern epistemologies and post-​humanism, which suggest a “decisive theoretical break” (see Kell & Budach, Chapter 6) going far beyond the critical and post-​structuralist perspectives from social theory that guided the first edition of the handbook. Central to these changes and challenges in theorizing and researching multilingualism has been the recognition that voices from the ‘South’ have been largely neglected in mainstream applied linguistics (Pennycook & Makoni, 2020) and sociolinguistics (Deumert, Storch & Shepherd, 2020; Makoni, Kaiper-​Marquez & Mokwena, 2022; Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021). This is particularly disturbing considering that many contexts in the Global South (including in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent and South America) have been rich sites of multilingual practices throughout history. While the geopolitics and coloniality of knowledge making in the ‘Western’ and ‘Northern’ episteme is now well recognized (Connell, 2007; Hountondji, 1995; Mignolo, 2011; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018), the re-​evaluation of the ‘canon’ and of what counts as xx

Introduction

legitimate knowledge in the academy is only beginning. In sync with the analysis from scholarship on coloniality on the construction of racial hierarchies among humans, applied linguistics as a field has also recently acknowledged its neglect of how racial positioning profoundly shapes the unequal valuing of language practices as well as the impact of this on language policies and language learning and teaching (Anya, 2020; Motha, 2020). And crucially, the centrality of political economy in understanding how the workings of multilingualism in society is always connected to people’s material conditions of existence and the unequal distribution of resources has more recently been foregrounded (Block, 2017; Duchêne, 2020; Rosa & Burdick, 2016). While many years have passed since Bourdieu wrote that “a language is worth what those who speak it are worth” (1977: 651), theorizing of the coloniality of language has shown how this not only reflects social class dynamics but also racial hierarchies in many different types of configurations. Globally, since the first edition of the handbook was released, we have seen an increasingly troubled world. In fact, the last decade has been characterized by a growing depoliticization of the economy; greater division and polarization within and among societies around the globe; the emergence of extreme right-​wing movements and the activation of authoritarianism and racist practices; increasing ecological crisis (dramatically expressed in the pandemic); and deep global inequalities as well as North/​South divides. A focus on superdiversity enabled a sense-​making of the increasingly diverse patterns of transnational migration and social inequalities in urban areas in the North, along with the increasingly complex and creative nature of language resources, repertoires and practices (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011; Creese & Blackledge, 2021). However, in Southern contexts where linguistic diversity has been present but racialized and hierarchized for decades, concerns with power and inequality have often overshadowed diversity. And while the concepts of language ideologies, indexicality and scale have been very productive in explaining inequality and the hierarchization of linguistic resources (Blommaert, 2010), such concepts have remained within the logic of the ‘Northern’ episteme. The research presented in this second edition of the handbook shows that the lenses of coloniality (Maldonado-​Torres, 2007; Mignolo, 2011; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, Ngugi wa Thiongo, 1986) and epistemologies of the South (Escobar, 2016) are necessary in enriching and expanding existing accounts of multilingualism from a critical, post-​structuralist perspective, as well as challenging and moving beyond such perspectives. This handbook therefore also offers theorizations of the co-​ existence of multiple ontologies of language, multilingualism and human-​material-​beyond human entanglements (Canagarajah, Chapter 1; Kell and Budach, Chapter 6) in different parts of the world. Mindful of the shortcomings of binaries such as Global North/​Global South, we invoke Makoni, Kaiper-​Marquez and Mokwena’s (2022: 2) use of ‘Global South/​s’ to refer “to people, places and ideas that have been left out of the grand narrative of modernity” within histories of social and intellectual exclusion and disenfranchisement. As de Sousa Santos (2012: 51) points out, rather than a geographical concept, the South is a metaphor of the human suffering caused by capitalism and colonialism at the global level, and a metaphor as well of the resistance to overcome or minimize such suffering … It is a South that also exists in the global North in the form of excluded, silenced and marginalized populations, such as undocumented immigrants, the unemployed, ethnic or religious minorities, and victims of sexism, homophobia and racism. In the process of selecting chapters and authors for this new edition, we have aimed to contribute to decentring the ‘Global North’ and Eurocentrism in researching multilingualism as well as to recognize the partiality of all knowledge systems. In order to increase the visibility of research xxi

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

from the Global South as well as to foreground Southern epistemologies, we asked all chapter authors to specifically consider: 1. including geographical diversity in the research reviewed; 2. bibliographic references and recommended readings from scholars from the ‘Global South’ and in languages other than English; 3. reflection on author positionality and geopolitical positioning. And for ‘Global North’ scholars, inviting a scholar/​s from the ‘Global South’ to co-​author the chapter. We have aimed to disrupt the perception of Global North as the site of theory building while the South is the site of fieldwork: “theories within a given disciplinary field are developed in the Euro-​American metropoles, while the south is positioned as the field site, contributing raw data, but not being seen as a place which creates innovative social and linguistic thought” (Deumert & Storch, 2020: 5). This introduction is divided into two parts. The first part offers a conceptual overview of recent developments in the field of multilingualism while the second introduces the different sections and individual chapters in the handbook. We begin Part I by problematizing the notion of multilingualism, and then move on to outline paradigm shifts and new languages of description developed to address languaging in everyday practice. Secondly, we explore the relationship between coloniality and language, emphasizing the implications of the coloniality of language for current racialized language hierarchies. Our third focus is on implications of theorizing language materially, along with more established frameworks such as new materialism and post-​humanism for understanding and rethinking multilingualism. Fourth, we take an indepth look at the dilemma of fixed languages versus fluid languaging in understanding multilingual practices, attending to some unhelpful consequences of an overemphasis on fluid languaging or translanguaging. Finally, we draw attention to the political economy of language, multilingualism and communication more broadly. Throughout this discussion, we highlight the multiple ontologies of communication and the importance of understanding languaging and communication in local contexts as well as global relations of inequality.

Problematizing multilingualism: from plurality to complexity and beyond In recent years, the concept of multilingualism itself has been critiqued and problematized leading us to ask whether this might be the last ‘Handbook of Multilingualism’. Is it a concept that has run its course? The most common critique of the term is that it supports an erroneous ideology of named languages as enumerable and bounded entities, clearly distinguishable from one another (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012; Martin-​Jones, Blackledge & Creese, 2012). This misrepresents a multilingual society as one that makes use of several separate, named languages and a multilingual person as one who has command of several named languages. For example, Blommaert (2010:102) wrote: Multilingualism … should not be seen as a collection of ‘languages’ that a speaker controls, but rather as a complex of specific semiotic resources, some of which belong to a conventionally defined ‘language’ while others belong to another ‘language’. The resources are concrete accents, language varieties, registers, genres, modalities such as writing –​ways of using language in particular communicative settings and spheres of life, including the ideas people have about such ways of using, their language ideologies. xxii

Introduction

Similarly, Rampton (2019: 2) argues that rather than “seeing multilingualism as a plurality of ‘named languages’ … we should approach it as: a repertoire of styles and linguistic resources, tuned to particular communicative settings and spheres of life, developed over the course of a person’s biographical experience” (Rampton, 2019: 2). Both of these definitions are helpful in taking multilingualism beyond the idea of commanding and using multiple named languages, or multiple monolingualisms, to the notion of repertoires that include both linguistic and other semiotic resources. Increasingly, scholars have also drawn attention to the inadequacy of existing languages of description for language-​contact. For example, concepts such as ‘code-​switching’ and ‘code-​ mixing’, which rely on the identification of ‘distinct codes’, have been challenged for failing to capture the complexity of contemporary language (and literacy) practices. Underlying the notion of code-​switching defined as ‘the alternating use of two languages in the same stretch of discourse by a bilingual speaker’ (Bullock & Toribio, 2009: xii) are the assumptions that 1. two or more named languages are identifiable in the discourse; 2. speakers are drawing on resources from distinct languages; 3. speakers have competence in the ‘individual’ languages they are drawing on. Given the deconstruction of the notion of clearly identifiable and bounded named languages, and the acknowledgement that language is itself a social construction, we can begin to understand challenges to the code-​switching paradigm. While it is true that it can be possible to identify different named languages in languaging, this is often not the case (e.g. Jorgensøn, 2008, Makoni, Brutt-​Griffler & Mashiri, 2007, Rampton, 2011). We can contrast the definition of code-​switching with that of translanguaging from Otheguy, García and Reid (2015: 283) to notice the ideological differences: We … define translanguaging as the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages. Broadly speaking, attempts by socio-​and applied linguists to make sense of the increasingly diverse and complex nature of multilingual and multimodal communication in a variety of spaces, including face to face, virtual and hybrid physical/​virtual spaces in a wide range of social and geopolitical contexts have given rise to a plethora of new languages of description in a very short space time. These include polylanguaging or polylingual languaging, (Jorgensøn, 2008; Jorgensøn et al., 2011) metrolingualism and metrolingual multi-​tasking (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010; Pennycook & Otsuji, 2014), contemporary urban vernaculars (Rampton, 2011) and urban vernaculars (Makoni, Brutt-​Griffler & Mashiri, 2007) plurilingualism (Canagarajah 2006a, 2009), translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; García & Li, 2014) and ubuntu translanguaging (Makalela, 2018), trans-​semiotizing, semiotic repertoires (Lin 2019, Kusters et al., 2017) and linguistic repertoires (Busch, 2012). In description particularly of written heteroglossic practices, the terms ‘codemeshing’ (Canagarajah, 2006b) and translingualism (Canagarajah, 2013; Horner et al., 2011) are used, while multiscriptality (Choksi, 2015) and trans-​scripting specifically describe ‘script-​focused translanguaging’ (Androutsopoulos 2015: 188 in Spilioti, 2019: 3; see also vold Lexander et al., 2020) and transglossia (see Leppänen & Sultana, Chapter 12) describes the meshing of linguistic features, modes and stylistic devices. xxiii

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

Blommaert (2013: 614) has written about the “epistemological rupture” from the boundedness of language which this plethora of new terminology signaled. Following Jorgensøn et al. (2011), Blommaert argued that People learn, acquire, and deploy features, some of which are conventionally (that is, ideologically) attributed to ‘a language’ such as Danish, whereas others are part of recognizable indexical orders such as genres, styles, registers, jargons, and so forth. ‘Language’, thus conceived, is an emergent indexical order, a non-​random arrangement of features that can be enregistered as a conventionally recognizable ‘language’ X or Y. 2013: 614 This ‘epistemological rupture’ has entailed a paradigm shift not only from stability towards mobility, but also from multiplicity and plurality towards complexity. In 2016, Blommaert argued that while the first move of the paradigm towards mobility had been amply discussed in the field, the second one related to complexity had not been sufficiently established. The modernist frameworks oriented by notions of boundedness, stability, linearity, predictability and sharedness of resources still haunt the field and hinder the possibilities of doing justice to the complexity of multilingual phenomena and processes. Continued expansion of new languages of description is evidence of the serious engagement in research and theorizing of multilingualism with the complexity of multilingual communication. The now well-​established field of multimodality foregrounded how an exclusive emphasis on the verbal mode of communication had neglected the multimodal nature of all communication (Jewitt, 2009; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). Scholars have pointed out that researchers of multilingualism and of multimodality tended to work separately such that studies either foregrounded the multilingual or the multimodal nature of communication, but research seldom brought these entangled realities into focus (Blackledge & Creese, 2017; Kusters et al., 2017; see also Chapter 8, Tyler & Set). Concepts such as semiotic repertoires and trans-​semiotizing (see Chapter 7, Turner and Lin) have attempted to account for this lacuna as well as to understand language in motion. In some cases, new languages of description foreground Southern epistemologies and ways of knowing that differ from Northern or ‘mainstream’ applied and sociolinguistics. For example, in his concept “ubuntu translanguaging”, Makalela (2018: 238) draws on a relational ontology which foregrounds the “infinite relations of dependency between various linguistic resources employed in classroom discourse” in rural and urban South African spaces. He applies the “African value system of ubuntu (I x we) I am because you are” to argue that in local multilingualism one ‘language’ is incomplete without the others, emphasizing fluidity and the “porous nature of boundaries ‘between’ named languages”. Ubuntu denotes the interconnectedness of all humans: a philosophy of being that locates identity and meaning-​making within a collective approach as opposed to an individualistic one. As a result, the individual is not independent of the collective; rather, the relationship between a person and her/​his community is reciprocal, interdependent and mutually beneficial. Oviave 2016: 3 in Makalela, 2018: 827

xxiv

Introduction

Furthermore, Ndhlovu and Makalela (2021: 10) have argued that mainstream conceptions of multilingualism ignore sensory knowledge, or “the use of the senses to read and interpret social reality”. Stroud also puts emphasis on the interaction and co-​existence of selves and others in his more immersive or phenomenological understanding of multilingualism that goes beyond use of languaging and other semiotic resources to a multisensory experience: multilingualism is a sensorium through which we can experience, interpret and orientate to the multiple semiotic environments we inhabit. It provides a way of experiencing the world through difference and vulnerability, and as a medium for change –​ becoming-​with –​ of selves and others in new modes of co-​existence. Chapter 10, this volume Reminding us of the infinite diversity of languaging and contexts of communication, Makoni and Pennycook (see Chapter 2) reveal “as an absurdity … the idea that multilingualism could refer to the same thing in diverse contexts of communication”. In their view, rather than multilingualism recognizing a plurality of languages, it is the “notion of language itself” that needs to be “pluralised”. Pluralizing ‘language’ as a phenomenon is part of an ontological turn as Kell and Budach argue in Chapter 6. From this we conclude that a singular definition of multilingualism is no longer possible, if it ever was.

Colonialism and coloniality Since the 1990s there has been growing research into the colonial history of linguistics as a discipline as well as the colonization of indigenous languages through processes of codification (Mignolo, 1992) by several authors (e.g. Blommaert, 2008, 2013, 2014; Errington, 2008; Irvine, 2008; Makoni & Pennycook, 2007). More recently, however, a wide range of work has developed on the subject, revealing the increasing and urgently needed interest in the intersections between multilingualism, coloniality and the Global South (Canagarajah, 2022b; Deumert et al., 2020 Heller & McElhinny, 2017; Heugh et al., 2022; Howard, 2023; Makoni et al., 2022; Menezes de Souza, 2019, 2021; Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021; Pennycook & Makoni, 2020, among others). This scholarship highlights a growing reflection on the colonial legacies of linguistics and how this has affected our theories, practices, conceptual categories and ways of knowing (Deumert et al. 2020), including those relating to multilingualism. We now know that a modernist and still dominant ideology of language (in Kell and Budach’s argument, ontology of language) has informed a widely accepted understanding of languages as uniform and cohesive objects that constitute emblems of nations and social groups. The uptake and consolidation of this ontology into a naturalized and almost globally hegemonic view of what language is has occurred through various disciplinary processes which drew substantially on colonial encounters around language in colonized areas, including the development of orthographies.1 These include the ways in which linguists turned complex language practices into bounded objects based on a division between ‘linguistic’ and ‘extralinguistic’ phenomena. Furthermore, as part of the colonial impulse, instead of approaching the lived and communicative practices of speakers, researchers focused on structural and textual artifacts, which erased many other key dimensions of communication that are now being taken into account. As Deumert et al. put it, “Coloniality in linguistics means –​ inter alia –​ turning language into a reduced code, creating structure out of the flexible and moveable

xxv

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

repertoires of speakers” (2020: 15). This way of controlling the object of study, based on a violent episteme, has been characterized by acts of linguistic appropriation, disruption and invisibilization of other ways of thinking about language and literacy. In theorizing coloniality as the “darker side of western modernity” Mignolo, (2011) shows how the extractive and exploitative processes of coloniality (invasion and appropriation of land; extraction of mineral and natural resources; dehumanization and exploitation of people) have enabled and produced Northern/​Western modernity. Latin American scholarship on de/​coloniality takes the Spanish conquest of the Americas in the 1500s and 1600s as a definitive moment in the constitution of a new Eurocentric world order. This period of conquest established particular forms of colonialism, and these in turn were highly significant in the development of European enlightenment and modernity. This period of colonization launched early forms of capitalism on a world scale, controlled from Europe as ‘centre’. Building on the work of Quijano, Maldonado-​Torres (2007) draws attention to two major axes of power that were defined in the early colonization of Latin America: the codification of the idea of ‘race’ linked to inferiority/​superiority, and the establishment of new structures of labour control (including slavery and forms of indenture). The implications of these for the dynamics and stratification of language practices and policies have been profound, underpinning current racialized language hierarchies as well as the commodification of languages and language resources. Veronelli (2015) draws on Quijano’s concept “the coloniality of power” and his explanation of the historical colonial invention of race to theorize the relationship between race and language historically and currently. The invention of race and processes of racialization was fundamental to the dehumanizing of indigenous peoples; it not only justified their economic exploitation but rendered their communication practices as inferior or ‘primitive’. As Veronelli (2015: 113) argues: “To find in colonized peoples the ability to express complex cosmological, social, scientific, erotic, economic meaning is at odds with their reduction to inferior, animal-​like beings.” With the introduction of the term ‘coloniality of language’, Veronelli describes how colonized people were denied the opportunity to be ‘communicative agents’ and shows our entrapment within a racialized colonial ontology of language that renders the colonized and racialized as voiceless. She proposes using Chilean biologist Maturana’s notion of languaging as a verb to counter the colonial invention of ‘languages’ as nouns and to think about communicating outside of the logic of coloniality. Following Maturana, languaging is “the way in which human beings live together as they live together” (1999: 44, cited in Veronelli, 2015: 122). One of the implications of this that Veronelli outlines is that “languaging is not an instrument of representation but of bringing about and moving in, a space of coexistence” (ibid.). Writing about the relationship between English and multilingualism, García and Lin (2018) also highlight the racialization of different kinds of languaging and the resulting hierarchy of multilingualisms developed through colonialism. Elite or ‘authoritative literate multilingualism’ in standard written European languages (including the ability to write these languages) was contrasted with indigenous multilingualism in local languages, devalued as a “linguistic jumble” (p. 81). As pointed out, the perceived superiority of authoritative written multilingualism in European languages is co-​constructed against the ‘inferiority’ of racialized oral multilingualism in local languages, echoing ‘great divide’ theories of literacy and orality (López, 1990, Prinsloo & Baynham, 2013). In the context of British colonization in Africa, Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo (1986, 2018) explains how the perceived superiority of European languages and perceived inferiority of African languages was co-​constructed: “[t]‌he condition for acquiring the glory of English was the humiliation of African languages. This was the same in every colonial situation” (Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo interview with Wade, 2018). Fanon (2017 [1952]) showed how the colonized are xxvi

Introduction

dehumanized through internalizing myths of European superiority and exclusive use of European languages for ‘legitimate’ expression. Ngũgĩ confronts us with the effect of a ‘cultural bomb’ that the devaluing of African people’s language and cultural practices, ways of knowing and being, has had: The biggest weapon wielded and actually daily unleashed by imperialism against that collective defiance is the cultural bomb. The effect of a cultural bomb is to annihilate a people’s belief in their names, in their languages, in their environment, in their heritage of struggle, in their unity, in their capacities and ultimately in themselves. Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo, 1986: 3 A decolonial perspective would imply, precisely, theorizing ontologies, especially indigenous, in order to rethink and unthink language and multilingualism. Nevertheless, it would also imply decolonizing our methodologies, not only by reflecting critically about our own positions in the field, but also by challenging the binary of speaker/​linguist and developing empowering research ‘with’ the subjects involved (Cameron et al., 1992). Many of the chapters in this handbook are informed by linguistic ethnography which recognizes the ways in which language and the social world are mutually shaping and, as Tusting puts it, “combines ethnographic understanding of social settings with close analysis of linguistic data to generate unique insights into the workings of the social world, in a way which is sensitive to participants’ meanings, values and experiences” (Tusting, 2018, 8, our emphasis). Since Smith’s groundbreaking book on Decolonizing Methodologies (1999), researchers of multilingualism have been developing alternative ways of conceptualizing the relationship between the ‘researcher’ and research participants through participatory action research and other kinds of approaches. For instance, Gandulfo and Unamuno (2020) discuss “Research in Collaboration” or in “colabor” in indigenous contexts of the Southern Cone of Latin America, where conventional positions of academic research become dislocated (see also the work in the Andes by Kenfield, 2021 and Howard, 2023). All of this goes beyond the unmaking of “language” to the unmaking of the “field”, the “expert” and the “speaker” (Deumert & Storch 2020).

Language materiality, new materialism and post-​humanism Decoloniality and Southern theory are not the only perspectives that have invoked the ontological turn, and thus impacted on the study of multilingualism in the last decade. Other moves in this direction have been developments in theorizing the materiality of language itself (Ferguson 2021; Shankar & Cavanaugh, 2017) and the influence of post-​humanist and new materialist theories (Demuro & Gurney, 2021; Hauck & Heurich, 2018; Pennycook, 2018a, 2018b). As Kell and Budach (in Chapter 6) point out, research and theorizing on language materiality and post-​ humanism shows how the northern episteme has historically separated language from the material world and differentiated humans from other living things. On the one hand, this work alerts us to the fact that the hallmark of structural linguistics has been the dematerialization of language, which was aligned with the emphasis of the European Enlightenment on rational thought and representationalism. After all, language is viewed as what differentiates humans from the material world and other forms of life. The study of literacy and the paradigm of the great divide between oral and literate cultures (Prinsloo & Baynham, 2013) contributed to the reification and consolidation of this way of thinking about language, since the acquisition of literacy was linked to higher-​ order cognitive skills and dissociated from other ways of representing the world which were more connected with embodied practices. In contrast, post-​humanism questions the division between xxvii

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

humans and other forms of life and matter: it addresses humans as entangled with all life forms, the environment and non-​living entities, and involved in forms of agency distributed among a range of ontological types. As Kell and Budach (Chapter 6) argue, centring the materiality of language and decentring the human has important consequences for the study of multilingualism, including the way researchers proceed analytically and research the dynamics of language and society. In fact, language materiality and post-​humanism have started to expand previous theoretical developments around translanguaging (García & Li, 2014), multimodality (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006) and repertoires (Agha, 2004) towards conceptualizing assemblages, where language resources interact with other ontological types, such as objects/​artifacts and place/​space (Pennycook, 2018a: 455–​456). The concept of assemblage moves beyond the above theoretical developments to address the heterogeneous ensemble of discourses, materialities, bodies and affects that shape contemporary social life. All of these function collectively and display agency in a contextually unique manner in order to produce something (Pietikäinen, 2021). New terms such as “semiotic repertoire” (Kusters et al., 2017) “spatial repertoires” (Canagarajah, 2018; Pennycook & Otsuji, 2014), “trans-​semiotizing” (Lin, 2015, 2019), “multisensoriality” (Mondada, 2019a) and multilingualism as “a sensorium” (Stroud, Chapter 10 this volume) reveal attempts to take into account the body as a central part of multilingual meaning-​making (see Blackledge & Creese 2017; Mondada, 2019a, 2019b; Wu & Lin, 2019), but also to focus on space and the physical world in the analysis of interactions (see Canagarajah, 2018; Martin, 2019 and Toohey et al., 2015). Although earlier work on multimodality had already highlighted some material dimensions of communication (Kress, 2010), the speaking subject as the main actor shaping social reality was still the focus. In a different way, new approaches to language materiality and post-​ humanism challenge social constructivism and post-​structuralist perspectives when trying to go beyond the speaker to provide an account of language phenomena. In the first edition of the handbook, the editors aligned with the way post-​structuralism challenges the boundedness of languages, the boundaries that have been constructed between them, the hierarchies produced based on power relationships and the consequential material effects (Martin Jones et al., 2012). Nevertheless, this post-​structuralist perspective based on the discursive/​linguistic turn cannot take account of materiality both in language itself and in the coming together of language with other forms of matter. The concept of relational ontology (Delanda, 2016) is gaining prominence in understanding how entities, both human and non human, work together to co-​produce meaning and what we experience as reality. From this perspective, reality is experienced, shaped and transformed when these human and other than human entities enter into relation to each other. Canagarajah (2022a) and Kell and Budach (Chapter 6) draw attention to the fact that there are important synergies between post-​humanism and non-​binary, non-​hierarchical indigenous epistemologies in the Global South (de Sousa Santos, 2016; Mignolo, 2009), but that there are also significant differences. Canagarajah (2022a) points out that unlike the secular orientations underpinning post-​humanism from theoretical physics (Barad, 2007) and post-​enlightenment philosophy (Braidotti, 2013) “indigenous philosophies of nonduality emerge from ancient spiritual and cultural traditions that also value ethics, vulnerability and relationality” (Canagarajah, 2022a: 7). Working against the ableist assumptions of the concept of language/​communicative competence, Canagarajah draws on a relational ontology, disability studies and ‘crip linguistics’ to propose that we understand “meaning-​making capacity as an anomalous embodiment” (2022a: 19). As he puts it: xxviii

Introduction

communication is a form of embodied practice which allows for bodyminds generating meaning through their entanglement with prosthetics, material ecologies, and social networks as motivated by decolonial theories of nonduality. Such embodiment treats anomaly and multiplicity as the starting point for thinking and talking. Meanings can emerge from fractured enunciation and vulnerable subjects if we adopt the relational ethics to engage in distributed practice.

Multilingualism and political economy Research on multilingualism has also been powerfully influenced by the way language has become an integral part of “the new economy”, that is, capitalist processes and neoliberal forms of government. As “a peculiar form of reason that configures all aspects of existence in economic terms” (Brown, 2015: 17), neoliberalism has taken over the workplace, education, jurisprudence, culture and a vast range of everyday activities, despite its differential instantiations across countries, regions and sectors. The social changes and transformations produced within new economies, and the way both the individual and the State increasingly become projects of management, have shaped the sociolinguistic order and have had an impact on discourses and practices of multilingualism. Analyses of these discourses and practices now foreground issues of capital accumulation, profit, commodification and social mobility (see Chapter 19, Martin-​Rojo). In 2012, Duchêne & Heller discussed the shift from “pride” towards “profit” in the ideologies and practices of language. They also showed how these tropes are connected with different types of capitalism and the way they need to be legitimized. While “pride” and the discourse of rights, identity and cultural and linguistic preservation, works within the nation state and its regulation of national markets, the trope of “profit”, as a result of late capitalism, treats language and culture in economic terms and as an “added value”. Based on the discussion of these tropes (which are always in tension), many scholars have addressed the question of how multilingualism is often, under late capitalism, presented as an economic asset, both as a property of a product and as an embodied capacity or a skill of individuals (Pujolar, 2012). Terms such as language commodification, linguistic entrepreneurship (De Costa et al., 2019), and the self-​made speaker (Martin Rojo, 2020) have been introduced within this strand of research on language and the new economy, and reveal the way neoliberalism is “a distinctive mode of reason, of the production of subjects, a ‘conduct of conduct’, and a scheme of valuation” (Brown, 2015: 21). This research on the role of multilingualism in the new economy has proliferated in diverse domains. These include tourism (see, among others, Gao, 2012; Heller, Jaworski & Thurlow, 2014; Heller, Pujolar & Duchêne, 2014; Pietikainen & Kelly-​Holmes, 2013); the labour market (see Flubacher, Duchêne & Coray, 2018; Gunnarsson, 2013; Lorente, 2018; Roberts, 2010); education (Codó & Patiño-​Santos, 2014; Jaspers & Madsen, 2016; Martín Rojo, 2010; Pérez-​Milans, 2013; Prego & Zas, 2019); service provision (Codó, 2008; Márquez & Martín Rojo, 2011), call centres (Duchêne, 2009; Rahman, 2009; Sabaté, 2014), and non-​governmental organizations (Garrido, 2018). Although globally ubiquitous, we can find temporal and geographical variety in the way neoliberalism is instantiated in institutions within diverse contexts. However, the list from above also shows that research about multilingualism and the new economy has been mostly developed in relation to Europe and social dynamics in the Global North. Optimistic and enthusiastic discourses celebrating and promoting multilingualism in this particular historical moment have to be examined critically and within a radical contextualism (Hall 1992). As Duchêne has lucidly pointed out, such discourses of celebration tend to “remain silent on the power relations and social conditions that shape the idea of multilingualism as a desirable xxix

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

good” (Duchêne, 2020: 93). Within the study of multilingualism, scholars have also been complicit in the articulation of this enthusiasm and the erasure it can entail, as if reclaiming multilingualism leads necessarily and, in all contexts, to promoting social justice and reducing inequality. We know that multilingualism constitutes a site of struggle for the production of difference and consequent hierarchies but, also, for accessing symbolic and material resources in society. Therefore, although the promotion of multilingualism can be emancipatory, it can also reproduce domination and exploitation depending on the social processes at stake, as when neoliberal language policies in Latin America (and in other contexts) resort to the recognition of cultural and linguistic resources, but depoliticize indigenous identity and the struggle for their rights (Brown, 2015; Hale, 2005; Rivera Cusicanqui, 2010; see also Ayala et al. in this volume). This leads us to argue that discussions around coloniality, materiality and post-​humanism, must always be traversed by issues of political economy.

The consequences of fluid, spatial and material conceptions of languaging Decolonial thinking, epistemologies of the South and post-​human perspectives offer paradigms emphasizing multiplicities, fluidity, heterogeneities, juxtapositions, connectivity across entities, exchangeability and relational ontologies. As pointed out, a number of categories have emerged in order to embrace this complexity, such as assemblages (and language ideological assemblages), entanglements, hypercultural processes and rhizomatic dynamics, which come to complement other notions that already existed. These include intersectionalities (Crenshaw, 1991) and nexus of practice (Scollon & Scollon, 2003). As Blommaert (2016) argued, the old paradigm envisioning stability should be replaced by a baseline imagery of openness, dynamics, multifiliar and nonlinear development, and unpredictability. As Pietikäinen also puts it, “assemblage thinking responds to the need for conceptual and methodological tools that are apt for examining real-​life, complex, messy, intertwined and ongoing processes and constellations” (2016: 237). However, the emergence of these new languages of description present further challenges and have revealed our continued reliance on multiple binaries, not only those that were already being discussed when the first edition of the volume was published, such as language-​society, material-​ discursive, structure-​agency, micro-​macro (Heller, 1999; Heller & Martin Jones, 2001; Wortham, 2012), L1-​L2 and literacy-​orality (Gee, 1986), but also in others discussed more recently. These include linguist-​speaker, mind-​body, person-​materiality, reason-​affect, fixity-​fluidity, and human-​ nonhuman, among others, which also impact on the study of multilingualism. Since the first edition of the handbook was published in 2012, scholars have proposed an ontological move “from binaries and dichotomies to a more complex terrain of multiplicity, heterogeneity, convergence and flows” (Pietikäinen, 2016: 237). Although we acknowledge that binaries may be necessary and useful for advancing understanding in some contexts and for some purposes, they can be limiting in other situations, since they can lead to unhelpful generalizations or polarizations and simplifications of complex realities. One enduring binary in researching multilingualism is that of the fixity versus fluidity of language/​s –​the utility of fixed, named languages or what Krause (2022) has termed ‘nomolanguages’ and the fluid or heteroglossic nature of languaging. This debate is particularly important for the field of language revitalization and especially for language in education sites and language in education policy, where a monoglossic discourse of linguistic purity and single standard languages that must be mastered remains dominant. As Jaspers and Madsen (2016: 237) put it: we live in what may be called a “languagized world”. This implies that even though nomolanguages are social constructions, there are a number of valid reasons people (e.g. in minoritized or Indigenous xxx

Introduction

communities) have to invest in the construct of distinct named languages, not least to resist marginalization and exclusion (Alim, Williams, Haupt & Jansen, 2021; Bonnin & Unamuno, 2021). Research in different contexts shows us that the effects of a fixed monoglossic construction of nomolanguages can be both disabling and enabling for marginalized people. For example, in a context of linguistic erasure such as most post-​colonial African countries where African languages are deliberately excluded from formal education, and in language revitalization projects in the southern cone of Latin America, recognizing specific nomolanguages (e.g. Oshiwambo, isiXhosa, ChiChewa, Guarani, Qom, Wichi, Kaaps) is necessary to validate their inclusion and use, as well as to render them visible as legitimate codes that are distinguishable from the dominant ones. May (Chapter 9) points out that the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) specifically promotes the right to education in indigenous languages, requiring investment both ideologically and materially in nomolanguages. Borrowing from feminist discourses, this could be described as ‘strategic essentialism’ (Spivak, 1988), a political tactic which deploys the category of women (in this case named languages) even as it is critiqued, for strategic purposes. Enabling us to make sense of the distinction between socially constructed fixed languages and the fluidity of everyday languaging, Lemke and Lin (2022) draw attention to the distinction between first-​order and second-​order languaging (originally introduced by Love and expanded by Thibault, 2011, 2017) (see also Chapter 6 Kell & Budach; Chapter 7 Turner & Lin). First-​order languaging describes the actual, fluid, embodied practices humans engage in during the flow of communication with each other. Second-​order languaging describes representations of language as a patterned system or code, i.e. the languaging about languaging that has constructed nomolanguages (Krause, 2022). While second-​order languaging can be strategically necessary to make language practices visible, it can also be used to assert the exclusive use of ‘pure’, standard languages as the only legitimate languaging in education and other institutions. As discussed, pluralizing our understanding of ‘language’ and of multilingualism is necessary. But such pluralizing must recognize the ways in which different conceptions can be interrelated or entangled. Mignolo’s (2018: x) conception of pluriversality, “the entanglement of several cosmologies connected today in a power differential”, helps us to understand the entanglement of colonial invention of languages, the need for disinvention as well as the utility of named languages to resist further erasure and silencing. It enables us to simultaneously take account of first-​ and second-​order languaging and view languages as both fixed and fluid entities.

Limits and possibilities of translanguaging As is evident in a number of chapters in the handbook as well as recent reviews (e.g. Bhatt & Bolonyai, 2019, Bonacina-​Pugh, da Costa Cabral & Huang, 2021, Bonnin and Unamuno, 2021, Canagarajah, 2022a, Jaspers & Madsen, 2016), translanguaging has had the most traction of recently developed heteroglossic languages of description. This is especially the case in contexts of multilingual education where translanguaging is widely implemented and researched, though not without critique. Jaspers and Madsen (2016: 235) caution against conceptual overreach in the use of heteroglossic terms such as translanguaging, metrolingualism and polylingualism for “descriptive, ontological, pedagogical and political purposes”, arguing that this has led to confusion. They also caution against transformative claims for fluid languaging in education. As already noted, translanguaging can be seen as a threat to the promotion of marginalized or less powerful languages (e.g. Bonnin & Unamuno, 2021; Hamman, 2018; May, Chapter 9), including sign languages (de Meulder, Kusters, Moriarty & Murray, 2019),2 despite transformative and/​or liberatory claims for translanguaging (e.g. García & Li, 2014). In the context of strengthening the xxxi

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

minority language Basque in relation to Spanish, Cenoz & Gorter (2017) call for the design of “functional breathing spaces” for the monolingual use of Basque. Such monolingual spaces protect opportunities for students to learn and use marginalized languages, such as Basque in a context of Spanish dominance. Monolingual languaging using the minoritized language takes place within the same programme that creates spaces encouraging the fluid use of learners’ full linguistic repertoires through translanguaging. And in asymmetrical Spanish/​English bilingual programmes in the US, Hamman (2018) also calls for critical translanguaging spaces where opportunity to learn the less familiar and less powerful language (in this case Spanish) is protected. In Argentina, Bonnin and Unamuno (2021) provide case studies of the use of marginalized languages Guarani, Wichi and Qom where the recognition of each of these as separate nomolanguages is crucial to the project of language revitalization and the political project of recognition. As the authors point out, minority language speakers are using discourses of linguistic purity and of bilingualism as command of two separate languages to serve politically transformative goals and as “acts of resistance” (Bonnin, 2021: 17). hMensa and Kelly-​Holmes (Chapter 23) comment on the affordances of digital media in providing ‘breathing spaces’ for language revitalization while May shows how in Aotearoa New Zealand te reo Māori has similarly needed strategic breathing spaces through Māori immersion education (see Chapter 9, May). Such cases where a translanguaging paradigm hinders the politics of recognition are an important reminder of the need “to contextualize concepts used in sociolinguistics … by considering them as products of socio-​historical formations” (Bonnin & Unamuno, 2021: x). In an interesting contrasting example, drawing on their work with both a Māori puna reo and Samoan a’oga amata, Seals et al. (2020) argue that translingual materials that reflect children’s real languaging practices can encourage children to use minority languages even more. As McKinney and Tyler (2019: 146) argue, “no communicative practice is by definition transformative (or constraining)”; transformative effects need to be empirically demonstrated and will depend on how the languaging practice is implemented or used in a particular sociopolitical and historical context. Bonacina-​Pugh et al. (2021) identify two orientations in their review of research on translanguaging and education: a ‘fixed-​language approach’ which still relies on the constructs of separate named languages/​nomolanguages and a ‘fluid languaging approach’. García and Li (2018) also distinguish between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ forms of translanguaging. Characterized as ‘weak’ forms are examples where boundaries between languages are softened but named languages are still acknowledged by speakers. In ‘strong’ forms of translanguaging, speakers emphasize the use of a fluid repertoire, including a range of semiotic resources. While these descriptors can be useful in differentiating different kinds of TL, in everyday interactions, including in classrooms, we must acknowledge that practices that can be described with both fixed and fluid, weak and strong orientations can be present within the same lesson or interaction (e.g. McKinney, 2022; Probyn, 2019). As Bonacina-​Pugh et al.’s (2021) distinction between fixed-​language and fluid -​language approaches and García and Li’s (2018) weak and strong approaches foreground, a wide range of researchers are using the concept of translanguaging in highly varied ways. On the transformative goals of translanguaging, García has been clear that her own development of the term has a specific political and pedagogical project which is to resist the deficit positioning of bilingual and emergent bilingual learners and to legitimize their linguistic repertoires (García & Otheguy, seminar 2022). In understanding the social justice and transformative goals, it is critical to acknowledge the intersection of language hierarchies with the colonial matrix of power and the coloniality of language which has constructed racialized hierarchies. Some researchers are using the term critical translanguaging for pedagogical approaches where students are enabled to understand and xxxii

Introduction

encouraged to challenge existing racialized language hierarchies (see for e.g Alim, 2010, Lau, 2019; Lau, Tian & Lin, 2021). Having explored recent developments in our understanding, use and researching of multilingual communication, we now move to introduce the specific contents of the handbook.

Overall organization of the handbook and individual contributions This volume has been organized into five parts: 1. Coloniality and Multilingualism 2. Key Concepts and Theories in Multilingualism 3. Multilingualism and Education 4. Multilingualism in Social and Cultural Change 5. Multilingualism in Public Life Part I focuses on the complex historical and current relationship between coloniality and multilingualism. Part II of the handbook introduces concepts and theories which are currently prominent in researching multilingualism, some of which are well established, such as indigenous language rights, multilingual literacies, digital multilingualism, and multimodality; and others of which are more recent such as new materialities, post-​humanism, translanguaging, trans-​semiotizing and linguistic citizenship. Part III engages with multilingualism in widely diverse educational settings, both geopolitically and epistemologically. Part IV addresses the far-​reaching processes of social and cultural change in the global arena and ways in which multilingualism and semiotic resources are entangled with these in a range of sites and domains. These changes concern neoliberalism and the new economy, (in)securitization as a mode of governance, the multilingual nature of global academic communication and research, and multilingualism in popular culture, including hip hop and contemporary media. In Part V chapters review multilingualism, inclusion and exclusion in different aspects of public life, including the workplace, public health communication, legal asylum and migration settings, interpreting and translation services and linguistic landscapes. The handbook concludes with an afterword by Marilyn Martin-​Jones.

Coloniality and multilingualism Part I of the handbook is about coloniality and multilingualism and integrates some chapters from the first edition with some new ones. Among the chapters of the first version is that of Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook (Chapter 2), which reflects on multilingualisms from the Global South. The authors start from the premise that to view multilingualism from the Global South involves more than just moving beyond monolingual assumptions. The chapter focuses on southern multilingualisms, and argues that what is at stake is a set of deep-​seated language ideologies that are in need of a much more profound decolonizing in order to understand multiple language ontologies and different kinds of multilingualism. In Chapter 1, Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah also question the notion of multilingualism itself by addressing the translingual tradition of pre-​colonial and post-​colonial South Asia from a view of language as an intersubjective social practice with an emergent, hybrid and multimodal grammar. They show that translingual communicative practices were characteristic of Southern lands prior to colonial activities of European states and before they suffered devaluation, marginalization, and repression when colonizer languages were deployed as technologies of control and exploitation. Chapter 3, xxxiii

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

a new chapter from an underrepresented region, was included to complement the above. Mario E. López-​Gopar, Lorena Córdova-​Hernández and Jorge Valtierra Zamudio analyze (de)colonial multilingual/​multimodal practices from Indigenous and Afro descendant groups in Latin America and the Caribbean as ways of resisting coloniality. The authors address literary creations, musical compositions and theatrical performances as decolonial, multilingual and multimodal practices of these minoritized groups; and reflect on their connections to issues of land recognition, citizenship, gender, blackness, and ethnicity, among other sociocultural factors, as transgressions and interruptions of the colonial matrix of power. Two further new chapters are included in this first part, more related to the connection between coloniality and broader histories of racial formation. Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro explain the raciolinguistics perspective in Chapter 4, which addresses how raciolinguistic ideologies shape the ways in which the language practices of racialized bodies are perceived, in the sense that they are heard and interpreted as inherently deficient, inferior and non-​normative. The authors argue that the framework of raciolinguistic ideologies can be articulated with decolonial Southern perspectives to question racialized perceptions of ways of languaging alongside different ways of being, knowing and relating in society. The idea is that the racialization of colonized others as communicative subjects is inextricably linked to their ontological, epistemological, and axiological inferiorization. In the final chapter of Part I, Ruanni Tupas (Chapter 5) discusses the class-​ and race-​driven operations of English in the Global South and reveals the vast range of unequally valued local Englishes emerging from the different racialized and ethnicized class positions of their speakers. This phenomenon of the coloniality of English questions the way post-​ colonial Englishes (and multilingualism in general) have been celebrated as liberatory, regardless of how such celebration has glossed over the continuing marginalization of speakers and learners of English whose localized version of the global language has not given them access to social and material privileges.

Key concepts and theories in multilingualism In Part II Chapter 6, Catherine Kell and Gabrielle Budach provide a lucid overview of the complex ontologies of new/​emerging fields in language studies and their implications for the study of multilingualism: language materialities and language ontologies as well as post-​humanism and new materialism. Kell and Budach engage critically with the largely taken-​for-​granted ideas in linguistics that language is what makes us human; that language is representational and that it leads to rational thought. The authors consider the impact of the material world on human existence as an agentive force and argue for shifting the focus from semiotic repertoires of individuals to the dynamic entanglements between objects, space, material resources and humans. Chapter 7 by Marianne Turner and Angel Lin outlines translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing (TL-​TS) as both theory and communicative practice. They argue that working from bi/​multilingualism rather than monolingualism as norm is a key departure point for theories of TL-​TS. Turner and Lin draw attention to the focus in TL-​TS on what speakers do with linguistic resources, or first-​order languaging, rather than on named languages as objects. Their view of TL-​TS recognizes the colonial history of the construct of named languages and draws on an understanding of language and mind as dynamic and distributed. The chapter engages with important challenges resulting from a fluid theorizing of languaging, in particular the tension between fluid, heteroglossic TL-​TS practices and access to prestigious ‘standard languages’ in education as well as the promotion and/​or revitalization of minoritized languages. In Chapter 8, Robyn Tyler and Beatha

xxxiv

Introduction

Set put forward a view of multilingualism from the South which poses a theoretical and methodological challenge to a Northern epistemology of binaries. Based on the theoretical impetus of complexity and decoloniality in the social sciences, Tyler and Set address a wider gamut of influences on interaction that represents whole-​body sign-​making. Through examples from Namibian and South African classrooms, the authors show how this approach to the full multilingual–​multimodal sense-​making performance can enable access to learning for the post-​colonial majority in Southern contexts and promote social justice. Chapters 7 and 8 are both informed by an expansive approach to multilingual–​multimodal–​multisensory communication. Mindful of the historical oppression of indigenous peoples as well as the complexity and tensions in defining indigenous as a category, in Chapter 9 Stephen May argues for the continuing importance of indigenous people’s rights to the inclusion of their languages in institutions, including education. May highlights the problem for indigenous language rights of an individualist orientation in human rights and outlines tolerance oriented versus promotion-​oriented rights. He examines indigenous language rights in international law as well as a range of national contexts and argues for the continuing importance of a promotion-​oriented language rights paradigm. May argues that critical sociolinguistic approaches often over-​emphasize individual linguistic agency as well as language practices in urban areas. In May’s words, this focus can lead to “post-​hoc validation of existing (settler-​colonial) patterns of linguistic inequality for indigenous language speakers”. May gives the example of te reo Maori in Aotearoa/​New Zealand where the introduction of te reo Maori-​medium kindergartens and later elementary and secondary schools as well as higher education that draws on ‘traditional’ models of bilingual education has fed into processes of language revitalization. In contrast to the linguistic human rights paradigm, in Chapter 10 Christopher Stroud introduces the concept of Linguistic Citizenship (LC). In LC, Stroud offers a strong critique of the notion of multilingualism as a “language political order … [which] arranges speakers into hierarchical systems of linguistic and epistemic value”. He explains how LC emerged in response to a fraught linguistic human rights paradigm in Mozambican language in education policy. LC accounts for the complexities of hierarchized linguistic diversity aiming for the recuperation of historically lost linguistic agency and the transcendence of difference through conviviality. Stroud provides a range of examples of LC under the humanist themes of love, hope and care. Chapters 11 and 12 on multilingual literacies and digital multilingualism respectively are substantially revised and updated versions of chapters in the first handbook edition. Chapter 11 by Dorris Warriner, Agra Rajapakse Lekamlage and Anjanette Griego theorizes multilingual literacy/​literacies as socially situated practices that are locally shaped and influenced by a “range of social, cultural, political, institutional, ideological, and interactional factors”. The authors provide a comprehensive review of research on multilingual literacies from the perspectives of language and literacy socialization; ecology of language; funds of knowledge; transnationalism and translanguaging. The chapter highlights the tensions for multilingual literacies in educational settings where standard languages still hold power and are the expectation. In Chapter 12 on Digital Multilingualism, Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana draw attention to the dual liberatory and restrictive potential of digital literacies. They argue that “affordances of digital spaces, and the fluidity of varied linguistic and semiotic resources can give people much-​desired freedom and agency … while they can also serve as a powerful means for the reproduction of violence, intolerance and injustice”. Leppänen and Sultana outline two key understandings of digital multilingualism: one focused on linguistic heterogeneity and the other on multilingual practices. They put forward the argument that digital multilingualism as production and exchange of multilingual user-​based content can lower boundaries between Global North and South.

xxxv

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

Multilingualism and education Chapters in Part III explore multilingualism in diverse local and global education settings, and from different epistemological and theoretical perspectives. In Chapter 13, Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-​Roa and Elsie Rockwell argue that the actual lives of people and the defence of their territories must be our central concern, rather than their languages as such (“limiting the discussion to the ‘lives’ of languages and their use in education curbs our perspective”). They discuss three issues: 1) rethinking language in indigenous education (as the use of resources in practice), 2) indigenous perspectives on learning as offering insights for rethinking language learning in multilingual settings, and 3) the dilemmas of standardizing languages in indigenous contexts, as paralyzing efforts to strengthen oral use. Ayala et al. declare that racializing ideologies cut across all three issues shaping educational practices and outcomes in indigenous contexts. With a special focus on sub-​Saharan Africa, Feliciano Chimbutane (Chapter 14) critically discusses language in education policies showing how these reflect colonial ideologies of superiority and inferiority deepening unequal relations of power. Language practices in post-​colonial school contexts are still informed by the monolingual bias and multilingualism continues to be conceptualized as a problem, inevitably marginalizing African home language speakers, while privileging monolingualism in European language(s) and minorities that can speak these languages. Challenging the language-​related injustices in schooling enabled by ‘coloniality of language’ (Veronelli, 2015), the author stresses the transformative potential of multilingualism in education and adoption of decolonial pedagogies, and curricula “opening up the possibilities of teaching and learning subaltern knowledges positioned on the margins or borders of modernity” (Mignolo, 2007: 455). Similarly, Chapter 15 by Ofelia García, Leketi Makalela, Prem Phyak and Maite Sánchez focuses on decolonizing multilingual pedagogies in contexts of linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversity. Problematizing the question ‘What would teaching look like if we were free from the constructs of named languages that were tools of colonization, as well as academic language, a prevalent tool for domination in education today?’, the authors use a decolonial lens to suggest teaching–​ learning practices that seek to include/​accommodate bilingual children who are racialized and minoritized by existing raciolinguistic ideologies in education. Considering research informed by translanguaging theory in South Africa, Nepal, Hong Kong, US (including Hawai’i), they provide a window into different scenarios where teachers support multilingual pedagogies through enabling and making visible students’ full linguistic repertoires as resources for learning. García et al argue that the decolonization of multilingual education must involve a process of “epistemological reconstitution” (Quijano 2007) with the intent to meet racialized students in their borderlands to affirm (rather than erase) multilingual students’ ways of being, becoming and knowing. Advancing a social justice agenda, Chapter 16 by Kate le Roux and Pinky Makoe is concerned with disrupting unequal relations of power between English, a colonial language, and Indigenous languages spoken by the majority of African students in South African higher education, where these languages are often excluded and silenced in mainstream classrooms. As in Chapters 14 and 15, le Roux and Makoe draw on decolonial and language ideology lenses; they argue for a shift from monglossic to heteroglossic orientations of language and pedagogy to disrupt dominant narratives of language/​knowledge. The chapter reviews three published case studies of multilingual pedagogies (mainly adopting translanguaging frameworks) in different universities to illustrate how classroom practices can be used to create opportunities for students to critique dominant thinking; to leverage students’ linguistic repertoires for academic development and to affirm students’ identities. Chapter 17 by Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris explores complex language ecologies in the Global South, drawing attention to translanguaging pedagogies in xxxvi

Introduction

post-​colonial classrooms where the use of colonial languages (mainly English) as the language of instruction continues to be dominant at the expense of learners’ home languages, despite growing acknowledgement of multilingualism as resources for teaching and learning. Drawing on studies across different socio-​educational settings, the authors show how translanguaging can be used to support learning, enhance self-​image and develop critical thinking in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms. They also highlight the need for critical language awareness work in teacher education if we are to change linguistic and structural inequities in multilingual classrooms. In Chapter 18, Kathryn Henderson, Zhongfeng Tian, Bedrettin Yazan, Fabiana Stalnaker and Madhavi Usgaonker discuss the relationship between bi/​multilingual education and the COVID-​ 19 global pandemic. Focusing on three interconnected themes, i.e. transition to distance learning, equity and disparity questions and the role of key stakeholders, the authors investigate how the pandemic has impacted language teaching and learning, particularly linguistically minoritized or bi/​multilingual learners from marginalized communities who are often discriminated against in terms of race, social class and economic status. The fact that many bi/​multilingual learners were out of their normal schedules has resulted in unprecedented psychological, social-​emotional issues and increased dropout rates. Furthermore, the lack of educational materials and health information in languages of minoritized or marginalized communities reinforces existing linguistic hierarchies and inequalities. Despite hardship and systemic inequalities, the authors say that in some cases “Covid-​19 seems to have paved a way for educational innovations across contexts and mediums by educators and advocates of bilingual and multilingual learners”. They invite educators across the globe to find pockets of hope, create implementation spaces for bi/​multilingual instruction, and spread the pluralist vision to collectively heal.

Multilingualism in social and cultural change Part IV focuses on multilingualism in social and cultural change. Based on the work of Duchêne and Heller from the first edition of the handbook, in Chapter 19, Luisa Martín Rojo discusses how language, and multilingualism in particular, has become an integral part of ‘the new economy’ and has consequently been influenced by the extension of capitalist processes and neoliberal forms of government. In this context, the neoliberal rationality produces the commodification of language, but also the transformation of subjectivity and speakers’ models. With regard to the latter, Martín Rojo focuses on language education and shows the emergence of the ‘self-​made speaker’, which is the linguistic correlate of the neoliberal (or entrepreneurial) subject. In Chapter 20, Ben Rampton, Daniel Silva and Constadina Charalambous address (in)securitization as another form of (often violent) governance and managing populations in which the usual rules of democracy don’t apply and argue for the need to take seriously (in)securitization as a central concept in sociolinguistic analysis. Providing empirical illustrations of (in)securitization in operation in favelas in Rio de Janeiro and Greek Cypriot schools, the authors discuss practices/​experiences of self-​censorship, voicelessness, silencing and surveillance in these contemporary times. Chapter 21 addresses sociocultural changes in the area of global academic research and its current evaluation regimes. Including author accounts in Arabic, Mandarin, Spanish and Kiswahili, Mary Jane Curry, Theresa Lillis, Adel Alsheri, Onesmo Mushi and Xiatinghan Xu draw attention to the multilingual nature of academic research and knowledge production practices. They argue that multilingual practices in academic publishing not only enhance academic knowledge production and public dissemination of research, but also challenge the perception of English as the global academic lingua franca and enact a decolonial stance. The last two chapters from this section discuss new genres and new channels of multilingual practices. In Chapter 22, Quentin xxxvii

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe

Williams addresses the global cultural genre of hip hop, and specifically, Cape Town hip hop as a site where the recontextualization of a global struggle consciousness was inserted into local struggles against apartheid, the hegemony of Afrikaans and local whiteness. In the final chapter of this section, Chapter 23, Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-​Holmes study contemporary media as key sites of multilingualism. They argue that the growth of bottom-​up mediatized media, which feature heteroglossic and mixed forms, has resulted in a much greater degree of multilingualism in media spaces and has also changed the nature of what we understand by multilingualism. In concluding, the authors reflect on the constantly evolving nature of technology and its ever-​changing impacts on the nature of multilingualism. Kelly-​Holmes also reflects on the ways in which co-​authoring with hMensa enabled the enriching of their review in comparison with the largely unconscious Global North dominance in her chapter for the first edition.

Multilingualism in public life The final section of the handbook, Part V, covers the topic of multilingualism in public life. Chapter 24 by Kamilla Kraft and Mi-​Cha Flubacher explores the idea that the multilingual workplace –​ formal or informal –​ is best understood as a ‘space of multilingualism’ (Blommaert et al. 2005). In such spaces, socio-​economic conditions and expectations both enable and disable speakers’ linguistic repertoires and, consequently, their work-​life opportunities, effectively contributing to the selection and distribution processes of material and symbolic resources. Kraft and Flubacher argue that a workplace is understood as a specific space that comes with a specific language regime and that spaces of language and work are deeply embedded in and still structured by historical and post-​colonial marked hierarchies. Jia Li, Jie Zhang and Ingrid Piller address multilingualism during disasters and emergencies in Chapter 25. Using the COVID-​19 pandemic in China as an example, the authors show that global health communication is ideologically structured; and that this raises serious issues of equity and social justice for the poor and for minoritized language speakers whose access to healthcare, medication, vaccinations, social welfare, and other critical information is hindered by language barriers and other structural inequalities. They argue that it is not sufficient to just offer translations for minoritized populations, but that we need to challenge English-​centric multilingualism, ensure language service provisions, and perform culturally and linguistically appropriate repertoires to build solidarity and trust. Chapter 26 by Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-​Khan and Marie Jacobs explores institutional management and control of multilingual repertoires/​multilingualism in asylum and migration procedures. Drawing on Goffman’s (1959) metaphor of front-​ and backstage of social setting, the authors examine ways in which language choice is negotiated, managed in counseling (‘backstage’) and adjudication (‘frontstage’) encounters of the procedure. Whilst multilingualism is present in all settings, findings show that institutional representatives and lawyers held the belief that if linguistic minority speakers are to succeed in the process, their interests will be served best if they express themselves in a standard variety of their native language, and in that standard native language only, through an interpreter. This ideological conception of multilingualism “as the coexistence of monolingual standard codes” not only disadvantages applicants with “less straightforward language repertoires” (see Maryns et al. in Chapter 26) but perpetuates linguistic inequalities within asylum processes. Philipp Angermeyer addresses the topic of multilingualism and translation in Chapter 27, establishing that translation and interpreting play an important role in the social life of individuals in multilingual societies, as well as in processes of language contact and language change. While translation may be invoked as a remedy to linguistic inequality, it is typically deeply xxxviii

Introduction

embedded in power asymmetries between languages and their speakers, especially in institutional contexts. Hence, translating and interpreting are not neutral, machine-​like activities, but are deeply shaped by indexical meanings and language ideologies of the particular cultural context in which they occur. This should lead us to examine what is or is not translated, by whom, how, and to what end. In Chapter 28, authors Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala focus on multilingualism and the field of linguistic landscapes (LL). Banda and Simungala draw on Gorter’s (2018) expanded definition of LL as the study of “the motives, uses, ideologies, language varieties and contestations of multiple forms of ‘languages’ as they are displayed in public spaces”. But they argue that language here is used expansively to include visual and multimodal semiotic resources. Banda and Simungala include in their review innovative recent research on soundscapes, ruralscapes and cityscapes, as well as body scapes (e.g. tattoos). Finally, the handbook ends with a concluding afterword by Marilyn Martin-​Jones.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Catherine Kell and Marilyn Martin-​Jones for their careful reading and insightful comments on a draft of this chapter. All shortcomings are of course our responsibility.

Notes 1 We are grateful to Catherine Kell for the development of this argument. 2 We regret that we were unable to include a chapter on the important area of sign language multilingualism due to the unavailability of authors approached.

References Agha, A. 2004. Registers of language. In. A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. A. Duranti, Ed Oxford: Blackwell. 23–​45. Anya, U. 2020. African Americans in world language study: forged paths and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 40: 97–​112. Alim, H.S. 2010. Critical language awareness. In Sociolinguistics and Language Education. N.H. Hornberger & S.L. McKay, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 205–​231. Alim, H., Williams, Q., Haupt, A. & Jansen, E. 2021. “Kom Khoi San, kry trug jou land”: disrupting white settler colonial logics of language, race, and land with Afrikaaps. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 31(2): 194–​217. DOI: 10.1111/​jola.12308. Back, M. & Zavala, V. 2019. Racialization and Language. London & New York: Routledge. Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bhatt, R.M. & Bolonyai, A. 2019. On the theoretical and empirical bases of translanguaging. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies. 254: 1–​25. Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. 2017. Translanguaging and the body. International Journal of Multilingualism. 14(3): 250–​268. DOI: 10.1080/​14790718.2017.1315809 Block, D. 2017. Political economy in applied linguistics research. Language Teaching. 50(1): 32–​64. https://​ doi.org/​10.1017/​S02614​4481​6000​288. Blommaert, J. 2008. Artefactual ideologies and the textual production of African languages. Language & Communication. 28(4): 291–​307. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lang​com.2008.02.003. Blommaert, J. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalisation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. 2013. Complexity, accent and conviviality: concluding comments. Applied Linguistics. 34(5): 613–​622. Blommaert, J. 2014. State Ideology and Language in Tanzania. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Blommaert, J. 2016. From mobility to complexity in sociolinguistic theory and method. In N. Coupland, Ed. Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 242–​259.

xxxix

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe Blommaert, J., Collins, J. & Slembrouck, S. 2005. Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication. 25(3): 197–​216. Blommaert, J. & Rampton, B. 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities. 13(2): 1–​22. Bonacina-​Pugh, F., da Costa Cabral, I., & Jing Huang. 2021. Translanguaging and education. Language Teaching. 54: 439–​471. Bonnin, J.E. & Unamuno, V. 2021. Debating translanguaging: a contribution from the perspective of minority language speakers. Language, Culture and Society. 3(2): 231–​254. Bourdieu, P. 1977. The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information. 16(6): 645–​668. Bullock, B.E. & Toribio, A.J., Eds. 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-​switching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Busch, B. 2012. The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics 33(5):503–​523. DOI: 10.1093/​applin/​ ams056. Braidotti, R. 2013. The Post-​human. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brown, W. 2015. Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books. Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, B., & Richardson, K. 1992. Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method. London & New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. 2006a. The place of world Englishes in composition: pluralisation continued. College, Composition and Communication. 557(4): 586–​618. Canagarajah, S. 2006b. Codemeshing in academic writing: identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal. 95(3): 401–​407. Canagarajah, S. 2009. The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia. AILA Review. 22(1): 5–​22. DOI: 10.1075/​aila.22.02can. Canagarajah, S. Ed. 2013. Literacy as Translingual Practice: Between Communities and Classrooms (1st ed.). London & New York: Routledge. https://​doi.org/​10.4324/​978020​3120​293. Canagarajah, S. 2018. Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics. 39(1): 31–​54. DOI:10.1093/​applin/​amx041. Canagarajah, S. 2022a. A decolonial crip linguistics. Applied Linguistics. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​lin/​ amac​042. Canagarajah, S. 2022b. Challenges in decolonising linguistics: the politics of enregisterment and the divergent uptakes of translingualism. Educational Linguistics. 1(1): 1–​31. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​edul​ ing-​2021-​0005. Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. 2017. Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 38(10): 901–​912. DOI: 10.1080/​ 01434632.2017.1284855 Choksi, N. 2015. Surface Politics: scaling multiscriptality in an Indian Village Market. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 25(1): 1–​24. Codó, E. 2008. Immigration and Bureaucratic Control: Language Practices in Public Administration. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Codó, Eva & Adriana Patiño-​Santos. 2014. Beyond language: class, social categorisation and academic achievement in a Catalan high school. Linguistics and Education. 25: 51–​63. Connell, R. 2007. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Cambridge & Sydney: Polity/​Allen & Unwin. Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching. The Modern Language Journal. 94(1): 103–​115. DOI: 10.1111/​j.1540-​4781.2009.00986.x. Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. Eds. 2021. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity. London & New York: Routledge. Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of colour. Stanford Law Review. 43(6): 1241–​1299. De Costa, Peter I., Joseph S. Park & Lionel Wee. 2019. Linguistic entrepreneurship as affective regime: organizations, audit culture, and second/​foreign language education policy. Language Policy. 18(3): 387–​406. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​993-​018-​9492-​4. DeLanda, M. 2016. Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. De Meulder, M., Kusters, A., Moriarty, E. & Murray, J.J. 2019. Describe, don’t prescribe. The practice and politics of translanguaging in the context of deaf signers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 40(10): 892–​906. DOI:10.1080/​01434632.2019.1592181.

xl

Introduction Demuro, E. & Gurney, L. 2021. Languages/​languaging as world-​making: the ontological bases of language. Language Sciences. 83: 101307. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lang​sci.2020.101​307. de Sousa Santos, B. 2012. Public sphere and epistemologies of the South. Africa Development. 37(1): 43–​67. de Sousa Santos, B. 2016. Epistemologies of the South and the future. From the European South: A Transdisciplinary Journal of Post-Colonial Humanities. 1: 17–​29. Deumert, A. & Storch, A. 2020. Introduction: colonial linguistics –​then and now. In Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledges and Epistemes. A. Deumert, A. Storch & N. Shepherd, Eds. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 1–​21. Deumert, A., Storch, A. & N. Shepherd, Eds. 2020. Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledges and Epistemes. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Duchêne, A. 2009. Marketing, management and performance: multilingualism as commodity in a tourism call centre. Language Policy. 8(1): 27–​50. Duchêne, A. 2020. Multilingualism: an insufficient answer to sociolinguistic inequalities. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. (263): 91–​97. DOI: 10.1515/​ijsl-​2020-​2087. Duchêne, A. & Heller, M. Eds. 2012. Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit. New York: Routledge. Errington, J.J. 2008. Linguistics in a Colonial World: A Story of Language, Meaning, and Power. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Escobar, A. 2016 Thinking-​feeling with the earth: territorial struggles and the ontological dimension of the epistemologies of the South. Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana. 11(1): 11–​32. Fanon, F. 2017 [1952]. Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by Charles Lam Markmann. New York: Grove Press. Ferguson, J. 2021. How words make the world: language materialities and the circulation of the Sakha algys. Multilingua. 40(4): 433–​461. Flubacher, M., Duchêne, A. and Coray, R. 2018. Language Investment and Employability: The Uneven Distribution of Resources in the Public Employment Service. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gandulfo, C. & Unamuno, V. 2020. Nota metodológica. In Hablar lenguas indígenas hoy: Nuevos usos, nuevas formas de transmisión. Experiencias colaborativas en Corrientes. V. Unamuno, C. Gandulfo & H. Andreani, Eds. Chaco y Santiago del Estero. Buenos Aires: Ed Biblos. 35–​48. Gao, S. 2012. Commodification of place, consumption of identity: the sociolinguistic construction of a ‘global village’ in rural China. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 16(3): 336–​357. García, O. & Lin, A.M.Y. 2018. Translanguaging in bilingual education. In Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. O. García, A. Lin & S. May, Eds. Switzerland: Springer. 117–130. DOI: 10.1007/​978-​3-​319-​02258-​1_​9. García, O. & Li, Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. García, O. & Lin, A.M.Y. 2018. English and multilingualism. In The Routledge Handbook of English Language Studies. P. Seargeant, A. Hewings & S. Pihlaja, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 77–​92. García, O. & Otheguy, R. 2022. African Studies Global Virtual Forum: Decoloniality and Southern Epistemologies – G ​ arcía +​Otheguy, Pennsylvania State University, 9 May 2022. Garrido, M.R. 2018. Voluntary work, transnational mobility and language learning in a social movement. Language and Intercultural Communication. 18(4): 451–​463. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14708​477.2018.1474​888. Gee, J.P. 1986. Orality and literacy: from the savage mind to ways with words. TESOL Quarterly. 20(4): 719–​746. Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor. Gorter, D. 2018. Linguistic landscapes and trends in the study of schoolscapes. Linguistics and Education 44: 80–​85. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ged.2017.10.001. Gunnarsson, B. 2013. Multilingualism in the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33: 162–​189. DOI: 10.1017/​S0267190513000123. Hale, C. 2005. Neoliberal multiculturalism: the remaking of cultural rights and racial dominance in Central America. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. 28(1): 10–​28. Hall, S. 1992. Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In Cultural Studies. L. Grossberg, C. Nelson & P. Treichler, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 277–​294. Hamman, L. 2018. Translanguaging and positioning in two-​way dual language classrooms: a case for criticality. Language and Education. 32(1): 21–​42. Hauck, J.D. & Heurich, G.O. 2018. Language in the Amerindian imagination: an inquiry into linguistic natures. Language & Communication. 63: 1–​8. Heller, M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. Harlow, UK: Longman.

xli

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe Heller, M. & Martin-​Jones, M. Eds. 2001. Voices of Authority: Education and Linguistic Difference. Westport, CT: Ablex. Heller, M., Jaworski, A. & Thurlow, C. 2014. Introduction: sociolinguistics and tourism –​mobilities, markets, multilingualism. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 18(4): 425–​458. Heller, M., Pujolar, J. & Duchêne, A. 2014. Linguistic commodification in tourism. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 18(4): 539–​66. Heller, M. & McElhinny, B. 2017. Language, Capitalism, Colonialism: Toward a Critical History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Heugh, K., Stroud, C., Taylor-​Leech, K & P. De Costa, Eds. 2022. A Sociolinguistics of the South. London & New York: Routledge. Hodge, R. & Kress, G. 1998. Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity. Horner, B., Lu, M.-​Z, Royster, J. & Trimbur, J. 2011. Language difference in writing: towards a translingual approach. College English. 73(3): 303–​321. Hountondji, P.J. 1995. Producing knowledge in Africa today. African Studies Review. 38(3): 1–​10. https://​doi. org/​10.2307/​524​790. Howard, R. 2023. Multilingualism in the Andes. Policies, Politics, Power. London & New York: Routledge. Irvine, J. 2008. Subjected words: African linguistics and the colonial encounter. Language and Communication. 28(4): 323–​343. Jaspers, J. & Madsen, L. 2016. Sociolinguistics in a languagised world. Applied Linguistics Review. 7(3): 235–​258. Jewitt, C., Ed. 2009. The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London & New York: Routledge. Jorgensøn, J.N. 2008. Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism. 5(3): 161–​176. Jorgensøn, J.N, Karrebæk, M.S., Madsen, L.M & Møller, J.S. 2011. Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities. 13(2): 23–​38 (Theme issue: language and superdiversities). Kenfield, Y.H. 2021. Enacting and Envisioning Decolonial Forces while Sustaining Indigenous Language: Bilingual College Students in the Andes. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI: 10.21832/​ 9781788929714. Krause, L.-​S. 2022. Relanguaging Language from a South African Township School. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London & New York: Routledge. Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London & New York: Routledge. Kusters, A., Spotti, M., Swanwick, R. & Tapio, E. 2017. Beyond languages, beyond modalities: transforming the study of semiotic repertoires. International Journal of Multilingualism. 14(3): 219–​232. Lau, S.M.C. 2019. Convergences and alignments between translanguaging and critical literacies work in bilingual classrooms. Journal of Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts. (Special issue: Positive synergies: translanguaging and critical theories in education) 5(1): 67–​85. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​ttmc.00025.lau. Lau, S.M.C, Tian, Z. & Lin, A.M.Y. 2021. Critical literacy and additional language learning: an expansive view of translanguaging for change-​enhancing possibilities. In The Handbook of Critical Literacies. J.Z. Pandya, R.A. Mora, J.H. Alford, N.A. Golden & R.S. de Rock, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 381–​390. Lemke, J.L. & Lin, A.M.Y. 2022. Translanguaging and flows: towards an alternative conceptual model. Educational Linguistics. 1(1): 134–​151. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​edul​ing-​2022-​0001. Lin, A.M.Y. 2015. Egalitarian bi/​multilingualism and trans-​semiotizing in a global world. In The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education. W.E. Wright, S. Boun & O. García, Eds. West Sussex, UK: Wiley. 17–​37. Lin, A.M.Y. 2019. Theories of trans/​languaging and trans-​semiotizing: implications for content-​based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 22(1): 5–​16. DOI: 10.1080/​13670050.2018.1515175. López, L.E. 1990. El bilingüismo de los unos y de los otros: diglosia y conflicto lingüistico en el Perú. In Diglosia linguo-​literaria y educación en el Perú. E. Ballón Aguirre & R. Cerrón Palomino, Eds. Concytec: GTZ.

xlii

Introduction Lorente, B. 2018. Scripts of Servitude: Language, Labor Migration and Transnational Domestic Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makalela, L. 2018. Community elders’ narrative accounts of Ubuntu translanguaging: learning and teaching in African education. International Review of Education. 64: 823–​843. Makoni, S., Brutt-​Griffler, J. & Mashiri, P. 2007. The use of indigenous and urban vernaculars in Zimbabwe. Language in Society. 36(1): 25–​49. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A., Eds. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. 2012. Disinventing multilingualism: from monological multilingualism to multilingual francas. In M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. New York & London: Routledge. Makoni, S., Kaiper-​Marquez, A, & Mokwena, L. 2022. Introduction. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and the Global South. S. Makoni., A, Kaiper-​Marquez & L. Mokwena, Eds. London & New Yorl: Routledge. 1–​15. Maldonado Torres, N. 2007. On the coloniality of being: contributions to the development of a concept. Cultural Studies. 21(2-​3): 240–​270. Martin, A.D. 2019. The agentic capacities of mundane objects for educational equity: narratives of material entanglements in a culturally diverse urban classroom. Educational Research for Social Change. 8(1): 86–​100. Martin-​Jones, M., Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. Introduction: a sociolinguistics of multilingualism for our times. In M. Martin-​Jones., A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (1st ed.). Routledge. 1–26. DOI: 10.4324/​9780203154427. Márquez Reiter, R. & Martín Rojo, L. 2011. Introduction: service provision in a globalised world. Sociolinguistic Studies. 4(2): 259–​265. DOI: 10.1558/​sols.v4i2.259. Martín Rojo, L. 2010. Constructing Inequality in Multilingual Classrooms. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Martín Rojo, L. 2020. The ‘self-​made speaker’: the neoliberal governance of speakers. In Language and Neoliberal Governmentality. L. Martín Rojo & A. Del Percio, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 162–​189. McKinney, C. 2022. Coloniality of language and pretextual gaps: a case study of emergent bilingual children’s writing in a South African school and a call for ukuzilanda. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: 10.1080/​01434632.2022.2116452. McKinney, C. & Tyler, R. 2019. Disinventing and reconstituting language for learning science. Language and Education. 33(2): 141–​158. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09500​782.2018.1516​779. Menezes de Souza, L.M.T 2019. Glocal languages, coloniality and globalization from below. In Glocal Languages and Critical Intercultural Awareness. M. Guilherme & L.M.T. Menezes de Souza, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 17–​41. Menezes de Souza, L.M.T. 2021. Foreword: a decolonial project. In Z. Bock & C. Stroud, Eds. Language and Decoloniality in Higher Education: Reclaiming Voices from the South. Bloomsbury Academic. xiii–​xxiii. Mignolo, W. 1992. On the colonisation of Amerinidain languages and memories: renaissance theories of writing and the discontinuity of the classical tradition. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 34(2): 301–​330. Mignolo, W. 2007. DELINKING: the rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-​ coloniality. Cultural Studies. 21(2–​3): 449–​514. Mignolo, W. 2009. Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and de-​colonial freedom. Theory, Culture and Society. 26(7–​8): 159–​181. DOI:10.1177/​026327640934927. Mignolo, W. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham & London : Duke University Press. Mignolo, W. 2018. Foreword. On pluriversality and multipolarity. In Constructing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Knowledge. B. Reiter, Ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ix–xvi. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1515/​978147​8002​017-​001. Mignolo, W. & C. Walsh. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Motha, S. 2020. Is an antiracist and decolonizing applied linguistics possible? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 40:128–​133.

xliii

Carolyn McKinney, Virginia Zavala and Pinky Makoe Mondada, L. 2019a. Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 145: 47–​62. DOI: 10.1016/​ j.pragma.2019.01.016. Mondada, L. 2019b. Rethinking bodies and objects in social interaction: a multimodal and multisensorial approach to tasting. In U. Tikvah Kissmann, & J. van va Loon, Eds. Discussing New Materialism: Methodological Implications for the Study of Materialities. Berlin: Springer. 47–​134. DOI:10.1007/​978-​3-​658-​22300-​7_​6. Ndhlovu, F & Makalela, L. 2021. Decolonizing Multilingualism in Africa: Recentring Silenced Voices from the Global South. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo 1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Language of African Literature. London: James Currey. Ong, W.J. 1982. Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. London & New York: Routledge. Otheguy, R., García, O. & Reid, W. 2015. Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: a perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review. 6(3): 281–​307. Otsuji, E. & Pennycook, A. 2010. Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism. 7(3):240–​254. DOI: 10.1080/​14790710903414331. Pennycook, A. 2018(a). Post-​humanist applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics. 39(4): 445–​461. Pennycook, A. 2018(b). Post-​humanist Applied Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge. Pennycook, A. & Otsuji, E. 2014. Metrolingual multitasking and spatial repertoires: ‘Pizza mo two minutes coming’. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 18(2): 161–​184. DOI: 10.1111/​josl.12079. Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. 2020. Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from the Global South. London & New York: Routledge. Pérez-​Milans, M. 2013. Urban Schools and English Language Education in Late Modern China: A Critical Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London & New York: Routledge. Pietikäinen, Sari & Kelly-​Holmes, Helen. 2013. Multilingualism and the periphery. In Multilingualism and the Periphery. S. Pietikäinen & H. Kelly-​Holmes, Eds. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–​16. Pietikäinen, S. 2016. Critical debates: discourse, boundaries and social change. In Sociolinguistics Theoretical Debates. N. Coupland Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 263–​281. Pietikäinen, S. 2021. Powered by assemblage: language for multiplicity. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. (267–​268): 235–​240. DOI: 10.1515/​ijsl-​2020-​0074. Prego, G. & Zas, L. 2014. Unvoicing practices and the scaling (de) legitimization process of linguistic ‘mudes’ in classroom interaction in Galicia (Spain). International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 257: 77–​107. Prinsloo, M. & Baynham, M. Eds. 2013. Literacy Studies Volume 1: Great Divides and Situated Literacies. Los Angeles: Sage. Probyn, M. 2019. Pedagogical translanguaging and the construction of science knowledge in a multilingual South African classroom: challenging monoglossic/​post-​colonial orthodoxies. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​4): 216–​236. Pujolar, Joan. 2020. La mercantilización de las lenguas. In Claves para entender el multilingüismo contemporáneo. Luisa Martin Rojo & Joan Pujolar, Eds. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. Quijano, A. 2007. Coloniality and modernity/​rationality. Cultural Studies 21(2): 11–​21. Rahman, T. 2009. Language ideology, identity and the commodification of language in the call centers of Pakistan. Language in Society. 38(2):233–​258. doi:10.1017/​S0047404509090344. Rampton, B. 2011 From ‘multi-​ethnic adolescent heteroglossia’ to ‘contemporary urban vernaculars’. Language and Communication. 31(4): 276–​294. Rampton, B. 2019. What do we mean by ‘multilingual’?: linguistic repertoires. WPULL Paper 260. London: Kings College. Rivera Cusicanqui, S. 2010. Ch’ixinakax utxiwa. Una reflexión sobre prácticas ydiscursos descolonizadores. Chapter 3 in Ch’ixinakax utxiwa. Una Reflexión sobre Prácticas y Discursos Descolonizadores. Tinta Limón. Roberts, C. 2010. Language socialization in the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 30: 211–​ 227. DOI:10.1017/​S0267190510000127. Rosa, J.D, and Burdick, C. 2016. Language ideologies. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. O. García, N. Flores & M. Spotti, Eds. London & New York: Oxford University Press. 103–​24. Sabaté i Dalmau, M. 2014. Migrant Communication Enterprise: Regimentation and Resistance. (3). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

xliv

newgenprepdf

Introduction Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. 2003. Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London and New York: Routledge. Seals, C. Olsen-​Reeder, V., Pine, R., Ash, M. & Wallace, C. 2020. Creating translingual teaching resources based on translanguaging grammar rules and pedagogical practices. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 3(1): 115–​132. Shankar, S. & Cavanaugh, J. 2017. Toward a theory of language materiality: an introduction. In Language and Materiality: Ethnographic and Theoretical Explorations. J. Cavanaugh & S. Shankar, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–​28. DOI: 10.1017/​9781316848418.001. Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies. London & New York: Zed Books. Spilioti, T. 2019. From transliteration to trans-​scripting: creativity and multilingual writing on the internet. Discourse, Context and Media. 29: 1–​110. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.dcm.2019.03.001. Spivak, G.C. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. C. Nelson, C. Grossberg & L. Grossberg, Eds.Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 271–​313. Thibault, P. 2011. First-​order languaging dynamics and second-​order language: the distributed language view. Ecological Psychology. 23(3): 210–​245. Thibault, P. 2017. The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love’s two orders of language. Language Sciences. 61: 74–​85. Toohey, K., Dagenais, D., Fodor, A., Hof, l., Nuñez, O., Singh, A. & Schulze, L. 2015. “That sounds so cooool”: entanglements of children, digital tools, and literacy practices. TESOL Quarterly. 49(3): 461–​485. Tusting, K. 2018. The linguistic ethnography forum. In Explorations in Ethnography, Language and Communication. S. Hållsten & Z. Nikolaidou, Eds. Huddinge: Södertörn University. 7–​8. Vázquez, G.P., & Varela, L.Z. 2019. Unvoicing practices in classroom interaction in Galicia (Spain): the (de) legitimization of linguistic mudes through scaling. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2019(257): 77–​107. Veronelli, G.A. 2015. The coloniality of language: race, expressivity and the darker side of modernity. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies. 13: 108–​134. vold Lexander, K., Gonçalves, K & de Korne, H. 2020. Introduction. multilingual literacy practices -​ global perspectives on visuality, materiality, and creativity. International Journal of Multilingualism. 17(3): 271–​285. von Esch, K.S., Mota, S. & Kubota, R. 2020. Race and language teaching. Language Teaching. 53: 391–​421. Wade, F. 2018. Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo and the tyranny of language. New York Review of Books. 6. www.nybo​oks. com/​daily/​2018/​08/​06/​ngugi-​wa-​thio​ngo-​and-​the-​tyra​nny-​of-​langu​age/​. Wortham, S. 2012. Beyond macro and micro in the linguistic anthropology of education. Anthropology & Education. 43(4): 128–​137. DOI: 10.1111/​j.1548-​1492.2012.01165.x. Wu, Y. & Lin, A.M.Y. 2019. Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: whole-​body sense-​making in the flow of knowledge co-​making. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​ 4): 252–​273.

xlv

PART I

Coloniality and multilingualism

1 LESSONS FOR DECOLONIZATION FROM PRE-​C OLONIAL TRANSLINGUALISM Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah

Introduction Translingualism1 is often celebrated as a feature of late modernity, where languages come into contact in contexts of transnational affiliation, diaspora communities, digital communication, fluid social boundaries and the blurring of time/​space distinctions (see Rampton, 1997). Yet translingualism is not a new phenomenon; multilingual societies have always existed, and the current circumstances have simply “put linguistic diversity and situations of language contact in a new spotlight” (Vallejo & Dooly, 2020: 2). Since the first edition of this volume, scholarship on the nature and types of translingualism found in pre-​modern and pre-​colonial times has continued to burgeon. Some believe that colonization and the influx of Western European language ideologies led to the attempted suppression or distortion of the vibrant translingual practices of the pre-​colonial southern hemisphere. Yet people in the South have continued to draw from their Indigenous practices to absorb, change and accommodate colonizers’ languages, and kept alive their translingual practices amidst the attempts of policymakers to privilege some languages over others. Understanding these language practices helps us to appreciate communicative practices in contemporary times and to further the decolonization of language ideologies that have conferred power and privilege on ‘owners’ and users of named languages and rendered many others with rich linguistic repertoires excluded, oppressed and voiceless. In the original version of this chapter (Canagarajah & Liyanage, 2012), we used the term plurilingualism to describe the pre-​colonial language practices of Southern peoples, in recognition of the label then popularized by the Council of Europe (2000). In this revised version, we decided to use the terms translingualism and translingual practice (Canagarajah, 2013, 2015) to capture the nature of pre-​colonial language practices in deference to decolonizing efforts. Different terms are used by scholars to conceptualize the nature of multilingualism, and our theorization of translingualism is influenced by other well-​known critical formulations of this practice. The notion of disinventing languages (Makoni, 2002) calls into question the separate labelling and study of languages, ignoring the ways that languages always come into contact and influence each other. If Makoni and Pennycook (2006, 2012) theorize the implications for the societal life of language and DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-2

3

Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah

disciplinary discourses, Ofelia García’s (2009) notion of translanguaging captures the implications of translingualism for one’s own communicative repertoire and use. The term captures the ways multilinguals treat languages as a continuum and shuttle between them fluidly. There are other terms used by scholars to label what we theorize here as translingualism. Bakhtin’s (1981) heteroglossia, Rampton’s (1995) crossing, Jorgensøn’s (2014) polylingualism, Gutiérrez’s (2008) third spaces, Blommaert’s (2008) heterography, Young (2004) and Canagarajah’s (2006) code-​meshing, and Pennycook & Otsuji’s (2014) metrolingualism share many things in common. Their terms arise from different domains and contexts of consideration. Rampton, Jorgensøn and Gutiérrez develop their notion in relation to multicultural youth in urban contact situations. As we argue later, there should be greater articulation between these constructs to tease out the differences and similarities to further theoretical and empirical exploration. However, we take the approach in this chapter that “translingual practice serves as an umbrella term for many communicative modes which scholars are finding in diverse domains and fields, that suit their orientations” (Canagarajah, 2013: 9). Theorization of the nature of translingual practices that has proliferated in recent times continues to offer new formulations and refinements of those emerging ten years ago. As we noted at the time, rather than keeping languages distinct as in the construct of multilingualism, the concept of plurilingualism accounts for the interaction and mutual influence of languages in a more dynamic way. For example, while multilingual competence conceptualized one language being added to another (additive bilingualism), or supplanting another (subtractive bilingualism), in plurilingual competence the directionality of influence is considered multilateral, and the languages may influence each other’s development. More importantly, the competence in the languages is integrated, not separated. In plurilingual communication, diverse languages may find accommodation in a person’s repertoire. The person may not have any advanced proficiency in all the languages, and yet mix words and grammatical structures of one language into syntax from other languages to form an integrated composite. In the European version of societal plurilingualism, speakers of language A and language B may speak to each other in a lingua franca mixed with their own first languages and marked by the influence of these languages. Without accommodating to a single uniform code, the speakers will be able to negotiate their different languages for intelligibility and effective communication. It is an intersubjective construct, in the manner similar to lingua franca English (LFE) as Canagarajah (2007) has defined it elsewhere. The European version of plurilingualism has been very influential, especially in language education, but critiques, within the North, have identified features that represent significant and important differences when considering the pre-​colonial translingual practices described in the Southern literature as plurilingualism. García and Otheguy (2019) argue that the Northern version of plurilingualism persists with the concept of ‘national’ languages, that the linguistic repertoire is conceived of as a first or native (European) language to which ‘parts’ of other national European languages are added, and that identity remains anchored to nationality, or at best to Europe. Furthermore, European plurilingualism is ideologically restricted to the national languages of Europe, and implies an additive approach oriented to “economic imperatives … [and] a neoliberal need for flexible workers and citizens” (García & Otheguy, 2019: 7), a view that aligns with Kubota’s (2014) critique of the hybridity at the centre of promotion of plurilingualism. In contrast, Piccardo (2019: 194) claims plurilingualism is “not at all additive; it is dynamic and transforming”, and that its conceptual utility as an overarching model of language use has been largely ignored by anglophone scholars.

4

Lessons for Decolonization from Pre-Colonial Translingualism

It is not our aim in this chapter to contribute to, or be distracted by, this debate about the conceptual merits or otherwise of plurilingualism, nor to offer any kind of review of the various conceptualizations of language use to which we have already referred. Rather, we aim to offer lessons from pre-​colonial multilingualism as we understand it from Southern perspectives. Hence, as noted, translingualism and translingual practices are adopted as umbrella terms because, arguments aside, the various theorizations of language practices have, as Pennycook (2016) observes, much in common, and the difference/​s between these labels are largely disciplinary and geographical. These are not different practices. The terms connote different ways of theorizing the relationship between languages in society and individual repertoire. The dominance of monolingual assumptions in linguistics has prevented scholars from appreciating translingualism. For this reason, the understanding of multilingualism in the field is coloured by monolingual biases and fails to go far. Critical scholars have discussed the motivations in promoting values based on homogeneity, uniformity and autonomy in linguistic sciences. They have pointed out how there has been an ideological bias in European history toward unifying communities and identities around a single language (Singh, 1998), treating multilingualism as a problem (Ruiz, 1984), and establishing nation-​states around the language of a dominant community (May, 2001). These values are informed by the social conditions and ideologies gaining dominance since the rise of the nation-​state, 17th-​century enlightenment, and the French Revolution in Europe (Dorian, 2004; May, 2001). As Dorian (2004: 438) reminds us, “Monolingualism, now usually considered the unmarked condition by members of the dominant linguistic group in modern nation-​states, was in all likelihood less prevalent before the rise of the nation-​state gave special sanction to it.” Pratt (1987) interprets the imposition of homogeneity and uniformity in language and speech community as signifying the construction of linguistic utopias that serve partisan interests. Constructs based on monolingualism and homogeneity are well suited to communities that desire purity, exclusivity and domination. Acknowledging the heterogeneity of language and communication would force us to develop more democratic and egalitarian models of community and communication. Enabled by such historical processes as colonization and modernity, linguistics has reproduced its underlying enlightenment values elsewhere and hindered the development of plurilingual practices and knowledge. We focus on the translingual tradition in pre-​colonial South Asia, the region where we come from. However, translingualism has existed in other pre-​colonial communities too. Although we do not have adequate scholarly descriptions of them in our field, these practices are not completely lost in these communities. We are beginning to see descriptions of such practices from Africa (Makoni, 2002) and South America (de Souza, 2002), among others (Dorian, 2004). We are not arguing that translingual practices existed only in pre-​colonial times. They are evident in today’s society too. Translingualism is the reality at the level of practice everywhere. However, modernist linguistic constructs and theorization that value the separate identity of languages have resulted in a suppression and devaluing of translingual practices. We focus on pre-​colonial times, as translingual communication was practised more spontaneously and was uninhibited before the advent of modernist ideologies via colonization in this region. We are also not arguing that translingual communicative practices are not evident in communities in the northern hemisphere; scholars are studying such practices in Europe and the US In the past, these practices were overlooked or interpreted differently by scholars influenced by modernist ideologies. It is also possible that such practices have been suppressed to a greater degree in the West due to policies of linguistic purism (Kubota, 2014) and standardization. Translingualism is evident to a greater degree in non-​Western communities, even in contemporary times, as the different language ideologies and values that still

5

Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah

exist there sustain translingual practices. We need more research on translingual practices in both Western and non-​Western communities to say if the differences are only in degree and not kind. We do not discuss early developments in this chapter as this area of study does not have a long history. As is evident from our discussion above, the academic study of translingual practices is recent. Even scholars from non-​Western communities are only now rediscovering Indigenous communicative practices, having practised in the past modernist linguistics, which failed to encourage them in this study and worked actively to suppress such practices. We begin with the description of South Asia as a translingual region, analyse its translingual practices and explore the way they shaped language planning and education in this region. These translingual practices are striking in their differences from the dominant constructs in linguistics and raise further questions that need exploration. We next explore the ways pre-​colonial translingualism challenges the foundational constructs of linguistics. We go on to consider the implications of this communicative practice and outline areas of future research.

South Asia as a multilingual region Diversity, in all its multifaceted forms meshed in with thousands of years of sociopolitical history, is at the heart of the Indian subcontinent. Amidst all forms of diversity, linguistic diversity occupies a central place as it contributes to the rich complexity not just of India but also of its adjoining country, Sri Lanka. People who grew up in multilinguistic societies in this part of the world developed multiple memberships, both linguistic and otherwise, and their memberships overlapped and interlocked in amicable and productive ways to create fluid and hybrid identities (Canagarajah, 2007). Not only the people but also the linguistic codes these people shared, grew amicably and in ways complementing each other; the complementarity was such that there is a strong and mutually identifiable lexico-​grammatical affinity among these languages. For example, Khubchandani (1997) describes how many Indian languages belonging to different language families exhibit parallel trends of development over time. In pre-​colonial India and Sri Lanka, linguistic diversity and the resulting complexity of speech communities and societies have been so rich that researchers have not always appreciated this complexity. What the modernist scholars brought with them did not help them to understand the particular realization of multilingualism in this area. These interpretations assume that multilingualism is a phenomenon within which different linguistic codes and communities which spoke them competed with one another for recognition and acceptance. Even more damaging was the way modernist constructs helped Europe to establish its dominance over the communities it colonized in the 19th century. Local scholars point out that constructs like essentialist linguistic identity and homogeneous speech community were put to use in lands such as India to categorize people for purposes of taxation, administrative convenience and political control. In a very subtle way, these constructs shaped social reality there with damaging results. Modernist scholarship has disregarded the fact that in the Indian subcontinent communities using different linguistic codes lived in harmony for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, before they witnessed forces of colonialism in modern times. What has also been forgotten in these discussions is the richly complex, constructive, amicable and complementary plurilingual ethos (Khubchandani, 1997) that existed during pre-​colonial times (see Suseendirajah in Balasubramaniam, Ratnamalar & Subathini, 1999: 272–​280). The knowledge and ability to use languages other than one’s mother tongue were considered to be resources that contributed to the amicable coexistence of speakers of different languages. They communicated with each other, perhaps in the most subtle ways, and established relationships in personal, social and administrative 6

Lessons for Decolonization from Pre-Colonial Translingualism

spheres (see Peiris, 1969; Peter, 1969; Rogers, 1994, 2004, for examples of these in the context of Sri Lanka). The age-​old folklore literacy traditions associated with different linguistic codes were enriched with religious ethics of people who practised them and, together, these bred mutual respect, uplifting the quality of life. People were not sharply distinguished from one another in terms of the linguistic codes they used (Khubchandani, 1983; Wijesekera, 1969) and, thus, “a pluralistic world-​view and the relativist approach in interpreting heritage and culture have been characterized as the essence of Oriental life” (Khubchandani, 1998: 12). Although plurilingualism is promoted by policy intervention or treated as an effect of atypical social conditions in present times (as in the European community), local scholars consider translingualism as ‘natural’ to the ecology of South Asia. Bhatia and Ritchie (2004: 794) state: “In qualitative and quantitative terms, Indian bilingualism was largely nourished naturally rather than by the forces of prescriptivism.” As evidence for this, scholars point to the status of the whole of South Asia as a linguistic area –​ “that is, an area in which genetically distinct languages show a remarkable level of similarity and diffusion at the level of grammar” (Bhatia & Ritchie, 2004: 795). This linguistic diffusion they consider inordinate in comparison with other regions of the world. Pattanayak (1984: 44) notes: “If one draws a straight line between Kashmir and Kanyakumari and marks, say, every five or ten miles, then one will find that there is no break in communication between any two consecutive points.” Many scholars attribute this linguistic synergy to language attitudes in the region: that is, an “accepting attitude, which has brought about the assimilation of features from Dravidian, Indo-​Aryan, Islamic, and even Christian and European cultures into a single system, complex, but integrated” (Bright, 1984: 19). Such features are a testament to the adaptive strategies of the local communities, which develop multilingualism when they come into contact with a new language, rather than rejecting or suppressing the language. The dominance of modernist constructs in linguistics has prevented scholars from understanding the communicative practices involved in translingualism. Despite the view of the aforementioned scholars that South Asia is a linguistic area that features a shared translingual tradition, we have to be wary of generalizing the communicative practices of diverse language and cultural groups in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan, let alone the diverse groups within India and Sri Lanka. More research is needed to tease out these differences.

Theorizing pre-​colonial translingual practices We use Khubchandani’s (1983, 1997) accounts to reconstruct what he refers to as the plurilingual tradition in South Asia. Although other scholars in the region apply the concepts of plurilingualism/​ translingualism as articulated by Khubchandani to specific areas of interest (see Annamalai, 2001; Bhatia & Ritchie, 2004; Mohanty, 2006; Pattanayak, 1984), Khubchandani’s is the most thorough and comprehensive theorization of this practice, and we defer to his use of the term plurilingualism as distinct from the European version in citing his work. Though he uses that label in his work that predates the theorization of translingualism as a construct, his analysis is informed by South Asian practices. Khubchandani believes that plurilingualism (and cultural pluralism) comprises three salient features that in turn help define non-​plurilingualism. These features are relativity, hierarchy and instrumentality. Relativity refers to the organization of verbal repertoire in relation to functional heterogeneity, a characteristic that contrasts with the homogenized societies where promotion of a supreme benchmark for a linguistic code is sought through attitudes to usage. Hierarchy is a system of linguistic organization that uniformly promotes speech diversity in everyday use of language through aspects such as bilingualism, codeswitching, code-​meshing 7

Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah

and diglossia. This contrasts with the selective promotion of certain linguistic codes at the expense of others. Instrumentality refers to the variation in speech in everyday settings by delineating interlocutor relationships as necessitated by speech contexts and purposes. In this process, the affiliation with a linguistic code is taken as assigned and the projection of its linguistic repertoire is flexible and adjustable to situational needs. In contrast, in non-​pluralistic contexts, affiliation with a linguistic code is a ‘defining’ characteristic. The contribution of relativity, hierarchy and instrumentality in the use of language fortifies a plurilinguistic society as an organic whole. In such a society, affiliations with linguistic codes are not necessarily criteria for membership in select social groups; in such societies groups formed by linguistic affiliations are blurry and liquefied. People in a plural society fit in with different identity factions that are formed around sociolinguistics and sociocultural characteristics such as cast, creed, religion, dialect, and language. There is stupendous cultural and linguistic variation in everyday life and people who live in plural societies, according to Khubchandani (1998), develop common ways of thinking and interpreting life around them. The unity that develops out of this diversity and continuity of affiliations Khubchandani (1998: 84) calls a ‘superconsensus’. Unlike other communities where individual differences have to be sacrificed for group identity, South Asian communities preserve their group differences while also developing an overarching community identity with other groups. Khubchandani (1983, 1997, 1998) uses a traditional Indian concept called Kshestra (approximate translation ‘region’) to encapsulate the wide sociocultural and sociolinguistic variation found in a plural society. According to him, this concept represents “the feeling of oneness among diverse people in the region, creating in them ‘a sense of collective reality’ ” (1998: 9). He sees the concept of Kshestra/​region as distinctly different from the modern Western model of region, which refers to an amalgamated area with diverse people yoked together by statutory policy. Khubchandani (1983, 1997, 1998) further distinguishes between two types of pluralism: organic and structural. In organic pluralism, “two identities are simply two sides of the same coin” (1983: 169). In an organically pluralistic society, relationships of individuals belonging to different ethno-​religious and ethnolinguistic backgrounds are integral to an organically pluralistic society. Structural pluralism as it exists in the Western world is based on the premise that different primary groups are separate in terms of their ethnolinguistic and ethnoreligious affiliations. This is a combined relation (see Khubchandani, 1997: 92 for a detailed discussion of organic and structural pluralism). In the West, structural pluralism may be compared to the melting pot phenomenon, characterized by ethnic enclaves. However, the pluralism in pre-​colonial South Asia melded the different communities into a richer and integrated whole. The above aspects of plurilingual ethos began to degenerate as “language consciousness has grown and language loyalties have acquired political salience” (Khubchandani, 1983: 9) after countries gained political independence. According to Khubchandani, the replacement of Indigenous education systems with modern education systems and the introduction of compulsory bilingualism mandated by politically oriented language planning have expedited the substitution of grassroots pluralism with modern bi-​and multilingualism. What are the implications of this Southern conception of plurilingualism for communication? Because of such intense social contact, languages themselves are influenced by each other, losing their ‘purity’ and separateness. Many local languages serve as contact languages and develop features suitable for such purposes –​ that is, hybridity of grammar and variability of form. Khubchandani (1983: 80) says: “Many Indian languages belonging to different families show parallel trends of development … [They] exhibit many phonological, grammatical and lexical similarities and are greatly susceptible to borrowing from the languages of contact.” He goes on to 8

Lessons for Decolonization from Pre-Colonial Translingualism

say that differences “between Punjabi and Hindi, Urdu and Hindi, Dogri and Punjabi, and Konkani and Marathi can be explained only through a pluralistic view of language” (1983: 91). Having been in close contact for many years, these languages have adopted many lexical and grammatical structures from each other, losing their respective family differences. Communities are so multilingual that in a specific speech situation one might see the mixing of diverse languages, literacies and discourses. It might be difficult to categorize the interaction as belonging to a single language. Khubchandani explains: “The edifice of linguistic plurality in the Indian subcontinent is traditionally based upon the complementary use of more than one language and more than one writing system for the same language in one ‘space’ ” (1983: 96, emphasis in the original). If social spaces feature complementary –​not exclusive –​use of languages, mixing of languages and literacies in each situation is the norm, not the exception. This linguistic pluralism has to be actively negotiated to construct meaning. In these communities, meaning and intelligibility are intersubjective. Meaning is socially constructed, not pre-​given. Meaning does not reside in the language; it is produced in practice (Khubchandani, 1997). There is evidence that local communities began to appropriate and mix English with their other languages very early in the colonial period. This realization is sometimes missing in the World Englishes (WE) scholarship, and this omission makes it appear that the appropriation of English is a post-​colonial development. The WE perspective is a natural outcome of the modernist focus on stabilized forms of language. However, there were occasions of very spontaneous borrowing and mixing much earlier than post-​colonial development. Such practices occurred despite efforts by the British to keep the language from mixing and (from their perspective) impurity. We have records of English education in the region where students were kept in boarding schools so that their acquisition of English (and presumably British culture and knowledge) would be preserved from contact with their home culture and home language of the students (see Chelliah, 1922). Students were also fined for each occasion of non-​English language usage. However, we see references to some ‘unruly’ students who were dismissed from the boarding schools for escaping at night to attend Hindu temple festivals, maintaining secret miniature shrines for Hindu deities in their cupboards or desks, and surreptitiously practising what are called ‘heathen’ songs and dances (Chelliah, 1922). It is clear that students continued contact with the vernacular despite their isolation. That mixing of languages occurred and that students retained their vernacular and plurilingual competencies at that time is also evident from oral history and narratives (as Canagarajah, 2000 recounts). In Sri Lanka, M. Gunasekera (n.d.) notes that, soon afterwards, the British administration itself began to acknowledge this mixing of languages. It appears as if local people constructed texts that mixed English and Tamil or Sinhala in their official writing. The administration started to publish guidelines on the appropriate usage and spelling conventions for local languages used in English texts. In 1869 the British administration published a Glossary of Native and Foreign Words Occurring in Official Correspondence and Other Documents (see B. Gunasekera, 1893). Since then, there have been revised and updated glossaries to ensure a uniform policy on the spelling and meaning of Sinhalese and Tamil words in officialese in English. Through these glossaries, even the British administration implicitly recognized the fact that language mixing was an Indigenous phenomenon. We are cognizant that eccentricities existed within ethnic groups that led to the development of Sinhalese and Tamil group identities in Sri Lanka. In particular, claims of descent –​that Sinhalese were from the Aryans and the Tamils were from the Dravidians –​ were ensconced in Sinhalese and Tamil consciousness (Samaraweera, 1977). However, they did not produce ongoing tensions or clashes in society. According to Samaraweera, beneath the occasional bickering was a strong 9

Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah

ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic ambience that promoted firm social and economic relations between the two groups. The Moors also had harmonious relations with Sinhalese Buddhists who spoke Sinhala and with Tamil Hindus who spoke Tamil. The Moors were in fact protected against the atrocities committed by the Portuguese and the Dutch by the Sinhalese, who purposefully integrated them into the former Kandyan Kingdom where “they retained their religious and cultural identity” (De Silva, 1977: 392). Furthermore, despite their translingual practices, there were power differences between language groups. The biggest difference was between Sanskrit, the cosmopolitan literate language, and the regional vernaculars. The reason power is not accentuated in the South Asian descriptions of conversational interaction is because for a long time vernaculars were only spoken, not written. They all had relatively equal status in their own local domains. The written language, which enjoyed power in pre-​colonial and pre-​modern times, was Sanskrit. Pollock (2006) argues that the hegemony of Sanskrit was different from the power exerted by Latin or English. The latter imposed themselves on other communities through military might or political force. Sanskrit existed on a parallel plane to that of the vernaculars, but as the universally accepted written language. Other communities used Sanskrit if and when they wanted to write. As time went by, the vernaculars developed a written medium when they mixed with Sanskrit in their own literary, political or religious literature, around the 6th century. This unique form of writing, known as manipralava in South India (see Pollock, 2006; Viswanathan, 1993), is a linguistically hybrid form. This strategy of negotiation in literacy was not unlike the one discussed earlier for conversational interactions. Local communities merged their codes, made impure the dominant code and democratized the literate system. Also, we must not ignore the fact that there are now heightened differences, even conflicts, between language groups in South Asia –​ such as between Hindus and Muslims in India, or Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka. How do we explain this inconsistency with the collaborative and accommodative practices of translingualism? To answer this question, we have to ponder the implications of Western European colonization since the 16th century. South Asian scholars have pointed out that colonization had dire implications for language and social life in the region. Mohan (1992) documents how unitary constructs of linguistic identity and speech community were put to use in colonies to categorize people for purposes of taxation, administrative convenience and political control. The stock question in the censuses about one’s native or mother tongue was, and still is, confusing for local people when their mother speaks one language, father another and the family a third for domestic communication. In fact, the mother herself may have grown up with that level of multilingualism in her childhood, making ‘mother-​tongue’ even more plural. For people who grow up with multiple languages in their everyday life, unitary notions of identity are reductive. Worse still, from the introduction of language censuses these notions of identity and community began to reproduce social life in the region.

New directions in theoretical and disciplinary constructs Decolonization demands theorization of linguistics in more complex ways to accommodate the insights from translingual practices. The translingual view of language departs from many of the assumptions of modernist linguistics, posing questions such as the following: how do we classify and label languages when there is such mixing? How do we describe languages without treating them as self-​contained systems? How do we define the system of a language without the autonomy, 10

Lessons for Decolonization from Pre-Colonial Translingualism

closure and tightness that would preclude openness to other languages? This perspective also challenges many dichotomies in modernist linguistics (Canagarajah, 2007; Firth & Wagner, 1997) that continue to need re-​examination: • Grammar versus pragmatics: is one more primary in communication, and are these in fact separable? Would pragmatic strategies enable one to communicate successfully irrespective of the level of grammatical proficiency? (House, 2003). • Determinism versus agency: are learners at the mercy of grammar and discourse forms for communication, or do they shape language to suit their purposes? (Canagarajah, 2006). • Individual versus community: are language learning and use orchestrated primarily by the individual even when they occur through interaction? Or do communication and acquisition take place in collaboration with others, through active negotiation, as an intersubjective practice? (Block, 2003). • Purity versus hybridity: are languages separated from each other, even at the most abstract level of grammatical form? And how do they associate with other symbol systems and modalities of communication? (Khubchandani, 1997; Makoni, 2002). • Fixity versus fluidity: what is the place of deviation, variation, and alteration in language, and can a system lack boundedness? Similarly, is acquisition linear, cumulative, unidirectional and monodimensional? (Kramsch, 2002; Larsen-​Freeman, 2002). • Cognition versus context: do we formulate and store language norms detached from the situations and environment in which they are embedded? Is learning more effective when it takes place separately from the contexts where multiple languages, communicative modalities and environmental influences are richly at play? (Atkinson, Churchill, Nishino & Okada, 2007; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). • Monolingual versus multilingual acquisition: how do we move beyond treating learning as taking place one language at a time, separately for each, in homogeneous environments (Cook, 1999)? How do we explain the acquisition of multiple languages simultaneously? It is now well recognized that the dominant constructs in linguistics were founded on monolingual norms and practices. We have also seen a realization among mainstream scholars that dichotomous constructs are misleading and distorting, especially for an understanding of translingual practices in non-​Western communities (see Dorian, 2004, for a discussion). McLaughlin (McLaughlin & Sall, 2001) recounts the belated recognition during her fieldwork in Senegal that a local collaborator whom she discounted as an informant of a language because he was associated with another language was in fact a proficient insider with authoritative knowledge. Her unitary assumption of ‘native speaker’ did not let her accept her informant as having native proficiency in more than one language. Similarly, Makoni (2002) has described how colonial practices of classifying and labelling languages distorted the hybrid reality of South African languages. In efforts to decolonize theorization of multilingualism we need to heed the call of Khubchandani (1997) for a spatial orientation. Such an approach would also rectify the lack of attention to the ecological factors of language. We have to understand how language is meshed with other symbolic systems and embedded in specific environments, both shaping and being shaped by these (Canagarajah, 2021), and acknowledge the importance of attitudinal, psychological and perceptual factors that mould the intersubjective processes of communication. Failure to do so is partly due to the primacy of cognition and reason in communication. There is also a resultant lack of appreciation of the complexity of human communication, marked by indeterminacy, multimodality and heterogeneity. Mainstream linguistics prioritizes the homogeneity of community, competence and 11

Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah

language structure, treating it as the basic requirement that facilitates communication. Even when diversity is addressed, it is treated as a variation deriving from a common form or shared norms. However, in the context of post-​modern globalization, as all communities become increasingly multilingual with the transnational flow of people, ideas and things, scholars are beginning to question the dominant constructs in the field. Even Western communities are beginning to acknowledge the diversity, hybridity and fluidity at the heart of language and identity. The struggle now is to find new metaphors and constructs that would capture translingual communication. How do we practise linguistics that treats human agency, diversity, indeterminacy and multimodality as the norm? As the constructs of modern linguistics are influenced by the modernist philosophical assumptions, some scholars are exploring alternate philosophical traditions to conceptualize the emerging realizations. Phenomenology (Kramsch, 2002), ecological models (Hornberger, 2003), chaos and complexity theory (Larsen-​Freeman, 2002, 2018) and Vygotskyan social cognitive theory (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) are some such attempts.

New research directions What we know currently about pre-​colonial forms of translingualism are derived from brief glimpses in archival records, incidental descriptions in literary works and theorization by informed scholars. We have to search for more in-​depth descriptions of translingual communicative practices. This is difficult because the knowledge of many colonized communities was suppressed or lacked the means for representation. However, without more evidence of translingual practices, discussions related to pre-​colonial multilingualism face the danger of being treated as figments of scholarly imagination. A way to gain more empirical evidence of translingual communicative practices is by observing and recording vestiges of pre-​colonial practices still found in many non-​Western and traditional communities. We need more ethnographic research in these contexts to bring out the language practices and attitudes of people towards these practices from insider perspectives. A particularly important area of study is translingual negotiation strategies. If speakers retain their own codes and depend on negotiation strategies to achieve intelligibility and meaning, we need a fuller description of the array of strategies used by multilinguals. This, again, requires more data-​driven studies so that the negotiation strategies can be interpreted and explained for the functions they perform in context. The negotiation of English in transnational contact situations has generated some useful data for the study of translingualism (Im, Park & Choe, 2019; Uzum, Yazan, Akayoglu & Mary, 2021), and studies of language contact not involving English are appearing (Canagarajah & Dovchin, 2019). As we gain more empirical data on these practices, we have to begin to compare how translingualism in different communities is similar or different. Although we generalize now to all communities because of a paucity of data, we should try to understand the community-​specific nature of translingual practices and consider the strengths and limitations of these diverse traditions. In the same vein, we have to develop a better articulation between theorizations of translingual communicative practices by different theorists. As noted earlier in this chapter, there has been a proliferation of terms that need more clarity.

Conclusion Translingual linguistic practices and the sociocultural values emanating from them existed long before countries such as India and Sri Lanka witnessed the forces of colonialism. Approaches that primarily interpret multilingual practices through modernist stances are inadequate mainly because of their limited foundational assumptions. An understanding of the pre-​colonial translingual ethos 12

Lessons for Decolonization from Pre-Colonial Translingualism

requires investigative approaches that treat language as an intersubjective social practice with a grammar that is emergent, hybrid and multimodal. Translingual practices in pre-​colonial societies have immense potential to inform decolonization of contemporary multilingual communities. If unplanned language policies of the pre-​colonial times bred social equality, intercultural contact, and language maintenance among different linguistic communities, what led to the failure of planned policies that resulted in civil wars, social unrest and, in certain cases, the death of languages? Perhaps a comprehensive understanding of the differences between translingual practices during pre-​colonial, colonial and post-​colonial times may help to explain and perhaps inform us of their potential strengths, weaknesses and applications.

Related topics Chapter 2 Looking at multilingualisms from the Global South; Chapter 3 (De)colonial multilingual/​ multimodal practices: resisting and re-​existing voices from Latin America; Chapter 6 Materialities and ontologies: thinking multilingualism through language materiality, post-​humanism and new materiality; Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing.

Note 1 We use the label ‘plurilingual’ when we refer to the work of authors or institutions (such as Council of Europe) who adopt this label. We refer to communities or nations as ‘multilingual’. We refer to practices as ‘translingual’and also treat that as the umbrella term for diverse recent theorizations of language diversity that go beyond labelled languages.

Further reading Canagarajah, S. 2021. Rethinking mobility and language: from the Global South. Modern Language Journal, 105(2): 570–​582. Kimball, E. 2021. Translingual Inheritance: Language Diversity in Early National Philadelphia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pollock, S. 2006. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Shulman, D. 2016. Tamil: A Biography. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

References Annamalai, E. 2001. Managing Multilingualism in India: Political and Linguistic Manifestations. New Delhi: Sage. Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T. & Okada, H. 2007. Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal. 91(2):169–​188. DOI:10.1111/​ j.1540-​4781.2007.00539.x. Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Balasubramaniam, A., Ratnamalar, K. & Subathini, R. (Eds.) 1999. Studies in Sri Lankan Tamil Linguistics and Culture: Selected Papers of Professor Suseendirarajah. Chennai: India Students’ Offset Services. Bhatia, T.K. & Ritchie, W. 2004. Bilingualism in South Asia. In The Handbook of Bilingualism. T.K. Bhatia & W.C Ritchie, Eds. Oxford: Blackwell. 780–​807. Block, D. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Blommaert, J. 2008. Grassroots Literacy: Writing, Identity and Voice in Central Africa. London: Routledge. Bright, W. 1984. American Indian Linguistics and Literature. The Hague: Mouton.

13

Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah Canagarajah, A.S. 2000. Negotiating ideologies through English: strategies from the Periphery. In Ideology, Politics, and Language Policies: Focus on English. T. Ricento, Ed. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 107–​120. Canagarajah, A.S. 2006. The place of world Englishes in composition: pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication. 57: 586–​619. Canagarajah, A.S. 2007. Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal. 91(s1): 923–​939. DOI:10.1111/​j.1540-​4781.2007.00678.x. Canagarajah, A.S. 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London & New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, A.S. 2015. Clarifying the relationship between translingual practice and L2 writing: addressing learner identities. Applied Linguistics Review. 6: 415–​440. DOI:10.1515/​applirev-​2015-​0020. Canagarajah, A.S. 2021. Rethinking mobility and language: from the Global South. Modern Language Journal. 105(2): 570–​582. DOI:10.1111/​modl.12726. Canagarajah, A.S. & Dovchin, S. 2019. The everyday politics of translingualism as a resistant practice. International Journal of Multilingualism. 16(2): 127–​144. DOI:10.1080/​14790718.2019.1575833. Canagarajah, A.S. & Liyanage, I. 2012. Lessons from pre-​colonial multilingualism. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. 49–​65. Chelliah, J. 1922. A Century of English Education. Vaddukoddai: Jaffna College. Cook, V. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 33(2): 185–​209. DOI:10.2307/​3587717. Council of Europe. 2000. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. De Silva, K.M. 1977. The religions of the minorities. In Sri Lanka: A Survey. K.M. De Silva, Ed. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 389–​402. de Souza, L.M. 2002. A case among cases, a world among worlds: the ecology of writing among the Kashinawa in Brazil. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education. 1(4): 261–​278. DOI:10.1207/​ S15327701JLIE0104_​2. Dorian, N. 2004. Minority and endangered languages. In The Handbook of Bilingualism. T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie, Eds. Oxford: Blackwell. 437–​459. Firth, A. & Wagner, J. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal. 81(3): 285–​300. DOI:10.1111/​j.1540-​4781.1997.tb05480.x. García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-​Blackwell. García, O. & Li, W. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. García, O. & Otheguy, R. 2019. Plurilingualism and translanguaging: commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 23(1): 17–​35. DOI:10.1080/​ 13670050.2019.1598932. Gunasekera, B. 1893. Glossary of Native and Foreign Words Occurring in Official Correspondence and Other Documents. Colombo: The Government Printer. Gunasekera, M. n.d. The Post-​Colonial Identity of Sri Lankan English. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Katha Publishers. Gutiérrez, K.D. 2008. Developing a sociocritical literacy in the Third Space. Reading Research Quarterly. 43(2): 148–​164. DOI:10.1598/​RRQ.43.2.3. Hornberger, N.H. Ed. 2003. Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: a threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics. 7(4): 556–​ 578. DOI:10.1111/​j.1467-​9841.2003.00242.x. Im, J.-​h., Park, G.Y. & Choe, H. 2019. Translingual negotiation strategies in CMC contexts: English-​medium communication in online marketplaces. Applied Linguistics Review. 10.1515/​applirev-​2019-​0034. DOI:10.1515/​applirev-​2019-​0034. Jorgensøn, J.N. 1998. Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism. 5(3): 161–​176. Khubchandani, L.M. 1983. Plural Languages, Plural Cultures: Communication, Identity, and Sociopolitical Change in Contemporary India. Honolulu: East-​West Center by University of Hawaii Press. Khubchandani, L.M. 1997. Revisualizing Boundaries: A Plurilingual Ethos. New Delhi: Sage. Khubchandani, L.M. 1998. Plurilingual ethos: a peep into the sociology of language. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 24(1): 5–​37.

14

Lessons for Decolonization from Pre-Colonial Translingualism Kramsch, C. 2002. Introduction: how can we tell the dancer from the dance? In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives. C. Kramsch, Ed. London: Continuum. 1–​30. Kubota, R. 2014. The multi/​plural turn, post-​colonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics. 37(4): 474–​494. DOI:10.1093/​applin/​amu045. Lantolf, J.P. & Thorne, S.F. 2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Sociogenesis of Second Language Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Larsen-​Freeman, D. 2002. Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/​complexity theory perspective. In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives. C. Kramsch, Ed. London: Continuum. 33–​46. Larsen-​Freeman, D. 2018. Second language acquisition, WE, and language as a complex adaptive system (CAS). World Englishes. 37(1): 80–​92. DOI:10.1111/​weng.12304. Makoni, S. 2002. From misinvention to disinvention: an approach to multilingualism. In Black Linguistics: Language, Society and Politics in Africa and the Americas. G. Smitherman, A. Spear & A. Ball, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 132–​153. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2006. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. S. Makoni & A. Pennycook, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 1–​41. DOI:10.21832/​9781853599255-​003. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2012. Disinventing multilingualism: from monological multilingualism to multilingua francas. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. London & New York: Routledge. 451–​465. May, S. 2001. Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language. London: Longman. McLaughlin, F. & Sall, T.S. 2001. The give and take of fieldwork: noun classes and other concerns in Fatick, Senegal. In Linguistic Fieldwork. P.A. Newman & M. Ratiff, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 189–​210. Mohan, K. 1992. Constructing religion and caste: manipulating identities. Social Science Research Journal. 1:1–​12. Mohanty, A. 2006. Multilingualism and predicaments of education in India: mother tongue or other tongue? In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Glocalization. T. García, T. Skutnabb-​ Kangas & S. Torres-​Guzmán, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 262–​283. Pattanayak, D.P. 1984. Language policies in multilingual states. In Panagani: Language Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation. A. Gonzalez, Ed. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Peiris, E. 1969. Literary activity in Sinhala and Tamil during the Portuguese and the Dutch times. In Education in Ceylon (from the Sixth Century B.C. to the Present day) –​a Centenary Volume. U.D.I. Sirisena, Ed. Colombo: Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs. 319–​336. Pennycook, A. 2016. Mobile times, mobile terms: the trans-​super-​poly-​metro movement. In Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. N. Coupland, Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 201–​206. Pennycook, A. & Otsuji, E. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the City. London: Routledge. Peter, W.L.A.D. 1969. The Portuguese and the study of the national languages. In Education in Ceylon (from the Sixth Century B.C. to the Present Day) –​a Centenary Volume. U.D.I. Sirisena, Ed. Colombo: Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs. 293–​302. Piccardo, E. 2019. “We are all (potential) plurilinguals”: Plurilingualism as an overarching, holistic concept. Cahiers de l’Ilob/​OLBI Journal. 10: 183–​204. DOI:10.18192/​olbiwp.v10i0.3825. Pollock, S. 2006. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Pratt, M.L. 1987. Linguistic utopias. In The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments Between Language and Literature. N. Fabb, D. Attridge, A. Durant & C. MacCabe, Eds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 48–​66. Rampton, B. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents. London: Longman. Rampton, B. 1997. Second language research in late modernity: a response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal. 81: 329–​333. DOI:10.2307/​329308 Rogers, J.D. 1994. Post-​orientalism and the interpretation of premodern and modern political identities: the case of Sri Lanka. The Journal of Asian Studies. 53(1): 10–​23. DOI:10.2307/​2059524. Rogers, J.D. 2004. Early British rule and social classification in Lanka. Modern Asian Studies. 38(03): 625–​ 647. DOI:doi:10.1017/​S0026749X03001136.

15

Indika Liyanage and Suresh Canagarajah Ruiz, R. 1984. Orientations to language planning. NABE Journal. 8(2): 15–​34. DOI:10.1080/​ 08855072.1984.10668464. Samaraweera, V. 1977. The evolution of a plural society. In Sri Lanka: A Survey. K.M. De Silva, Ed. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 86–​108. Singh, R. Ed. 1998. The Native Speaker: Multilingual Perspectives. New Delhi: Sage. Uzum, B., Yazan, B., Akayoglu, S. & Mary, L. 2021. Pre-​service teachers’ translingual negotiation strategies at work: telecollaboration between France, Turkey, and the USA. Language and Intercultural Communication. 1–​18. DOI:10.1080/​14708477.2021.1981360. Vallejo, C. & Dooly, M. 2020. Plurilingualism and translanguaging: emergent approaches and shared concerns. Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 23(1): 1–​16. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2019.1600469. Viswanathan, G. 1993. English in a literate society. In The Lie of the Land: English Literary Studies in India. R.S. Rajan, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 29–​41. Wijesekera, O.H.d.A. 1969. Language proficiency among scholars and literary activity in Pali and Sanskrit. In Education in Ceylon (from the Sixth Century B.C. to the Present Day) –​a Centenary Volume. U.D.I. Sirisena, Ed. Colombo: Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs. 185–​192. Young, V.A. 2004. Your average nigga. College Composition and Communication. 55(4): 693–​715. DOI:10.2307/​4140667.

16

2 LOOKING AT MULTILINGUALISMS FROM THE GLOBAL SOUTH Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook

Introduction Across the fields of socio-​and applied linguistics there is general agreement that multilingualism is and always has been the global norm. While this was news in the Global North 30 years ago, and an important corrective to narrow understandings of language that assumed monolingualism as the norm, it has now become a sociolinguistic truism. Multilingualism, viewed from this perspective, is an indomitably good thing (and not, as it was sometimes assumed before, a problem or an aberration), and the task of linguists, sociolinguists, applied linguists and educational linguists is to enhance the understanding and practices of multilingualism. To view multilingualism from the Global South, however, involves more than just moving beyond monolingual assumptions. One of the important challenges that Southern Theory throws up for socio-​ and applied linguistics is the realization that linguistics has deep roots in coloniality (Rajagopolan, 2020). More broadly we need to understand how disciplinary knowledge –​Western academic knowledge and disciplines such as anthropology, linguistics, economics, political science and history (Bhambra & Holmwood, 2021) –​developed during and as part of the colonial process. The current challenge to decolonize these disciplines, co-​occurring with calls to decolonize universities across the globe, are provoking major battles over whose knowledge should count (Bhambra et al., 2018). The development of an understanding of language and of speakers of languages has therefore to be understood in the context of the systematic denigration of alternative forms of knowledge. The calls for decolonization of different disciplines should be seen as part of the development of knowledges of the south and the search for emancipatory possibilities (de Sousa Santos, 2007). A first step is to look at far more contexts of Southern multilingualism, for more southern scholars to look at more southern languages. This widening of the research agenda is not enough, however, without a more extensive reworking of the frameworks through which languages are viewed. If we start with the emerging sociolinguistic truism that languages are social inventions –​ “languages are not natural objects” (Love & Ansaldo, 2010: 592) –​it is evident that what languages are and how they are used together must be embedded in local social and cultural frameworks of reference. Recent scholarship that insists that multilingualism has to be seen as more than the sum of its parts often overlooks the point that such ideas have long circulated in the Global South, and fails to grasp the need to focus on multilingualism not as a collective phenomenon but as an idea DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-3

17

Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook

in need of pluralization (multilingualisms) (Heugh & Stroud, 2021). The immediate relevance of sociolinguistic concepts such as multilingualism thus becomes suspect in diverse contexts (Love, 2009). Multilingualism from such a perspective is not therefore a universal category; indeed, the very idea that multilingualism could refer to the same thing in diverse contexts of communication is revealed as an absurdity. The concept of the Global South is not itself straightforward. It should not be conflated with the geographical south (land sound of the equator) though there are major overlaps that involve colonial, economic and political histories (much of the geographical south has been impoverished and marginalized by the geographical north). The Global South excludes regions of relative wealth in the geographical south –​ much of Australia and New Zealand, for ­example –​ and includes Indigenous and disenfranchised regions and people of the geographical north. It is a geopolitical idea rather than a geographical region. The concept of the Global South also emphasizes forms of knowledge, ways of thinking and being that have been spurned by narratives and institutions of the Global North. All knowledges are socio-​historically situated and local, and have to be understood in relation to capitalism, patriarchy and colonization (de Sousa Santos, 2018; Menezes de Souza, 2022). Southern perspectives are concerned with the reengagement with languages, cultures, ways of being and thinking that have long been subjugated. Various doubts have been expressed about the usefulness and the vagueness of the term. For Mignolo (2011) both the East/​West dichotomy (based on a Christian-​colonial division of the world) and the North/​South dichotomy (based on northern analyses of global inequality) are frameworks we need to step beyond. Milani (2017: 174) similarly sees “the very act of using this spatial, sociocultural, political, and historical position” as creating a problematic binary between North and South, suggesting necessary conditions in the one and not the other, and excluding certain forms of analysis. Although the North–​South distinction draws attention to some key concerns, it can also be a clumsy dichotomy that might be better reconceptualized by ideas such as marginalization (Milani, 2017) or decoloniality (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). The Global South has also been conceptualized in terms of Global Blackness (Gordon, 2022), treating blackness as a continuous category which includes both people of African descent –​ Afro-​Brazilian, Afro-​Argentinians, African Americans –​ and other minorities who identity with people of African descent in their political struggles (Indigenous Australians, for example). The notion of Global Blackness treats Blacks who are part of the Global South as situated in neo-​ rather than post-​slavery conditions, treated as expendable commodities (Gordon, 2021). It is also important to understand the Global South as always plural. It is not a term intended to address commonalities so much as a commonality of struggle. Decoloniality may similarly have radically different meanings depending upon the geopolitical context, from North American concerns with social justice and emancipation from contemporary enslavement to South African efforts to contain and reverse the continuing legacies of economic apartheid, or from an Eastern European focus on state socialism to other European concerns with whiteness. Acknowledging these concerns and alternatives, we nonetheless find the notion of a Southern perspective as articulated by de Sousa Santos (2018) and others useful as a way of addressing not only global inequalities but also the failure to recognize the contribution of the Global South to the development of the Global North, and how the South may bring insights into problems in the Global North (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012). This chapter focuses on Southern multilingualisms. We argue that ontologically the pluralization and enumerability of languages may not be a useful way of capturing diversity. Enumerability is a Global North ideology and a defining feature of modernity, where numbers are a category used by the State apparatus (counting languages and speakers is a strategy of management by the State), 18

Looking at Multilingualisms from the Global South

framed as objective and not expected to differ cross-​culturally. From an ontological perspective, however, certain domains of experience –​ language, people, water –​ may be categorized differently with respect to their countability (Muehlmann, 2012). The straightjacket of monolingual thought is not therefore so easily discarded. Monolingual mindsets go far deeper than favouring monolingualism over multilingualism or viewing multilingualism in monolingual terms (both concepts emerge from the same intellectual context): The issue at stake is a set of deep-​seated language ideologies that are in need of a much more profound decolonizing. We need instead models that question the very foundations that underpin such linguistic simplifications, research that looks at different ways of understanding language, that takes on board Southern insights about language chains, communicative repertoires, and the need to pluralize not so much languages as the notion of language itself. It is time for more sophisticated models that capture as far as possible the full panoply of contexts in the Global South, from urban to rural, formally educated to informally educated and contemporary to historical.

Language inventions Many students in the early years of schooling in different parts of the world (though particularly in the Global South) attend school without knowing they are ‘multilingual’. Being multilingual is something they discover at school through a radical process that alters their self-​perception and identity when pedagogy forces them to discover languages as separate entities. Pedagogy often entails teaching a specific view and understanding of language. In such cases pedagogy creates objects: language reinforced by the presence of ‘subjects’ like English, Shona, or Yoruba on the timetable alongside mathematics, biology, health, and science. The Northern understanding of multilingualism as ‘multiple monolingualisms’ insists on ideas such as a mother tongue or a medium of instruction so that “African languages, which have existed side by side for significant periods of time, complementing each other in multilingual symbiosis, are suddenly cast as competing for spaces” (Banda, 2009: 2). We have written at length elsewhere (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007; 2012) about languages as inventions and the need to engage in a project of disinvention as part of any critical language project. Our point is that part of any project to rethink multilingualism from the South cannot simply start afresh from a blank slate but must rather engage with the dominant modes of thought and investigate how they came about and why they are flawed. If a goal of decolonial thinking and doing is to “delink from the epistemic assumptions” (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018: 106) that have come to define languages and their use, then we need to understand those modes of thought and how and why they developed. We cannot engage with a Southern project without establishing what it is we are trying to supersede, and we cannot proceed with a Southern project without acknowledging the deep connections across ways of thinking. As Mufwene (2020: 290) comments, the idea of decolonial linguistics “entails reducing the Western bias and hegemony in how languages of the global South and the (socio) linguistic behaviours of their speakers and writers are analysed,” though what such a project entails will differ across different decolonial projects. At the same time, spending too long engaged in a project to unravel Northern concepts of language runs the danger of engaging, yet again, with internal Northern dialogues. So let us deal with the issues fairly quickly. A number of theoretical positions coalesce around a critique of languages as discrete, unified natural systems. Prominent among these has been the Integrational linguistic position that the idea of languages is a “myth” (Harris, 1981). As Harris (1990: 45) remarks, “linguistics does not need to postulate the existence of languages as part of its theoretical apparatus.” Once we make communication central to our thinking, languages may be a “variable extra” (Harris, 2009: 44). First-​order activities refer to real communicative activity, including “a whole 19

Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook

range of bodily resources that are assembled and coordinated in languaging events together with external (extrabodily) aspects of situations, environmental affordances, artifacts, technologies, and so on” (Thibault, 2011: 7). It is the process of rendering “first-​order activities as users of language amenable to contemplation and inquiry conducted by means of language itself” that leads to the abstraction of languages as second-​order “objects” and “decontextualized reifications we recognize as linguistic units” (Love, 2009: 44). The notion of a language “is a recent culture-​specific notion associated with the rise of European nation-​states and the Enlightenment. The notion of ‘a language’ makes little sense in most traditional societies” (Mühlhäusler, 2000: 358). Before anthropologists and linguists visited Indigenous communities in South Australia, “people engaged in fluid speech practices and arguably did not have, or indeed need, the concept of a formalized language”. Language in this sense is “part of an imposed Western analytical framework that is underpinned by scriptist notions of the primacy of the written word over speech” (Monaghan, 2012: 52). Silverstein (2014) makes a similar point, suggesting that the idea of language as a bounded system discrete from other such bounded systems was never evident among the Worora people in northwestern Australia. The centrality of Eurocentric monoglot concepts of language, mother tongues or native speakers suggests that “what has passed for a science of language (including multilingualism) over the past 150 years” has been little more than an exercise in cultural and ideological projection (Love, 2009: 31, emphasis ours). Colonial authorities and missionaries “shared a territorial logic that was similarly inscribed in colonial linguistic work, presupposing mappings of monolithic languages onto demarcated boundaries” (Errington, 2001: 24). Ethnolinguistically homogeneous groups were then naturalized within these boundaries as ‘tribes’ or ‘ethnicities’. Linguists “can be regarded as a small, rather special group of colonial agents who adapted European letters to alien ways of talking and, by that means, devised necessary conduits for communication across lines of colonial power” (Errington, 2008: 4). As a result, the description of languages was intimately linked to the wider colonial emphasis on human hierarchies (Rajagopalan, 2020), so that “the intellectual work of writing speech was never entirely distinct from the ‘ideological’ work of devising images of people in zones of colonial contact” (Errington, 2008: 5). The process of invention happens at multiple levels in multiple contexts. The notion of languages as entities linked to nations, ethnicities, people and territories is first of all transported into unfamiliar places. The local linguistic ‘chaos’ is then sorted out to fit languages into categorizations of people, and, where extra work is needed, languages are specifically created and renamed to fit preferred linguistic conditions. Mannheim (1991) points out that prior to the Spanish invasion, the Quechua in South America did not need a construct of language –​indeed like many other communities they did not have specific names to refer to what they spoke –​and thus Quechua emerged as a product of colonial conquest. Once this sorting out has been achieved, this invented world of languages and ethnicities is reported as if it were an objective reality that has always been in place. Many languages, such as Igbo or Yoruba in the 19th century, had different meanings prior to colonial encounters (Irvine, 2009) and what was understood by many people as their language was simply their description for how they spoke (Crowley, 1999). Language descriptions cannot be abstracted from the colonial imperatives to control, subdue, and order. The description of languages, therefore, has to be seen not so much as a scientific division of a language spectrum along natural lines but rather a colonial project in the defining and dividing of colonized people. As Irvine & Gal (2000: 47) describe the process of ‘linguistic description’ of Senegalese languages by 19th-​century European linguists, “The ways these

20

Looking at Multilingualisms from the Global South

languages were identified, delimited, and mapped, the ways their relationships were interpreted, and even the ways they were described in grammars and dictionaries were all heavily influenced by an ideology of racial and national essences.” It was through the introduction via European colonialism in Indonesia of “the idea of ‘language’ ” that “the old word bahasa came to articulate this newly-​acquired concept. The adoption of a pre-​existing word in East Asia to articulate a new concept from modern Western Europe helped make the concept appear universal” (Heryanto, 2007: 43). Since language was taken to be a universal human property –​other species or entities such as trees or land were denied the capacity to communicate among themselves through trans-​species pigins (Kohn, 2013) –​ it was also assumed that the word ‘language’, or the local words, such as bahasa, that came to be used as translations of this concept, likewise referred to a shared linguistic property tied to nation and culture in similar ways. In Malay and Javanese, the two most widely spoken and influential languages in Indonesia, “there was no word for ‘language’. More importantly, there was neither a way nor a need to express its idea until the latter part of the 19th century” (Heryanto, 2007: 43). This newly introduced concept of language replaced vernacular views of language and how it worked, introducing people to a newly nationalized and racialized word/​world order. The process of invention transforms dialogical and “heteroglossic” material into “monological texts” (Blommaert, 2008). The invented linguistic artifacts were textualized in a wide range of genres: grammatical outlines, grammatical sketches, word lists, orthographies, and so on (Blommaert, 2008; Makoni, 1998). In this codification process, the serious complexities of different sociolinguistic contexts were reduced through the technical apparatus of monological sociolinguistics into “equally serious simplicities” (Dasgupta, 1997: 21). Shona in Zimbabwe, for example, was created on the basis of a two-​stage process: first, a codification of dialects associated with different missionary stations, and second, the unification of dialects by colonial linguists (Makoni et al., 2007). The process of standardization –​ sometimes erroneously assumed to be a process of just choosing between extant varieties –​ has always been one arm of the invention project. African languages were ‘standardized’ by outsiders without direct involvement of the local population, except as informants based on a series of texts, folklore, narratives, and so on (Blommaert, 2008), with the objective of producing ‘bilingual’ speakers of European and African languages (Fabian, 1986). In this light, it is not just European languages that are colonial artefacts while African languages remain Indigenous tools of authentic expression. Standardized African languages that were constructed on the basis of linguistic templates whose origins were in European languages, and whose purpose was African-​European bilingualism, are also colonial artefacts. Uncritical advocacy of standardized African languages in the name of ‘mother tongue education’ may thus serve as a retrospective legitimation of the colonization of these languages. Beck (2018) draws attention to the contemporary effects of such inventions, particularly in the case of ongoing controversy among the different stakeholders with respect to Afrikaans at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, and the status of Kiswahili as the language of internal communication at a Tanzanian university. “The emergence of invented languages,” she points out (Beck, 2018: 231), is “a result of an existential onto-​epistemological dislocation stabilized through the hegemonic project of colonialism.” Within Europe, Canut (2011) shows how the current ethnicization of the Roma results from a historical process based on the reinvention of a ‘Roma’ people and the Romani language. Such examples direct our attention not only to the colonial invention of languages, but also to the ongoing process of descriptive othering.

21

Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook

Multilanguaging, multilingua francas and remixing multilingualism It is now much less controversial to suggest that languages are inventions (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007) or at least, in a milder version of this idea, that languages are social constructs. The implications of this insight, however, that “not all people have ‘a language/​languages’ in the sense in which the term is currently used in English” (Heryanto, 1990: 41), this construction of “language itself as an all or nothing affair” (Rajagopolan, 2007: 194), remain less widely appreciated. Sabino (2018: 109) argues that the “languages ideology” that has congealed over many centuries promotes an unwarranted belief in uniform “grammatical systems”, the “normalcy of monolingualism” grammaticality judgements, a congruent model of linguistic and ethnic/​racial identity, lists and enumerations of languages, and a host of questionable constructs including bilingualism, code-​switching, first languages, language death, fossilization, interlanguage, revitalization, native and nonnative speakers, World Englishes, and so on. Languages themselves are excellent examples of 19th-​century social and scholarly invention in Europe and colonial contexts (Errington, 2008; Rajagopalan, 2020). When it is clear, however, that people –​particularly Indigenous and marginalized populations fighting battles for land, food, health, jobs, autonomy and less incarceration –​often organize political resistance around cultural and linguistic identities, what use is it to claim that languages are inventions? To say they are inventions is to point both to the specific processes by which particular languages have been created out of the range of speech styles and resources available across communities, and to the general processes by which the notion of separate languages has been produced in the conjunction between political and academic work on languages. This does not mean they do not exist: Like many aspects of social life that are socially constructed –​gender and race are two clear examples (Haslanger, 2012) –​ they exist in social life and have major implications particularly in forms of discriminatory practices based around the distinctions these ideas create. The point, as García et al. (2021: 7) make clear, is that languages do not exist outside the sociopolitical forces that produce and maintain them, but the “the abyssal thinking” (de Sousa Santos, 2018) that divides languages up along bounded lines “co-​articulates with raciolinguistic ideologies that perpetually stigmatize the language practices of racialized bilingual students”. The disinvention argument, therefore, is by no means aimed at destabilizing liberatory projects based around languages but rather at creating opportunities for struggles over knowledge about language to produce new ways of thinking (de Sousa Santos, 2018). Treating languages as socially and historically constructed provides space and latitude for social and political change and takes cognizance of individuals’ social and adaptive strategies, as well as their resistance to some constructed languages. If Indigenous languages are socially constructed through a complex interplay of philosophy and politics, they are akin to other constructs such as customary law, which is a form of codified traditional law rather than any naturally occurring tradition. This does not mean that a struggle for language rights is no longer possible; rather it depends on what one is trying to do, when and for whom. As long as “colonial definitions, categories, and methods are imposed onto Indigenous language work” (Leonard, 2017: 32), language projects will continue to be unsuccessful –​in terms of not providing either expected linguistic or broader social, cultural and economic outcomes –​and to be viewed with suspicion by local communities. In order to develop more successful language reclamation projects, Leonard (2017: 32) argues, we need to decolonize language. Where, then, do we turn in the search for alternative ways of thinking about language? While plural monolingualism is consistent with a model that renders it possible to choose between languages, alternative ways of conceptualizing multilingualism –​as a lingua franca (Fardon & 22

Looking at Multilingualisms from the Global South

Furniss, 1984), or what we have elsewhere (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012) called a multilingua franca, or Makalela (2018a; Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021) calls multilanguaging –​ view language by contrast as a multilayered chain that is constantly combined and recombined, and in which ‘secondary’ language learning takes place more or less simultaneously with language use. In many Southern contexts, Global North concepts of languages, mother tongues or multilingualism, simply do not reflect the ways languages are used and understood. Makalela (2018c; Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021) also talks of “ubuntu translanguaging” to refer to “African worldviews of interdependence and general use of languages without boundaries” (2018c: 262). Ubuntu translanguaging does more than just combine a Northern-​derived concept (translanguaging) with a philosophy of the South: It also challenges understandings of languages and speakers, grounds these concerns in southern African educational contexts and resists the atomistic individualism that underlies some approaches to translanguaging. By insisting that neither people nor languages can be complete without each other, the concept of ubuntu enters into a South–​South dialogue with other philosophical traditions. Ubuntu is “an ethical as well as a politico-​ideological concept” and “always entails a social bond” that is always being reshaped by the ethical demands it places on participants. In this sense it cannot be reduced to Northern categories of ontology, epistemology or morality but rather points to the ways humans are intertwined as ethical and knowing beings with social, ethical and political obligations (Cornell & van Marie, 2015: 3). It can be usefully contrasted with the Senegalese (Wolof) idea of nite (Diagne, 2021; Diagne & Amselle, 2020), suggesting that humanity is something achieved through togetherness and reciprocity. Bringing these ideas into dialogue with each other –​ or as we have suggested elsewhere (Pennycook & Makoni, 2020) African philosophical ideas such as ubuntu with Central American concepts such as nepantla (inbetweenness) –​can provide renewed ways of thinking about language, which can no longer be considered in separate, atomistic terms but rather as always mutable, relational and reciprocal. Fresh challenges also derive from new urbilingualisms (Mazrui, 2017) that draw on and use a wide range of local and non-​local languages and create new and fragmented semiotic systems; they are constantly in flux; they are predominantly oral; they are street languages, and as such are often linked to popular culture and urban unrest. To speak these languages, it is necessary to draw on multilingual resources, and yet these urban languages are also multilanguages in themselves, diverse, shifting, constantly evolving, and unpredictable in their usage. The grassroots multilingualism that we are trying to bring to the fore is evident in forms of popular culture, which creates opportunities to advance an analysis of transmodal multilanguaging that links music, language, painting and public transport (Makoni & Makoni, 2010). As Williams (2017) shows in his work on hip hop in South Africa, the styles and performances of hip hop bring about a remixing of multilingualism: not only do hip hop artists draw on a variety of language varieties in their performances (Kaaps, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Sabela, SeSotho, Tsotsitaal, and various types of English from both South African and African American sources) but they also create new ways of doing multilingualism, requiring in turn new ways of thinking about multilingualism. Study of hip hop performances requires a broader understanding of “complex semiotic webs within and across which speakers move, comprising not just languages as we know them, but bits of language such as registers, accents, words, and assemblages of form-​meaning elements, such as rap rhythms and embodied performances” (Williams, 2017: 4). There is a danger, nonetheless, of treating youth or urban language use as special cases, an approach that can misleadingly suggest that multilingual juggling, semantic manipulations, and phonological processes such as truncation or abbreviation are unique to youth languages. Like creole exceptionalism (de Graffe, 2019) there can be a tendency here to exoticize such 23

Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook

variations at the expense of non-​urban contexts (May, 2019), other age groups or small-​scale multingualisms. The nature of multilingualism in rural areas is facilitated by a wide array of factors which include exogamy, child fostering, and economic interdependence (Lüpke & Storch, 2013: 347). Such communities, according to Lüpke (2016) are found across the globe, including West Africa, Amazonia, northern Australia, and Melanesia. The communicative practices in such small-​scale multilingualisms have been described using a number of terms, including egalitarian multilingualism (François, 2012: 93), balanced multilingualism (Aikenhavald, 2002) and traditional multilingualism (Di Carlo, 2016). Indeed as Evans (2018) argues, the most plausible way of understanding language evolution is not so much via isolated monolingual communities coming into contact but rather through an understanding of small-​scale multilingualisms as the starting point. Multilingualism did not come about when language communities met; it was always the way people used language. The image of superdiversity when different languages combine in cities in the Global North misses the point that languages have always grown up together. A Global South framework therefore needs to ensure it looks not only at rapid remixing in hip hop performance but also at differently paced and differently realized forms of linguistic creation in many other contexts. The changing realities of urban (and rural) life, with enhanced mobility, shifting populations, social upheaval, health and climate crises, and increased access to diverse media and forms of popular culture, as well as the political imperative to redress Northern hegemony, suggest we need to rethink, and therefore possibly rename, the ways in which language has been conceptualized. Such a project therefore has to develop local metalanguages: If current dominant metadiscursive regimes are a product of Western/​Northern philosophy intensified by colonial and post-​colonial scholarship, they will not be able to bear the weight of renewed Southern multilingualisms. Simply translating metalanguages from English into local languages does not resolve the underlying problem of assumptions about the nature of language.

Many multilingualisms The focus of a renewed sociolinguistics of Southern multilingualisms is therefore on multilingualism as part of wider social and cultural practices, making the social grounding of human interaction central, as opposed to language-​centred multilingualism, which assumes a multiplicity of language systems as central to the analysis. From the perspective of linguistic anthropology, with a particular interest in the notion of language ideological assemblages (Kroskrity, 2021), the question becomes one of asking how it is that languages are understood locally in schools, in communities, in workplaces, in families and in diverse social interactions. We are obliged to take account of whether people believe they speak languages, what they believe about those languages, and analyze the beliefs about language which they hold passionately even if those languages have been invented. Looked at from an ethnographic point of view, the Americas are not only a region of great linguistic diversity in terms of what are usually known as ‘languages’ but also in terms of different genres, styles, chants, songs, dreams, wailing, and narrative conventions within and across communities. These diverse phenomena, Hauck & Heurich (2018: 5) argue, “should not be understood as easily commensurable instances of a general phenomenon ‘language’ ” since they “all may have different linguistic natures.” As Course (2018: 5) suggests, the idea of ‘language’ possibly “obscures a fundamental diversity of ultimately irreconcilable practices.” From this point of view, the question is not only whether Mapudungun (spoken by the Mapuche in South-​central Chile) and Spanish “are two different kinds of the same thing” (two different languages from within the wider 24

Looking at Multilingualisms from the Global South

pool of language) but also whether they are “fundamentally different kinds of things” (made up of different elements, used differently, understood in different ways). This is not just a question of pluralizing linguistic epistemologies but of thinking in terms of mutlitple language ontologies and of diverse multilingualisms. If we accept, with necessary warnings and precautions (Cusicanqui, 2012; Todd, 2016), aspects of the ontological challenge to language, we are confronted by the possibility that language may have multiple natures, that questioning the pluralizability of languages themselves as named and enumerable entities may go hand in hand with a need to entertain the pluralizability of the idea of language itself. The notion of southern multilingualisms, therefore, recognizes not only that there are many different kinds of multilingualism, many different ways in which language resources may be interwoven –​ and that it is therefore possible, for example, to talk of “Indigenous multilingualisms” (Vaughan & Singer, 2018: 84) –​ but also that there may be multiple language ontologies, that southern multilingualisms refers not just to multilingualism in different places but to different kinds of multilingualism. To engage with Southern multilingualisms, therefore, collaborative work must be able to encompass deep forms of difference. We need to develop what Ndhlovu (2021: 199), following Nyamnjoh (2015), calls convivial research, devoted to “finding connections, points of confluence, and opportunities for transfer of concepts, among members of academic communities, and between them and the nonacademic communities they serve.” Socio-​and applied linguistic research needs to be understood as “an act of decolonisation,” (Stebbins, Eira & Couzens, 2018: 237). The research process has to be seen in decolonial terms, involving different ways of understanding language and its relation to community and place, different relations between linguists and community members, different knowledge status between academic and community ways of knowing, different ways of writing and exploring voice. This entails a “much broader view of what is involved in linguistic analysis. It requires a deep listening at discipline level, to hear what other ideologies are important and relevant to our understanding” (Couzens & Eira, 2014: 332). At stake is a set of deep-​seated language ideological assemblages (Kroskrity, 2021). The point is to seek meeting points between different ways of knowing, between different accounts of language and its relation to family, culture and land. When the common trope is invoked that a language is “sleeping” rather than “dead” (Perley, 2012) –​ “My tribal heritage language, myaamia, was sleeping for a long time” (Leonard, 2017: 17) –​it is important to consider the different ways of thinking that this invokes, the implications for language in relation to landscape and people and use. As Monaghan (2012: 53) puts it, language and stories are understood as still being “in the land, having been placed there by the ancestors” and to reclaim such sleeping languages may be as much a spiritual process as one involving documentation. In order to change the ways we think about this, and in order to enable language projects that meet community interests to succeed, we need to “decolonize ‘language’ ” (Leonard, 2017: 32). If a speaker of Maringa (Arnhem Land, northern Australia) characterizes the way they speak (and its difference from other ways) as “saltwater words” (Vaughan, 2018: 127), this has to be taken seriously in relation to language and seascape epistemologies (Ingersoll, 2016). Researching southern multilingualisms is a decolonial project as much as it is a sociolinguistic one.

Conclusion We have sought to shed light in this chapter on the concern that the monolingual/​ multilingual dichotomy “misdirects and misrepresents the notion of language diversity” (Ndhlovu, 2018: 118). There is a need for research that focuses on the ways in which languages are 25

Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook

locally used and understood, as well as the effects of particular metadiscursive regimes on the working of local languages. The assumption that monolingualism and multilingualism are two important pillars which might be used to frame sociolinguistic analysis, or that studies of multilingualism are attempting to move beyond the blinkered monolingualism that has constricted a lot of thought about language use, takes us a certain way but then stops short. For many people across the world the critical issue is not whether one is monolingual or multilingual but that one uses language. Both monolingualism and multilingualism are inventions (Gramling, 2016; 2021). This doesn’t mean they are not forces to be reckoned with –​ subject to powerful discourses about assimilation, diversity, education, and so forth –​ but it points to their status not only as human creations, but as the creations of a very particular set of humans. This is why the ultimate move here may not be from monolingualism to multilingualism so much as towards ideas such as multilanguaging or multilingua francas, where people simply use language, drawing on whatever resources are available. Those people who we now see as deeply multilingual in the Global South rarely see themselves in the same way and may not acknowledge this label of multilingualism. If we can do away with our language enumerations that sit so often at the heart of multilingualism, a great deal of productive research could start to open up the real complexities of grassroots multilingualism. The problem more broadly is that any approach that considers only a predominate community language misses the point of Southern multilingualisms. There is a major gap in thinking about educational multilingualism, especially in Southern contexts, “a singular failure to engage with the nature of multilingualism in these areas and how multilingualism can be harnessed as a resource, say, in a sector like education” (Mwaniki, 2018: 36). The problem with “language-​specific approaches,” Nakata (2007: 175–​6) points out, is that whether they focus on bilingual education, English as a second language, or local languages, they assume “that all students have a common language”. The situation is always more complex, with multiple languages and multiple relations to oral and written modes operating across communities. Oral and literate worlds are not separate but “entwined, inter-​textual and continue to evolve as traditions and artefacts of our engagements with each other” (Nakata, 2007: 176). Advocates of bilingual education, Nakata suggests, fail to understand the complex communicative lifeworlds of the Global South. Part of any project to decolonize applied linguistics and language education, therefore, needs to step away from simple assumptions that replacing a former colonial language with an Indigenous one is in itself an emancipatory move. This view still operates from a Northern framework that fails to understand the differences that the South brings to the fore. As Makalela (2018b: 119) notes, the “orthodox language-​teaching profession has always regarded literacy from a monolingual perspective and has prohibited multilingual writers from drawing on their antecedent genres for the development of multilingual literacies”. The unilingual/​bilingual state projects in much of the Global South are “pursued, entrenched and safeguarded by politico-​administrative elites in government and a compliant and non-​reflexive intelligentsia” that have become little more than “purveyors of Northern epistemologies, most of which have little applicability in the complexly multilingual contexts of the developing world” (Mwaniki, 2018: 30). This process then becomes naturalized so that, for example, the sociolinguistic truism that multilingualism is the natural and common condition for the majority world obscures the implicit language categorizations that lurk behind such apparently descriptive categorization. What is often overlooked is that multilingualism as commonly understood is a way of thinking, a world view, an intellectual orientation that forces us to look backwards under the

26

Looking at Multilingualisms from the Global South

burden of a metalanguage which was never designed to account for diverse and contemporary language use. Sociolinguists and applied linguists have reveled in their multilingual turn (May, 2014), their discovery that multilingualism is the normal state of humanity, their denunciations of monolingual mindsets among both colleagues and a broad range of policymakers and the wider public, without pausing to examine the ideological underpinnings of the version of multilingualism that they are proposing for the world. The next step, therefore, is to move towards an understanding of the relationships among language resources as used by certain communities (the linguistic resources users draw on), local language practices (the use of these language resources in specific contexts), and language users’ relationship to language varieties (the social, economic, and cultural positioning of the speakers). From this point of view, therefore, we can start to move away from both mono-​and multilingual orientations to language and take on board insights from outside the mainstream of language studies. The liberal linguistic consensus that sees “so-​called ‘heritage’, ‘ethnic’, ‘minority’ and ‘migrant’ languages” threatened by the monolingual mindset and dominant languages misses the point that it is the way language is being understood here that is the problem (Ndhlovu, 2018: 123). The challenge is for Southern socio-​and applied linguistics to break free from assumptions about separate languages, endangered languages and language rights, and instead move toward a more complex and appropriate understanding of language in the Global South, which may also liberate the Global North from its narrow and inadequate notions of language.

Related topics Chapter 1 Lessons for decolonization from pre-​colonial translingualism; Chapter 3 (De)colonial multilingual/​multimodal practices: resisting and re-​existing voices from Latin America; Chapter 6 Materialities and ontologies: thinking multilingualism through language materiality, post-​humanism and new materiality; Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing.

Further reading Comaroff, J. & Comaroff, J.L. 2012. Theory from the South or, How Euro-​America is Evolving Toward Africa. London & New York: Routledge de Sousa Santos, B. & Meneses, M.P. Eds. 2020. Knowledges Born in the Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South. London & New York: Routledge. Makoni, S., Kaiper-​Marquez, A & Mokwena, L. Eds. 2022. The Routledge Handbook of Language and the Global South/​s. London & New York: Routledge Ndhlovu, F. & Makalela, L. 2021. Decolonising Multilingualism in Africa: Recentering Silenced Voices from the Global South. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. and Makoni, S. 2020. Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from the Global South. London & New York: Routledge.

References Aikenhavald, A. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Banda, F. 2009. Critical perspectives on language planning and policy in Africa: accounting for the notion of multilingualism. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics. 38(1):1–​11. Beck, R. 2018. Language as apparatus: entanglements of language, culture and territory and the invention of nation and ethnicity. Post-​colonial Studies. 21(2):231–​253. Bhambra, G. & Holmwood, J. 2021. Colonialism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bhambra, G., Gebrial, D. & Nisacioglu, K. Eds. 2018. Decolonising the University. London: Pluto Press.

27

Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook Blommaert, J. 2008. Artefactual ideologies of textual production of African languages. Language and Communication. 28(4):291–​307. Canut, C. 2011. La langue romani: une fiction historique. Langage et Société. 136(2):55–​80. Comaroff, J. & Comaroff, J. 2012. Theory from the South, or How Euro-​America is Evolving Toward Africa. London & New York: Routledge. Cornell, D. & Van Marle, K. 2015. Ubuntu feminism: tentative reflections. Verbum et Ecclesia 36(2):1–​8. https://​doi.org/​10.4102/​ve.v36i2.1444. Course, M. 2018. Words beyond meaning in Mapuche language ideology. Language & Communication. 63:9–​14. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lang​com.2018.03.007. Couzens, V. & Eira, C. 2014. Meeting point: parameters for the study of revival languages. In Endangered Languages: Beliefs and Ideologies in Language Documentation and Revitalization. P. Austin & J. Sallabank, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 313–​333. Crowley, T. 1999. Linguistic diversity in the Pacific. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 3(1): 81–​103. Cusicanqui, S.R. 2012. Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: a reflection on the practices and discourses of decolonization. The South Atlantic Quarterly. 111(1):95–​109. Dasgupta, P. 1997. Foreword. In Revisioning Boundaries: A Plurilingual Ethos. Khubchandani, L. Ed. New Delhi: Sage. 11–​29. de Graffe, M. 2019. Foreword: against apartheid in education and linguistics –​the case of Haitian Creole in neo-​colonial Haiti. In Decolonizing Foreign Language Education: The Misteaching of English and Other Imperial Languages. D. Macedo, Ed. London: Routledge. x–​xxxii. de Sousa Santos, B. 2007. Beyond abyssal thinking: from global lines to ecologies of knowledge. Review. 30(1):45–​89. de Sousa Santos, B. 2018. The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Diagne, S.B. 2021. Le Fagot de ma Mémoire. Paris: Philippe Rey. Diagne, S.B. & Amselle, J.L. 2020. In Search of Africa(s): Universalism and Decolonial Thought. Cambridge: Polity Press. Di Carlo, P. 2016. Multilingualism, affiliation and spiritual insecurity: from phenomena to process in language documentation. Special Language Documentation and Conservation. 10:71–​104. Errington, J. 2001. Colonial linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology. 30:19–​39. Errington, J. 2008. Linguistics in a Colonial World: A Story of Language, Meaning and Power. Oxford: Blackwell. Evans, N. 2018. Did language evolve in multilingual settings? Biology and Philosophy. 32:905–​933. Fabian, J. 1986. Language and Colonial Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fardon, R. & Furniss, G. 1984. African Languages, Development and the State. London: Routledge. François A. 2012. The dynamics of linguistic diversity: egalitarian multilingualism and power imbalance among northern Vanuatu languages. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 214:85–​110. García, O., Flores, N., Seltzer, K., Li, W., Otheguy, R. & Rosa, J. 2021. Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: a manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies. 18(3):203–​228. DOI: 10.1080/​15427587.2021.1935957. Gordon, J. 2021. African studies global virtual forum: decoloniality and southern epistemologies–​Jane Gordon. [Video File]. www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​P1kp​DSAr​t0s&ab_​chan​nel=​PSUAfr​ican​Stud​ies Gordon, J. 2022. Interlude #1: conversation with Jean Comaroff and Jane Gordon. In The Routledge handbook of language and the Global South/​s. S. Makoni, A. Kaiper-​Marquez & L. Mokwena, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. Gramling, D. 2016. The Invention of Monolingualism. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Gramling, D. 2021. The Invention of Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, R. 1981. The Language Myth in Western Culture. London: Duckworth. Harris, R. 1990. On redefining linguistics. In Redefining Linguistics. H. Davis & T. Taylor, Eds. London: Routledge. 18–​52. Harris, R. 2009. Implicit and explicit language teaching, in Language Teaching: Integrational Linguistic Approaches. Toolan, M, Ed. London: Routledge. 24–​47. Haslanger, S. 2012. Resisting Reality: Social Construction and Social Critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hauck, J.D. & Heurich, G.O. 2018. Language in the Amerindian imagination: an inquiry into linguistic natures. Language & Communication. 63:1–​8. Heryanto, A. 1990. The making of language: developmentalism in Indonesia. Prisma. 50:40–​53.

28

Looking at Multilingualisms from the Global South Heryanto, A. 2007. Then there were languages: Bahasa Indonesia was one among many. In Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. S. Makoni & A. Pennycook, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 42–​61. Heugh, K. & Stroud, C. 2021. Roots and routes: meshworks of multilingualism. In A Sociolinguistics of the South. K. Heugh, C. Stroud, K. Taylor-​Leech & P. De Costa, Eds. London: Routledge. Ingersoll, K.A. 2016. Waves of Knowing: A Seascape Epistemology. Durham, CT: Duke University Press. Irvine, J. 2009. Subjected words: African linguistics and the colonial encounter, Language and Communication. 28(4):291–​408. Irvine, J. & Gal S. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities and Identities. P. Kroskrity, Ed. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. 35–​83. Kohn, E. 2013. How Forests Think: Towards an Anthropology Beyond the Human. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kroskrity, P. 2021. Language ideological assemblages within linguistic anthropology. In Crossing Borders, Making Connections: Interdisciplinarity in Linguistics. A. Burkette & T. Warhol, Eds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 129–​142. Leonard, W. 2017. Producing language reclamation by decolonising ‘language’. In Language Documentation and Description. W. Leonard & H. De Korn, Eds. London: EL Publishing. 15–​36. Love, N. 2009. Science, language and linguistic culture. Language and Communication 29: 26–​46. Love, N. & Ansaldo, U. 2010. The native speaker and the mother tongue. Language Sciences, 32, 589–​593. Lüpke, F. 2016. Uncovering small-​scale multilingualisms. Critical Multilingualism Studies. 4:36–​74. Lüpke, F. & Storch, A. 2013. Repertoires and Choices in African Languages. De Gruyter: Mouton. Makalela, L. 2018a. Introduction: shifting lenses. In Shifting Lenses: Multilanguaging, Decolonisation and Education in the Global South. L. Makalela, Ed. Cape Town: CASAS. 1–​8. Makalela, L. 2018b. Multilanguaging engagements in higher education: a case of an applied language postgraduate course. In Shifting Lenses: Multilanguaging, Decolonisation and Education in the Global South. L. Makalela, Ed. Cape Town: CASAS. 119–​135. Makalela, L. 2018c. Teaching African languages the Ubuntu way: the effects of translanguaging among pre-​ service teachers in South Africa. In The Multilingual Edge of Education. P. Van Avermaet, S. Slembrouck, K. van Gorp, S. Sierens & K. Maryns, Eds. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 261–​282. Makoni, S. 1998. African languages as European scripts the shaping of communal memory. In Negotiating the Past: The Making of Memory in South Africa. S. Nuttall & C. Cotzee, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 157–​164. Makoni, S. Brutt-​Griffler, J. & Mashiri, P. 2007. The use of ‘indigenous’ and urban vernaculars in Zimbabwe. Language in Society. 36(1):25–​49. DOI:10.1017/​S0047404507070029. Makoni, S. & Makoni, B. 2010. Multilingual discourses on wheels and public English: a case for ‘Vague Linguistique’. In The Routledge Companion to English Language Studies. J. Maybin & J. Swann, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 258–​271. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. Eds. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S & Pennycook, A. 2012. Disinventing multilingualism: from monological multilingualism to multilingual francas. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones & A. Blackledge, Eds. London: Routledge. 439–​453. Mannheim, B. 1991. The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion. Austin: University of Texas Press. May, S. Ed. 2014. The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. London: Routledge. May, S. 2019. Negotiating the multilingual turn in SLA. The Modern Language Journal. 103:122–​129. Mazrui, A. 2017. Some dimensions of English and globalization: an Africanist afterword. In Language and Globalization: An Autoethnogrpahic Approach. M. Borjian, Ed. New York: Routledge. 211–​218. Menezes de Souza, L.M. 2022. Preface. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and the Global South/​s. S. Makoni, A. Kaiper-​Marquez & L. Mokwena, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. Mignolo, W. 2011. The Global South and world dis/​order. Journal of Anthropological Research. 67(2):165–​188. Mignolo, W. & Walsh, C. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Milani, T. 2017. The politics of the margins: multi-​semiotic and affective strategies of voice and visibility. In Entangled Discourses: South-​North Orders of Visibility. Kerfoot, C. & Hyltenstam, K, Eds. New York: Routledge. 173–​188.

29

Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook Monaghan, P. 2012. Going for wombat: transformations in Wirangu and the Scotdesco community on the far west coast of South Australia. Oceania. 82(1):45–​61. Muehlmann, S. 2012. Rhizomes and other uncountables: the malaise of enumeration in Mexico’s Colorado River delta. American Ethnologist. 39(2):339–​353. Mufwene, S. 2020. Decolonial linguistics as paradigm shift: a commentary. In Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledges and Epistemes. Deumert, A., Storch, A. & Shepherd, N., Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 289–​300. Mühlhäusler, P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology. Current Issues in Language Planning. 1(3): 306–​367. Mwaniki, M. 2018. Language and literacy education in complexly multilingual contexts: reflections for theory and practice. In Shifting Lenses: Multilanguaging, Decolonisation and Education in the Global South. L. Makalela, Ed. Cape Town: CASAS. 21–​44. Nakata, M. 2007. Disciplining the Savages: Savaging the Disciplines. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Ndhlovu, F. 2018. Language, Vernacular Discourse and Nationalisms: Uncovering the Myths of Transnational Worlds. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Ndhlovu, F. 2021. Decolonising sociolinguistics research: methodological turn-​around next? International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 193–​201. Ndhlovu, F. & Makalela, L. 2021. Decolonising Multilingualism in Africa: Recentering Silenced Voices from the Global South. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Nyamnjoh, F.B. 2015. Incompleteness: frontier Africa and the currency of conviviality. Journal of Contemporary African Studies. 33(1):48–​63. Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. 2020. Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from the Global South. London: Routledge. Perley, B. 2012. Zombie linguistics: experts, endangered languages and the curse of undead voices. Anthropological Forum. 22(2):133–​149. Rajagopalan, K. 2007. Revisiting the nativity scene. Studies in Language. 31(1):193–​205. Rajagopalan, K. 2020. Linguistics, colonialism and the urgent need to enact appropriate language policies to counteract its baleful fallout on former colonies. In Language Planning and Policy: Ideologies, Ethnicities and Semiotic Spaces. A. Abdelhay, S. Makoni & C. Severo, Eds. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishers. Sabino, R. 2018. Languaging without Languages: Beyond Metro-​, Multi-​, Poly-​, Pluri-​and Translanguaging. Boston: Brill. Silverstein, M. 2014. Michael Silverstein in conversation: translatability and the uses of standardization. Tilburg Papers #121. Tilburg, NL: Tilburg University. Stebbins, T., Eira, K. & Couzens, V. 2018. Living Languages and New Approaches to Language Revitalisation Research. London: Routledge. Thibault, P.J. 2011. First-​order languaging dynamics and second-​order language: the distributed language view. Ecological Psychology. 23(3):1–​36. Todd, Z. 2016. An Indigenous feminist’s take on the ontological turn: ‘ontology’ is just another word for colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology, 29(1):4–​22. DOI:10.1111/​johs.12124. Vaughan, J. 2018. “We talk in saltwater words”: dimensionalisation of dialectal variation in multilingual Arnhem land. Language and Communication. 62:119–​132. Vaughan, J. & Singer, R. 2018. Indigenous multilingualisms past and present. Language & Communication. 62:83–​90. Williams, Q. 2017. Remix Multilingualism: Hip Hop, Ethnography and Performing Marginalized Voices. London: Bloomsbury.

30

3 (DE)COLONIAL MULTILINGUAL/​ MULTIMODAL PRACTICES Resisting and Re-​Existing Voices from Latin America Mario E. López-​Gopar, Lorena Córdova-​Hernández and Jorge Valtierra Zamudio

Introduction Prior to the “discovery” of America and the resulting European invasions, multiple “languages” were present across the Americas. Valiñas Coalla (2010) argues that (multi)language practices were connected to social and historical factors such as nomadic versus sedentary lifestyles as well as religious and commercial practices bringing different languages into contact. In pre-​Colombian Mexico alone, there were four linguas francas (which are currently spoken in Mexico): Purépecha, Mixtec, Zapotec, and Nahuatl (Dakin, 2010). Similarly, in Perú, mainly in its northern region, evidence of pre-​Hispanic bi-​multilingualism can be seen in the words and structural traits shared among the different languages currently spoken in that region (Urban, 2017). The existing multilingual/​multimodal practices in Latin America and the Caribbean prior to the European invasions were deeply influenced by the imposition of European epistemology, ontology, and languages. In all Latin American and Caribbean countries, coloniality –​a condition in which colonialism does not end with the independence of most nation-​states and whereby Eurocentric views and ideologies currently remain prevalent –​ continues to be propagated through institutions such as schools (Maldonado Alvarado, 2002; Mignolo, 2000). Outside these institutions, Indigenous and Afro descendant have found ways to resist coloniality by (re)creating multilingual and multimodal practices and by asserting their place in the world; in Walsh’s terms, they have engaged in decolonial practices (2020). Hence, the purpose of this chapter is to shed light on the multimodal, multilingual, and decolonial practices outside formal institutions of these minoritized groups and their connections to issues of land recognition, citizenship, gender, blackness, and ethnicity, among other sociocultural factors. We showcase the multilingual/​multimodal texts created by different Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American artists in Latin America and the Caribbean, as presented both in academic publications and in the general media. In this chapter, we organize the analysis and discussion of these artistic practices according to three themes: literary creations, musical compositions, and theatrical performances. Before discussing these three themes, we first present

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-4

31

Mario E. López-Gopar et al.

a succinct overview of the multilingualism present in this region followed by a brief explanation of key theoretical concepts.

Multilingualism in the Americas Peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean still use numerous Indigenous languages and Creoles. Escobar states that “while Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala and southern Mexico have the highest concentration of indigenous populations, Mexico, Perú, and Colombia have the highest linguistic diversity” (2012: 729). Even though the tallying and naming of Indigenous languages are contentious issues and have been regarded as Western inventions (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007), it is important to acknowledge that 750 Indigenous languages are spoken in Latin America and the Caribbean (Eberhard, Simons & Fenning, 2022). In terms of Creoles, there is a great diversity as well. Migge (2021) reports that English-​based Creoles are found in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia as well as in different Caribbean countries. Migge further states that the Guiana region (French Guiana, Suriname, and Guyana) differs from Latin America as it was colonized by France, the Netherlands, and England, and that different Creoles play important roles in these societies (see Migge, 2021 for a comprehensive list of Creoles). Although Creoles, and Indigenous languages as well, may be regarded by some as incomplete or not “real” languages, we agree with Makoni and Pennycook who argue that “all languages are creoles” and “that the slave and colonial history of creoles should serve as a model on which other languages are assessed”, or compared and contrasted (2007: 21). Furthermore, Indigenous languages and colonial-​based Creoles are perfect examples of resistance, dynamic cultural hybridity, and creativity vis-​à-​vis other Afro-​Latin American groups who were forced to fully adopt the colonial languages and resorted to alliances with Indigenous groups (e.g. the Mixtecos-​ Negros from Oaxaca, Mexico). The survival and current existence of this linguistic diversity in Latin America and the Caribbean speaks to the decolonial efforts, of Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American peoples and their creativity in challenging coloniality. Hence, in the next section, we briefly discuss decolonial theories and their connection to language and multimodality.

Decoloniality, ‘language’ and multimodality As previously stated, peoples in Latin American and the Caribbean have resisted coloniality and the resultant colonial-​difference hierarchies that place human beings and languages at different levels of superiority according to a Eurocentric ontological and epistemological rationale derived from colonialism (Mignolo, 2000). These hierarchies have been contested by Indigenous and Afro-​ Latin American groups. This resistance and assertion of subaltern epistemologies and ontologies reconstructed through Indigenous languages and Creoles can be regarded as decoloniality. According to Walsh (2020), decoloniality does not imply the absence or ending of coloniality. Decoloniality, rather, “references and marks the postures, positionings, horizons, projects, and practices of being, thinking, sensing, and doing that resist and re-​exist, that transgress and interrupt the colonial matrix of power” (p. 606). Following Fellner (2018), in this chapter, we approach decolonizing as a verb, and as “an active, intentional, moment-​to-​moment process that involves critically undoing colonial ways of knowing, being, and doing, while privileging and embodying Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing” (p. 283). As part of coloniality, Indigenous languages and Creoles have been regarded as “dialects,” “lenguas criollas,” or “broken languages” spoken by “Indios” or “Negros”: the colonial other (Maldonado Alvarado, 2002; Mignolo, 2000). Hence, the maintenance and reinvention of 32

(De)Colonial Multilingual/Multimodal Practices: Latin America

Indigenous languages and Creoles are the transgressions and interruptions of the colonial matrix of power. These languages, which have been historically excluded from colonial institutions (e.g. churches, schools, clinics, and congresses), have managed to flourish in the margins or outside of these institutions: in grassroots organizations, colectivo meetings, music studios, community theatres, and so on. In particular, Escobar states: “The presence of grassroots organisations, that is, the organisations of ethnic and local groups, seems to be crucial in the revitalization process of Indigenous languages [and Creoles]” (2013: 740). Within these NGO’s and colectivos, language is approached from a decolonial and multimodal perspective following Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s views. Thiong’o (2015) argues that decoloniality is a universal language of struggle, and that writing or doing theatre in othered languages, beyond colonial languages, is a democratic, liberatory and identity act. Decoloniality challenges the view of language, recognizing and valuing othered semiotic resources or multimodalities. As part of coloniality, the category of “language” was invented “as a stable and limited entity restricted to fixed boundaries, each language strictly linked to one single people and one single territory” (Nascimiento, 2018: 213). Language was also restricted to certain modalities (oral and graphocentric writing) and not considered part of othered modalities or semiotic resources (e.g. visual, corporal, and pictographic) connected to Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American peoples’ ontologies and epistemologies (Menezes de Sousa, 2003; López-​Gopar, 2007). These semiotic resources are in constant flux and linked to peoples’ sociocultural, historical and political spaces and the history of coloniality in the Americas (Blommaert, 2010; Migge, 2021). For this reason, language practices in Latin America and the Caribbean take place in different contexts where semiotic mobility and cultural and linguistic hybridity are the norm. These multimodal and hybrid practices, then, often occur within subalternity, whereby they are typically judged according to Eurocentric standards that regard them as inferior. Usually, these practices are not welcome and/​or supported in institutions, such as schools, as they are not considered formal, legitimate or worthy enough to be included in the curriculum. Hence, it is our open agenda in this chapter to showcase and validate these othered multilingual and multimodal practices performed by Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American peoples as they engage in literary creations, musical compositions, and theatrical performances. We strongly encourage you to follow the links provided, so that you can listen/​view/​experience some of these performances as we are limited by the graphocentric nature of academic texts and the “space” of this chapter.

Literary creations In different parts of Latin American, outside of institutions such as schools, both Indigenous and Afro peoples have been authoring (multi) bilingual literature that has challenged coloniality for centuries. Arias (2018) argues that “Indigenous [and Afro] literatures in Mesoamerica …have become a counter discourse to the Eurocentric racist clichés that have prevailed in the longue durée of coloniality” (p. 614, italics in original). Arias further argues that “these works express a deep yearning for social, ethical, cosmological, and political autochthonous values …[and are] a means to envision alternative understanding of Indigenous knowledges and cultural sophistication” (2018: 614). Before the conquest and during the colonial period, Indigenous groups engaged in complex literacy practices first designed as mainly pictorial códices and later including alphabetic writing. (For a detailed description of these practices, see Cifuentes, 1998). In the 1980s, there was a resurgence of Indigenous and Afro literature publications “despite the discrimination against Indigenous languages and the generalized lack of knowledge regarding their artistic compositions” (Montemayor, 2001: 11, our translation). Many people were unaware of the poetry composed in 33

Mario E. López-Gopar et al.

Náhuatl, Maya, Quechua and Guarani in the 20th century and in more than 25 Indigenous languages at the beginning of the 21st century throughout Latin America and the Caribbean (Montemayor, 2001). According to Arias (2018), this literary resurgence was prompted by social conflicts in different parts of Latin America (e.g. the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico) as well as the university enrolment of young Indigenous and Afro peoples and grassroots activists. Using this historical momentum, “a greater number of literary texts written by Indigenous authors in their own languages burst [sic] forth, as Nahua, Binnizá, Bene Xhon, Yukateko Maya, Yokot’anob, Rarámuri, or Wixáritari …[started] to produce novels, short stories, plays, or poetry” (Arias, 2018: 614). The production of Indigenous and Afro literatures goes beyond the creation of literary arts “for art’s sake” and the promotion or revitalization of Indigenous languages. It is also a creative process that has been done outside of schools, which typically do not foster literacy development in Indigenous languages. This production has a political and decolonizing agenda. Accordingly, the presence of Indigenous languages in alphabetically written form is important as many Indigenous concepts can be lost in translation if only presented in Spanish or another colonial language. A decolonial approach to Indigenous literatures helps us to distinguish between “literatura indigenísta” produced by outsiders and “literatura indígena” produced by Indigenous peoples (Ward, 2017). Having said this, we by no means believe in a fixed dichotomy where there are “pure” Indigenous peoples and literatures. Most Indigenous writers read poetry and literary texts in colonial languages or have been instructed in the production of literature at times by “outsiders” in workshops organized at the grassroots level, by governmental organizations or by academics at supporting universities (Montemayor, 2001). Indigenous literatures (“literaturas indígenas”) are in constant flux and reflect a mixture of Indigenous peoples’ own languages and cultures with other Indigenous languages and with colonial languages and cultures as well. In addition, we must acknowledge that recently most Indigenous literatures have used alphabetic literacy as their main modality, thus having a “graphocentric bias” (Menezes de Sousa, 2003) and using “the alienating alphabet” (López-​Gopar, 2007). (For an exception, see Flores Farfan’s picture books, 2005a, and video, 2005b, which combine different modalities.) It is impossible to showcase all the Indigenous literature produced in different Latin American and Caribbean countries in one chapter. Actually, a lot of this literature goes unnoticed as many of the works are locally produced and have very limited distribution. (See Montemayor, 2001, for a list of publications, Indigenous writers’ organizations, conferences and awards in Mexico and other Latin American countries; and see Montemayor & Frischmann, 2021, for a three-​volume publication of narrative, poetry and plays written in 13 Indigenous languages from Mexico.) Notwithstanding this aforementioned graphocentric bias, we now turn to the importance of Indigenous literatures produced in alphabetic texts. In doing so, we focus on the work of an Indigenous woman from Oaxaca, Mexico, and we then provide a succinct discussion of Afro literatures written in Latin American and the Caribbean. Following Arias’ (2018) argument that the inclusion of women as authors of Indigenous literatures is fairly recent, we present the work of Nadia López García, a bilingual poet (Spanish-​Tu’un savi, an Indigenous language from Oaxaca) as representative of current Indigenous literatures. Nadia is a good example of the constant flux and mixture of Indigenous peoples’ literatures. Nadia participated in Primer Encuentro Mundial de Poesía de los Pueblos Indígenas: Voces de Colores para la Madre Tierra (First World Congress on Indigenous Peoples’ Poetry: Voices of Colour for Mother Earth), which took place in Mexico City and whose goal was “to promote through poetry, a great artistic movement that raises societal awareness regarding the world environmental crisis” (Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2016).

34

(De)Colonial Multilingual/Multimodal Practices: Latin America

Writing poetry in Indigenous languages is a political and a social justice act, according to Nadia López García (2022). It is political in terms of challenging the hegemony of Spanish in Mexico. López García believes that the presence of Indigenous languages in literary texts is a reminder that these languages are here to stay, even if there is no governmental and societal will to conserve them. For López García, writing poetry in her Indigenous language is also a social justice performance, which has the power to address current social issues such as violence against women. In her poem “Savi” (“Rain”), which highlights women’s intrinsic connection to nature, López García prays so that women can always raise their voices against injustices: Savi Mee kunchee ñá’an nchá’í ntuchinuu ra savi. Mee kunchee ñá’an kuaku ra kuákú, ñá’an chikui ra ñu’ú. Ñá’an koo ña’an ra ñá’an saa, mee kunchee ñá’an tu’un, ñá’an yucha, ñá’an antivi. Ntakuatu mee kunchee ñá’an, ñá’an kachi tu’unku ntika antivi yatsi kuá’á chikui. Yatsi vixo ntiki ñu’ú ra tsaa íí. Rain I have seen black-​eyed and rain women. I have seen women crying and laughing, Water and land women. Women bereft and bird women, I have seen women of words, river women, Sky women. I pray to see women forever, Women who utter their word, in this wide sky like gourds filled with lots of water. Gourds that wet the seeds of the land And flourish in the sacred 2018: 38–​39, our translation

35

Mario E. López-Gopar et al.

Writing literatures in Indigenous languages is also a decolonizing act at a personal level. Indigenous women are at the receiving end of discriminatory practices and increasing violence (Wright, 2011). López-​García’s poetry denounces this reality and imagines alternative futures where women can raise their voices against injustices. In another poem entitled “Kue’n tachi” (“Bad Wind”), López García challenges the colonial difference recreated by her own father, who has bought into the colonial narrative that places women in deficit models not capable of authoring texts or even dreaming. In one part of the poem, she writes, Me pa kachi ñá’an koi iin má’na, yee kutu’uu staa ra cafe yee kutu’uu mee koi kachi. Me pa kachi koo chaa ñá’an . . . Vichi kachi me siví antivi, mee saa ñá’an, ntiki tsaa. Tu’un me nchacha me ñu’ú vixo. My father says that women do not dream, that I should learn about tortillas and coffee That I should learn to be quiet. He says that no woman writes… Now I say my name up high, I am a bird woman, a seed that flowers. Words are my wings, my wet land. 2018: 20–​21, our translation In both poems, López García reconnects to the land, an Indigenous practice denied by coloniality (Fellner, 2018). Her connection to nature embodies her way of being in the world as a river woman, a sky woman and a bird woman. This goes beyond mere analogies; it is López García’s way to reposition herself and other Indigenous women as authors and dreamers, who are no longer quiet and who write and speak back to colonial practices. In the same way that López García uses poetry to reposition herself, Afro-​Latin Americans have used the creation of literature to enable their “right that we as negros have to name ourselves and to exist” (Tenorio 2020: 99, our translation). In her article about the novel Los Canarios Pintaron el Aire de Amarillo (The Canaries Coloured the Air Yellow) written by Nelson Estupiñán, an Ecuatorian black writer, Tenorio (2020) documents the journey of different Afro-​Latin American writers who have not accepted or owned their blackness. Parallel to the resurgence of Indigenous literatures mentioned above, Tenorio (2020) captures the insights of Afro-​Latin American writers such as Manuel Zapata Olivella, a black Colombian, René Depestre, an Afro-​Haitian, and Quince Duncan, an Afro-​Costa Rican, who view the Latin American negritud (blackness) as a decolonizing force capable of claiming or defending their black identities against new forms of colonization. Even though most Afro-​Latin American literature has been done monolingually in 36

(De)Colonial Multilingual/Multimodal Practices: Latin America

colonial languages such as Spanish, French or Portuguese (for an exception, see the performance of Miriam Díaz, a Palenquero poet at www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​ZjN5​3k4G​z7E), Arregui (2020) argues that Afro-​Latin American literature uses the verbal-​corporal communication which allows “other” types of representations and modalities (including kinaesthetic ones) to challenge the graphocentric bias (Menezes de Sousa, 2003) and the colonial legacy. Hence, the “multi” in Afro-​Latin American and Indigenous literatures goes beyond using multiple “languages.” In the next two sections, we discuss how Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American singer-​songwriters, playwrights, and actor/​actresses have started to use a multimodal and heteroglossic approach in the creation and performance of their compositions.

Musical compositions Similar to how Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American writers have challenged coloniality through poems and narratives, young people across Latin America have used music compositions (e.g. hip hop, rap and other music genres) as assemblages of multiple languages and modalities or what Fabricio and Moita-​Lopes (2019) conceptualize as abject aesthetics, “a specular semiotic landscape, in which mixed sexualities, genders, races, ethnicities, clothing styles, hair styles, rhythms, languages, and registers interact” (p. 136). Examples and analysis of these artists’ compositions are quite abundant in social media and the academic literature, showcasing bands in Brazil (Armenta Iruretagoyena, 2018; Fabricio & Moita Lopes, 2019; Nascimiento, 2018), Bolivia (Swinehart, 2019), Mexico and Chile (Cru, 2017, 2018) and women’s bands from different Latin American countries (Castillo-​Garsow, 2018). Just within Mexico, Doncel de la Colina and Talanco Leal (2017: 90) identify bands in different states such as “ ‘Rap del Pueblo’ (Veracruz), ‘Morales Rap Zacateco’ (Oaxaca), ‘El Maya SdC’ (Yucatán), ‘Mc Chama’ (Quintana Roo) … [and] ‘Mare Advertencia Lírika’ (Oaxaca).” Reaching beyond the more limited audience of the literary texts discussed in the previous section, these bands connect with a wider audience both locally and globally by broadcasting their performances on platforms such as YouTube. On this platform, as Cru (2018) states, a Mexican and Chilean band have received an abundance of positive comments by viewers, which strengthens the revalorization of their respective Indigenous languages: Yucatec Maya (Mexico) and Mapudungun (Chile). Through their compositions, these artists have connected their decolonizing efforts with issues related to land, citizenship, blackness, gender, and language pride, as we will see next. In their performances, Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American singers raise their voices in order to decolonize their realities by reconnecting to the land, as Nadia’s poetry does as discussed above, and renegotiating their positions as the colonial other. For instance, Nascimento (2018) argues that, in Brazil, rap music stemming from Indigenous peoples’ loci of enunciation, historically denied by modernity, is “a privileged means for voicing resistance and denunciating the living conditions of marginalized peoples who still face a constant threat to their collective rights” (p. 215). Analysing the songs of Brô MCs, a band self-​proclaimed as the first group of Indigenous rap in Brazil, Nascimiento (2018: 219) highlights this band’s deep connection to their place of origin and their concern for their traditionally occupied lands “which are called tekoha by the Kaiowá people –​ once they are essential to their physical and cosmological existence.” Along similar lines, Armenta Urutetagoyena (2018) documents how Kunumí MC, a Guarani rapper, during his performance at the inauguration of the world cup celebrated in Brazil in 2014, displayed a sign that read “Demarcação Já!” (Delimitation now!), as a show of support for the struggle of Brazilian Indigenous groups to gain the legal recognition of their lands. Similarly, 37

Mario E. López-Gopar et al.

Nación Rap, a hip hop band in Bolivia, has used its music to evoke traditional Bolivian felt-​ connections to coca plant-​producing land, as a way to demand respect for the land (Swinehart, 2019). As well, Brazilian band Brô MCs connects Indigenous struggles for their sacred lands with confinement in reservations, violence, and human losses. For example, in the following excerpts of one of its songs as reported and translated by Nascimento (2018: 224–​225), Brô MCs conveys a message of courage and hope, challenging the invisibility of Indigenous peoples as Brazilian citizens: Terra sagrada pra nós é Tekoha /​Fazendeiro ocupa /​Não tenho medo de falar /​De lá prá cá, guerras, conflito /​Chegou a hora de lutar pelo direito dos índios ... Sou índio sim, vou até falar de novo /​Guarani Kaiowá e me orgulho do meu povo /​Esse povo que é guerreiro, é batalhador /​O povo que resiste com força e com amor /​Amor pela terra querida (Brô MC’s, A vida que eu levo). Sacred land for us is Tekoha /​farmers occupy it /​I am not scared of speaking out /​wars and conflicts everywhere /​it’s time to fight for the natives’ right]. ... Yes, I am a Brazilian native, I will even say it once more /​Guarani Kaiowá and I feel proud of my people /​The people that fights and struggles /​The people that resists with strength and love /​Love for the beloved land] (Brô MC’s, The life I lead). [Watch a live performance of this song at www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​bVqw​e4PS​wUw] Not only do Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American singers tackle material realities such as land ownership and recognition, but they also bring racial issues to the forefront in Latin America. Blackness, in Latin America, currently reflects both the colonial legacy of African slavery in the Americas and the connection between rap music and its black origins in the USA. The presence of Afro-​Latin American peoples seems to be always on the minds of rappers and of the general rap audience. With regard to the Bolivian context, Swinehart (2019) documents the view of a hip hop concertgoer who captures the intricate connection between blackness and rap in Latin America: [Rap]’s beautiful because it unites what is Black with what is Aymara and a hallucinatory mix of Aymara hip hop comes out that’s so “sick.” …It’s a mix of a Black, Aymara, Bolivian, Latin American, it’s incredible, right? …Now this mix of music together with Saya (traditional Afro Bolivian music) and all that, they’re also bringing Black hip hop, even Yankee hip hop, here to Bolivia… . [It] is a mix more of protest, so we’ve made hip hop our own, we’ve made it our own and in our own style. (p. 463, Swinehart’s translation and parentheses in original)

38

(De)Colonial Multilingual/Multimodal Practices: Latin America

Going beyond racial issues, music has also been a medium for young women themselves to challenge male colonial practices. As Castillo-​Garsow (2018: 335) affirms: “There’s a new wave of feminism in Latin America. It is a thriving movement adopted by and spearheaded by a diverse generation of young women who are not just outspoken but unapologetically hip hop.” In her research, Castillo-​Garsow analyses the work of 12 women from ten different Latin American countries who joined forces to combat gender inequality in Latin America by starting a collective project called “Somos Mujeres Somos hip hop” (“We are women We are hip hop”). According to Castillo-​Garsow (2018: 336), this group is constituted by “women [who] are black, indigenous, and everything in between.” This diversity of hip hop feminism, as promoted by this women’s collective, is most visually and auditorily powerful in its 2015 music video “Latinoamérica Unida” (“Latin America United”) composed of a series of individually filmed clips (Watch the video at www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​jvmz​W5GO​eFI). Presenting part of the chorus of this collective composition, Castillo-​Garsow states: Somos Mujeres Somos hip hop present [sic] a call for Latin American women to unite in the common cause of female independence. Thus, in the chorus they come together as united voice for gender equality, that is nevertheless composed of many different voices and ways of being a woman: Hoy hacemos el stop Today we stop nadie tiene el control No one is in control levantamos la voz We raise the voice Latinoamérica of Latin America hip hop unida está united in hip hop hombres mujeres van men women with sentido de igualdad a sense of equality eso queremos that is what we want. 2018: 336, Castillo-​Garsow’s translation In Mexico, Spanish-​speaking female artists, such as Vivir Quintana, are joining forces with Indigenous women, such as those in the band “Viento Florido” (“Flowery Wind”). This band, formed by young Indigenous women, has challenged male practices that convey the message that music bands are for men only. Collaborating with Vivir Quintana, the band Viento Florido adapted Quintana’s song “Canción sin Miedo” (“Song without Fear”) and jointly created a music video shot in their community. In this video, they played and sang along with one another in Spanish and Ayuuk, the Indigenous language spoken by these women. This song is quite powerful as it denounces the increasing number of femicides in Mexico and incorporates the names of real victims in the lyrics. What follows is the translation of the Facebook post by Viento Florido and some excerpts of the lyrics in Ayuuk followed by our translation into English (Watch the music video at www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​CsYQ​gNF4​tJk&list=​RDCsYQ​gNF4​tJk&star​t_​ra​dio=​1). For this version of “Canción sin miedo”, we decided to do research about the cases of femicides in our region. With a lot of pain, we found cases in many of our communities. We know that there are more cases that did not make it to the press. Mixe sisters disappeared outside our region; thus, with profound respect and in solidarity with their families, today we raised our voice for all of them. Our translation from Spanish

39

Mario E. López-Gopar et al.

… Wën jaa wën tsojk, Ja n’utsy ja nmëku’uktë ja ntsë’, ja ntääk tyëkëytyë uk y’ooktë Kaja tjakupëktë ja tëyën ja jäjjën Jantsy tuntë ja may’äjtë kiti xjä’äytyëkëytyë ... jotmëk ëëts ni’iy, tyiy’äjtën ëëts ntsëkypy nmëku’uk ëëts npayë’ëpy mäjaa’ty jënettë Wan mëk tyikmatëy ¡tum jujyky ëëts natsyëkyë! Wan mëjk tyiktityuuntë ja të’ëxyëkyik’oo’kpë ... Every minute, of every week They steal friends from us, they kill our sisters They destroy their bodies, they abduct them Do not forget their names, please, Mr. President. ... We sing without fear, we plead for justice We scream for each woman vanished Let it resonate loud, “we want ourselves alive” Let the femicide murderer fall hard. Our translation from the Spanish version Even though these music performances are multisemiotic assemblages, the use of Indigenous languages, alongside colonial languages, is part of a decolonial project. Navarro (2016) states: “The significance then for Indigenous hip hop artists to utilize ancestral languages in this popular form adheres to what Transnational Decolonial Institute scholars now refer to as a decolonial aesthetic that ‘seeks to recognize and open options for liberating the senses’ ” (2016: 570; quoting from Transnational Decolonial Institute, 2011). Likewise, Nascimento argues that “the use of communicative resources from original languages of their people, often in hybrid compositions, helps the rappers adopt a more authentic approach to decolonization, since…the mere fact that they incorporate languages dismissed by colonization is itself a decolonial act” (2018: 232, our italics). In Mexico, Cru (2017) documents that Peto, a young Yucatec rapper, considers that by using his Indigenous Maya language he is able to promote Maya, connect it to his senses, and display his creativity and innovation: Well to promote my own culture and the wish to make it known in other states and cities. For us it is something innovative, we mix the music in Maya to get a different rhythm and to transmit what we feel when we sing in our language. We are very proud of it. p. 486, Cru’s translation Further, Swinehart (2019) points to the fact that the Bolivian band Nación Rap performs one same song using two Indigenous languages, Quechua and Aymara, and three colonial languages: Spanish, English and French. On that matter, he argues:

40

(De)Colonial Multilingual/Multimodal Practices: Latin America

By reformulating what is understood as Aymara, by situating the Aymara [and Quechua] language[s]‌as poetically equivalent to the colonial lingua francas of Spanish, English, and French, and by wearing Aymara clothing and hairstyles in the performance of an urban musical genre with proximity to Blackness, rather than whiteness, these artists challenge dominant racial logics of their society. p. 479 We must add that Nación Rap also challenges linguistic logics, which are intertwined with such issues as race, gender, citizenship, and social class. All the music artists described in this section, have produced their musical compositions outside formal institutions, which usually regard them as inappropriate or even “foreign” (Nascimento, 2018: 213). They have looked for other spaces, both physical and virtual, to voice their demands while showing us the power of assemblages of multiple languages and modalities to reach greater audiences and to engage in decolonial projects. In the next section, we now focus on other artists who have also challenged colonial linguistics logics and used othered assemblages through theatrical plays.

Theatrical performances Theatre has been significant in the lives of peoples in the Americas for centuries. Before the Spanish conquest, there is evidence of different plays transmitted orally through generations. Montemayor argues that Indigenous groups, such as the Mayas, enthusiastically attended theatre and dance events during their feast days, citing “The Rabinal Achí” as “a magnificent example of that tradition” (2021: 2, italics in original). Along the same lines, Henríquez (2009) states that there are records of three main plays in the Americas: the Rabinal Achí (a Mayan play from the 13th century), the Bailete del Güegüense (a Nahuatl play from the 16th century), and the Ollantay (a Quechua play from the 16th century). Although there is no consensus among academics as to whether or not the last two plays were of pre-​Hispanic origin, there is consensus that they both used the Mesoamerican and Andina worldview (cosmovisión) to deal with the conflicts that emerged from the power relations between the colonial authorities, the mestizos (those of mixed Spanish and Indigenous heritage), and the Indigenous groups (Henríquez, 2009). It was not until the XIX century that these plays were alphabetically transcribed or written, having perdured orally. Hence, Montemayor (2001) has convincingly argued that the oral tradition of Indigenous groups is indeed literature, even though it may not be regarded as such by Western conceptions. Pre-​Hispanic Indigenous theatrical plays, similar to hip hop and rap performances, included other semiotic resources that were essential to achieve their social and communicative purpose: to preserve the cultural legacy of Indigenous groups (Henríquez, 2007, 2009). Furthermore, “theatre was based on the collective representation of innumerable cosmogonic, historical, and everyday themes, in which music and dance were inseparable elements” (Montemayor, 2021: 2). Unfortunately, “very early in the colonial period Indigenous communities were forbidden to continue cultivating their own music, dance and theatre” (2021: 2). Nonetheless, theatrical plays were used by the Spanish friars to propagate the catholic religion throughout the Americas (Esquivel Estrada, 2008). Despite colonial intrusion in the use and goals of Indigenous theatrical plays, these plays are currently used by Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American peoples in order to challenge coloniality. The resurgence of the theatrical plays goes hand in hand with that of Indigenous and Afro-​ Latin American literary creations previously discussed. According to Araiza Hernández (2009), in

41

Mario E. López-Gopar et al.

Mexico, Indigenous theatre was promoted in the 1920s and 1930s through the Casa del Estudiante Indígena, a boarding school for Indigenous peoples. However, it was not until the 80s and 90s that Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American theatrical plays started to flourish. Mächler Tobar (2010) mentions that there are famous playwrights in Colombia, Perú, Chile, Argentina, and Mexico. This author further argues, however, that even though some of these theatrical plays include Indigenous actors and dialogues in Indigenous languages, they are not necessarily written by Indigenous peoples, and they are inspired or based on “anthropological theatre” whereby some Indigenous rituals or ceremonies are incorporated (2010). Focusing on Mexico and going beyond anthropological theatre, Araiza Hernández (2009) argues that Indigenous peoples are appropriating theatre in their own way and that the plays created within the community are more attractive to them, even though the plays may not be considered as high quality according to Western standards. The development of theatrical plays is a communal or group effort that utilizes different semiotic resources including Indigenous languages. Documenting the importance of Indigenous theatre in Cumbal-​Nariño, a community located at the border of Colombia and Ecuador, Camelo Gómez and Jiménez Quenguan (2021) talk about the rich and multisemiotic aspects of the current Indigenous theatrical plays in Latin America: Indigenous theatre is complex; it is an ecopoetic proposal including a multiplicity of representations, the pluricultural and the sacred; and it is art that produces social and spiritual transformation. For Indigenous peoples, the creation is liberatory and inexhaustible, and it is a way of acknowledging the spiritual autonomy of each person. p. 4, our translation Montemayor concurs on this point about the multiplicity of representations and multisemiotic aspects of Indigenous plays (2021). He argues that for the Tarahumaras, an Indigenous group in Mexico, “dance continues to be so important that it is obligatory in their ceremonies: the traditional guides or Siriames refer to it as ‘work’ ” (p. 3, inverted quotes in original). “Dance,” according to Montemayor, “is a way of taking a trip through the heavens and preserving Indigenous regions.” (p. 3). For this reason, he considers that “theatre is one of the most successful forms of popular expressions” (2021: 3). There are different community-​based Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American theatrical groups that have been writing and performing their original plays or their own adaptations of anthropological theatre. In Yucatán, Mexico, the Teatro Campesino e Indígena X’ocen (Peasant and Indigenous Theatre X’ocen) has worked with over two hundred Indigenous young adults during the last thirty years. Their plays are based on the community research they have conducted on their pre-​Hispanic origins, their Mayan traditions, their community organization, their historical memory, and their cultural and ethical values (Sánchez, 2021). Also, at the border of Colombia and Ecuador, the Teatro para la Memoria (Theatre for Memory) has been working with Indigenous youth since 2015. While using the theoretical and practical precepts of the Theatre of the Oppressed proposed by the Latin American thinker Augusto Boal, this group has worked with Indigenous youth not only to learn about their ancestral legacy and cultural traditions, but also to “express their realities through their body …[by using theatre and dance] as routes of expression and liberation” (Camelo Gómez & Jiménez Quenguan, 2021: 2, our translation). In Ecuador, a group of 50 university students has been using theatre to deal with ethnic discrimination and xenophobia (Jiménez Sánchez, Vayas Ruiz & Paredes Ruiz, 2020). In Argentina and Chile, the Mapuche Theatre Group “El Katango” has been using plays to protest the current state violence. This same group has also 42

(De)Colonial Multilingual/Multimodal Practices: Latin America

been reconceptualizing their Mapuche mythical traditions so that these traditions are not thought of as merely legends from the past but also as narratives to explain the present (Alvarez and Cañuqueo, 2018). In Bolivia, a group of young actors has used the play Soy José Mamani to challenge the rejection of Indigenous roots by young Bolivians (Ruvenal, 2019). Furthermore, in their edited book, Cordones-​Cook and Jaramillo (2012) include 15 Afro-​Latin American plays from different Latin-​American and Caribbean countries. In general, these plays showcase the African ancestral practices and beliefs vis-​à-​vis cultural domination and assimilation processes. As an example of the multiple Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American plays, and to conclude this section, we now present the work that young Indigenous people from Querétaro, México have been doing as part of the Compañía Queretana de Teatro Indígena (Indigenous Theatre Company of Querétaro). This group performs bilingual plays in Spanish and Hñähñu, the latter being an Indigenous language from central Mexico also known as Otomí. One of the plays performed by the group is entitled La llama Que No Se Extingue (The Flame That Does Not Get Extinguished; watch the complete play at www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​XJOn​eplW​Q2w). The play begins in Hñahñu followed by the Spanish translation. What follows is our English translation of the oral introduction to the play, which also summarizes the play: We are the Otomi children sharing the fire of our spirit. At the beginning, in the immensity of the inhabitable, when only the night and the day embraced the world, Tsi Dada [their God] decided to share life with beings made in his likeness. Tsi Dad took the womb of Mother Earth and from its core arose timid beings, who recognize themselves and with time started to populate the Hñähñu territory. Tsi Dada gave us seeds, taught us how to cultivate the land; how to transform the foods that sprung from those seeds into meals, while respecting Mother Earth and honouring Tsi Dada to live in balance with nature. With this, for a long time, our Hñähñu community lived in harmony. The dreams of our elders foresaw enormous fires, the death of our people. One morning, from the sea came white spirits, so pale like death, half demon, half man; blinded by greed, deafened by their interests, and indifferent to suffering, without any respect to our God. They invaded our land, imposing their traditions and their God, who allowed white men to murder us. If we lose our language, we stop seeing the world.

Our translation

This last sentence, summarizing the importance of language, conveys that Indigenous and Afro-​ Latin American peoples, by using their Indigenous languages and Creoles in plays and other aspects of life, are able to interact with the world on their own terms. This makes for their being, sensing and doing in the world, as they transgress and interrupt the colonial matrix of power (Walsh, 2020).

Conclusions and future directions The literary creations, musical compositions and theatrical performances produced by Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American peoples reveal their creativity in using multiple semiotic resources

43

Mario E. López-Gopar et al.

as they engage in multilingual practices in order to decolonize their realities and to reposition their place in the world while reconnecting to Mother Earth. By doing so, they challenge the racial, gender, social, and political aspects of colonial discourses that attempt to reposition their ontologies and epistemologies as inferior. Their use of Indigenous languages and Creoles is a political stance that conveys the message that Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American peoples are here to stay despite the invisibility to which they are subjected. Their use of colonial languages is a strategy to reach wider audiences, to connect with other Indigenous and Afro groups in the Americas, and to create Pan-​American alliances as they deal with coloniality. In doing so, they engage in decolonial projects, which challenge the linguistic and cultural domination that started 500 years ago. Their decolonial projects can be considered counter-​cultural processes, which attempt to generate artistic performances, in their own terms and standards, as they voice their new places in the world. Going beyond the descriptive nature of this chapter, whose goal was to showcase the multimodal, multilingual, and decolonial practices in Latin America, further research is necessary to understand how the political and strategic use of languages (either Indigenous, Creoles or colonial) in conjunction with other modalities may help these Pan-​American groups to create a collective voice against coloniality. “Inequality [or coloniality] has to do with modes of language use …It is a matter of voice, not of language” (Blommaert, 2010, p. 196, italics in original). More research is needed to document the collective voice of theatre groups where multiple languages, multimodalities and different peoples truly come together. In order to document, and better yet engage in, the decolonial efforts of theatre groups, music bands, and writers, research endeavours must develop respectful and collaborative relationships with Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American peoples that go beyond traditional ethnographic studies. Researchers must engage in what Higgins and Coen (2000) conceptualize as ethnographic praxis: linking their research to issues of social justice and their objectives to the desires and concerns of those with whom they are working. Hence, researchers must allow Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American poets, novelists, singers, actors and actresses to lead the way. For Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American peoples, decoloniality is not only about multilingualism, literature, music or theater, but also about self-​recognition of their ontologies and epistemologies denied by coloniality, about citizenship, about land ownership and about violence against women as demonstrated by the artists portrayed in this chapter.

Related topics Chapter 1 Lessons for decolonization from pre-​colonial translingualism; Chapter 2 Looking at multilingualisms from the Global South; Chapter 13 Indigenous education and multilingualism: global perspectives and local experiences; Chapter 8 Multilingualism and multimodality; Chapter 11 Multilingual literacies.

Further reading Cordones-​Cook, J. & Jaramillo, M.M. Eds. 2012. Del Palenque a la Escena: Antología Crítica de Teatro Afrolatinoamericano. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. (A collection of 15 Afrolatinoamerican plays that addresses the experiences and the imaginaries constructed by Latin American peoples of African descent.) Montemayor, C. & Frischmann, D. Eds. 2006. Words of the True Peoples: Anthology of Contemporary Mexican Indigenous-​Language Writers. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (This three-​volume anthology showcases the works of Mexican Indigenous writers from 13 different languages, including narratives, essays, poetry and theatre in Indigenous languages followed by Spanish and English translations.)

44

(De)Colonial Multilingual/Multimodal Practices: Latin America Ross, A.S. & Rives, D.J., Eds. 2018. The Sociolinguistics of Hip Hop as Critical Conscience. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. (This book focuses on the productions of hip hop as a form of resistance emerging from the critical conscience of artists and fans from different countries around the world.)

References Alvarez, M. & Cañuqueo, L. 2018. Prácticas escénicas Mapuche contemporáneas o cómo pensar las propuestas políticas del arte en contextos de violencia estatal. Revista Transas: Letras y Artes de America Latina. www.rev​ista​tran​sas.com/​2018/​10/​11/​practi​cas-​esceni​cas-​mapuc​hes-​con​temp​oran​eas/​. Araiza Hernández, E. 2009. “¡Eso no es teatro!... Además, así no son los indígenas”. Notas acerca del relativismo en la interpretación de las artes de la escena. Relaciones. Estudios de Historia y Sociedad. 30(120): 99–​137. Arias, A. 2018. From indigenous literatures to Native American and indigenous theorists: the makings of a grassroots decoloniality. Latin American Research Review. 53(3): 613–​626. Armenta Iruretagoyena, F.A. 2018. De la patrimonialización del hip hop al ascenso del rap indígena en Brasil: Encuentros entre lo masivo y lo vernáculo. El oído pensante. 6(2): 132–​146. Arregui, A. 2020. Conectando con la Amazonia transparente. El cuerpo afroindígena y la comunicación más allá de las élites. Revista Española de Antropología Americana. 50(261): 291–​306. Blommaert, J. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Camelo Gómez, M.S. & Jiménez Quenguan, M. 2021. Teatro para la memoria: Danzantes de pensamientos. Revista Educación. 45(1): 1–​23. Castillo-​Garsow, M. 2018. Somos mujeres somos hip: Feminism and hip hop in Latin America. In F.F. Aldama, Ed. The Routledge Companion to Gender, Sex and Latin American Culture. New York: Routledge. Cifuentes, B. 1998. Letras Sobre Voces: Multilingüismo a Través de la Historia. México: CIESAS, INI. Cordones-​Cook, J. & Jaramillo, M.M. Eds. 2012. Del Palenque a la Escena: Antología Crítica de Teatro Afrolatinoamericano. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Cru, J. 2017. Bilingual rapping in Yucatán, Mexico: Strategic choices for Maya language legitimation and revitalization. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 89(5): 481–​496. Cru, J. 2018. Micro-​level language planning and YouTube comments: destigmatising Indigenous languages through rap music. Current Issues in Language Planning. 19(4): 434–​452. Dakin, K. 2010. Lenguas francas y lenguas locales en la época prehispánica. In R. Barriga Villanueva & P. Martín Butragüeño, Eds. Historia Sociolingüistica de México, Vol. 1. México Prehispánico y Colonial. México: El Colegio de México. Doncel de la Colina, J.A. & Talancón Leal, E. 2017. El rap indígena: activismo artístico para la reividicación del origen étnico en un contexto urbano. Andamios. 14(34):87–​111. Eberhard, D.M., Simons, G.F. & Fennig, C.D. Eds. 2022. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (25th edition). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Escobar, A.M. 2012. Bilingualism in Latin America. In Bhatia, T.K. & Ritchie, W.C, Eds. The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Esquivel Estrada, N.H. 2008. El teatro del siglo XVI como instrumento de evangelización. Tópicos, 34: 285–​308. Fabricio, B.F. & Moita-​Lopes, L.P. 2019. Transidiomaticity and transperformances in Brazilian queer rap: Toward an abject aesthetics. Niterói. 24(48):136–​159. Fellner, K.D. 2018. Embodying decoloniality: Indigenizing curriculum and pedagogy. American Community of Community Psychology. 62(3-​4): 283–​293. Flores Farfán, J.A. 2005a. Adivinanzas Mexicanas. See Tosaasaaniltsiin. México: Artes de México Infantil. Flores Farfán, J.A. 2005b. DVD: Las Machincuepas del Tlacuache. México: Publicaciones de la Casa Chata. Henríquez, P. 2007. Teatro Maya: Rabinal Achí o Danza del Tun. Revista Chilena de Literatura. 70: 79–​108. Henríquez, P. 2009. Oralidad y escritura en el teatro indígena prehispánico. Estudios Folológicos, 44: 81–​92. Higgins, M. & Coen, T. 2000. Streets, Bedrooms and Patios: The Ordinariness of Diversity in Urban Oaxaca. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas. 2016. Primer Encuentro Mundial de Poesía de los Pueblos Indígenas. www.gob.mx/​inpi/​pre​nsa/​pri​mer-​encuen​tro-​mund​ial-​de-​poe​sia-​de-​los-​pueb​los-​indige​nas.

45

Mario E. López-Gopar et al. Jiménez Sánchez, A., Vayas Ruiz, E.C. & Paredes Ruiz, T. 2020. Teatro para el tratamiento de la discriminación étnica y la xenofobia en jóvenes ecuatorianos. Revista Internacional de Pedagogía e Innovación. 1(2):41–​60. López García, N. 2017. Ñu’u Vixo. Tierra Mojada. México: Pluralia. López-​Gopar, M.E. 2007. Beyond the alienating alphabetic literacy: multiliteracies in Indigenous education in Mexico. Diaspora, Indigenous and Minority Education: An International Journal. 1(3): 159–​174. Mächler Tobar, E. 2010. Y, este pobre indio... ¿qué hace por aquí? Teatro indigenista en Colombia: quince últimos años. Boletín de Antropología Universidad de Antioquia. 24(41): 180–​206. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2007. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook, Eds. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Maldonado Alvarado, B. 2002. Los Indios en las Aulas: Dinámicas de Dominación y Resistencia en Oaxaca. México: INAH. Menezes de Souza, L.M.T. 2003. Voices on paper: multimodal texts and Indigenous literacy in Brazil. Social Semiotics. 13(1): 29–​42. Migge, B. 2021. Caribbean, South and Central America. In Alsaldo, U. & Meyerhoff, M. Eds. The Routledge Handbook of Pidgin and Creoles Languages. New York: Routledge. Mignolo, W. 2000. Local Histories/​Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Montemayor, C. 2001. La Literatura Actual en las Lenguas Indígenas de México. Mexíco: Universidad Iberoamericana: Departamente de Historia. Montemayor, C. 2021. Theater, which once was dance. In Montemayor, C. & Frischmann, D. Eds. Words of the True Peoples: Anthology of Contemporary Mexican Indigenous-​Language Writers. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Montemayor, C. & Frischmann, D. 2021. Words of the True Peoples: Anthology of Contemporary Mexican Indigenous-​Language Writers. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Nascimento, A. M. 2018. Counter-​hegemonic linguistic ideologies and practices in Brazilian Indigenous rap. In Ross, A.S. & Rives, D.J. Eds. The Sociolinguistics of Hip Hop as Critical Conscience. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Navarro, J. 2016. WORD: Hip hop, language, and indigeneity in the Americas. Critical Sociology. 42(4-​ 5): 567–​581. Ruvenal, C. 2019. Rechazo de raíces indígenas en jóvenes se refleja en obra. Opinión: Diario de Circulación Nacional (10 October). www.opin​ion.com.bo/​artic​ulo/​cult​ura/​rech​azo-​rai​ces-​indige​nas-​jove​nes-​refl​eja-​ obra/​20191​0100​4423​1730​885.html. Sánchez, A. 2021. Este es el teatro campesino e Indígena de X’ocen, patrimonio cultural intangible de Valladolid. Por Esto: Dignidad, Identidad y Soberanía (28 April). www.pore​sto.net/​yuca​tan/​2021/​4/​ 28/​este-​es-​el-​tea​tro-​campes​ino-​indig​ena-​de-​xocen-​pat​rimo​nio-​cultu​ral-​int​angi​ble-​de-​val​lado​lid-​250​ 482.html. Swinehart, K. 2019. The Ch’ixi blackness of Nación Rap’s Aymara hip hop. Journal of the Society for American Music. 13 (4): 461–​481. Tenorio, A. 2020. Nuestro derecho a escribir: Nelson Estupiñán Bass contra las necropolíticas de Estado en Los canarios pintaron el aire de amarillo. Poligramas 51: 98–​116. Thiong’o, N. 2015. Descolonizar la Mente. España: Penguin Randmon House. Urban, M. 2017. Multilingüismo prehispánico en la costa norte del Perú? Una exploración de las evidencias. Umbral, Nueva Etapa. 3 (3): 67–​88. Valiñas, L. 2010. Historia lingüística: migraciones y asentamientos. Relaciones entre pueblos y lenguas. In R. Barriga Villanueva & P. Martín Butragüeño, Eds. Historia Sociolingüistica de México, Vol. 1. México Prehispánico y Colonial. México: El Colegio de México. Walsh, C. 2020. Decolonial learnings, asking and musings. Post-​colonial Studies. 23(4): 604–​611. Ward, T. 2017. Decolonizing Indigeneity: New Approaches to Latin American Literature. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Wright, M.W. 2011. Necropolitics, narcopolitics, and femicide: gendered violence on the Mexico-​U.S. border. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 36(3): 707–​731.

46

4 RACIOLINGUISTIC IDEOLOGIES 1 Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro

Introduction In July 2021, incoming Peruvian First Lady Lilia Paredes used the word ‘festejación’ in an interview to reference the celebrations of elected president Pedro Castillo, a former rural teacher and union leader from a low socio-​economic background. Soon after, social media burst with comments about her ignorance and lack of education. Language activists came out in her defence –​ including the Real Academia Española (Royal Spanish Academy, RAE) –​stating that ‘festejación’ was morphologically correct albeit not widely used. For some, this was enough to quell anxieties of having an ‘ignorant’ First lady. After all, none other than the RAE had confirmed she was using a legitimate form of Spanish. For others, it was a call to recognize the diversity of Spanish varieties in a linguistically diverse country. Some comments alluded to Mrs. Paredes’ knowledge of an Indigenous language, influencing her Spanish, and called for acceptance and appreciation of this manifestation of language contact. Mrs. Paredes, however, is not a speaker of an Indigenous language. What would a raciolinguistic ideology lens bring to this conversation? A raciolinguistic ideology stance would not begin by trying to explain the linguistic legitimacy of Mrs. Paredes’ speech nor focus exclusively on convincing followers and readers to be more tolerant of linguistic variation. Instead, it would ask us to consider what made us hear and see Lilia Paredes in deficient ways to begin with. And why, as a society, we fixate on faulting the languaging of racialized individuals, a stance we rarely apply to individuals in more privileged positions? After all, not long ago, the language practices of former First Lady Nancy Lange, a White U.S. citizen with Peruvian residency, whose Spanish was noticeably marked by her English, were not publicly commented on to question her cognitive, social and political abilities. While Paredes and Lange might have both used language practices not considered normative, the ways in which they were read and commented on were different because of their markedly different racial positions in Peruvian society: one as a White foreign woman from the economic elite and the other as a rural teacher from the country’s interior. Bringing a raciolinguistic ideologies (RLI) lens to understand this scenario would push us to probe into how unquestioned forms of hierarchizing individuals come to bear on how we perceive their language practices.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-5

47

Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro

This example shows how valorizations of deficiency based on the language practices of racialized individuals are part of everyday social life –​including political life in the Global South. As proposed by Flores and Rosa (2015), raciolinguistic ideologies refer to the co-​naturalization of language and race in ways that dominate how racialized speakers are heard and interpreted through the white listening subject. Akin to the white gaze, the white listening subject refers to dominant ways of hearing and categorizing speech as ‘adequate’ or ‘deficient’ depending on the racialized position of the speaker. While scholars have studied race and language for some time, the emergence of this specific term has brought attention to the intersections of race and language that impact minoritized speakers across the globe. In this chapter, we begin by introducing the conceptual and disciplinary origins of raciolinguistic ideologies and perspectives. We then identify and explain key elements in raciolinguistic ideologies-​centred research. We present two cases of raciolinguistic ideological research as concrete examples of how an RLI lens has been employed for the analysis of ethnographic and interactional data in multilingual educational contexts in Perú and the United States. Next, we consider points of convergence and divergence between raciolinguistic ideologies and related work and end by considering current and future RLI developments.

The origins of the raciolinguistic ideologies framework The RLI framework was proposed to counter discourses of languagelessness (Rosa, 2019), which frame racialized bilinguals as not legitimate users of their languages. These discourses date back to the 1970s in American scholarly literature, when the term semilingualism became a common way to describe bilingual students who were perceived as not being fluent in either of their two languages (Flores, 2019). The concept of RLIs was initially proposed to question appropriateness-​based approaches to language education, whereby minoritized students maintain their home language practices while adding standardized language practices to their repertoires in schools. This approach frames standardized language practices “as objective sets of linguistic forms that are understood to be appropriate for academic settings” (Flores & Rosa, 2015: 150), failing to account for, and dismantle, the ideologies which shape how some bodies are seen as successfully engaging in appropriate academic practices, while other racialized bodies are always heard as engaging in inappropriate practices because of their raced position in society. In this original piece, Flores and Rosa show how raciolinguistic ideologies merge certain racialized bodies with linguistic deficiency unrelated to objective linguistic practices. They describe how students labelled English language learners, heritage language learners and Standard English learners all occupy marginalized racial positions which lead to their language practices being perceived as inherently deficient, regardless of their closeness to appropriate norms of language use. In 2017, Rosa and Flores presented the term raciolinguistic perspective, which as a research agenda beyond language education studies, has two goals: 1) to develop detailed theorizations and critiques of the historical and contemporary co-​naturalization of language and race and deficit perspectives, and 2) to contribute to the transformation of societies. By taking a global perspective and attending to literature beyond educational contexts, Rosa and Flores expanded their original formulation of raciolinguistic ideologies and propose five key components of a raciolinguistic perspective: (i) historical and contemporary co-​naturalizations of race and language as part of the colonial formation of modernity 48

Raciolinguistic Ideologies

(ii) perceptions of racial and linguistic difference (iii) regimentations of racial and linguistic categories (iv) racial and linguistic intersections and assemblages (v) the contestation of racial and linguistic power formations (p. 3) There is a growing literature across interdisciplinary fields using a raciolinguistic ideologies framework, which attests to its significance in research that focuses on multilingualism and society. In our view, there are several key elements that contribute to the theoretical innovation and utility of this framework: 1) the analysis of racial hierarchies versus racialized speaking subjects, 2) the examination of processes of coloniality that place language and race in historical perspective, 3) the theorizing of the white listening subject, and 4) its theory of social change. In the sections below, we highlight each of these elements.

Raciolinguistic ideologies: key elements The concept of RLIs originated to describe the ways in which “linguistic practices of racialized populations are systematically stigmatized regardless of the extent to which these practices might seem to correspond to standardized norms” (Rosa & Flores, 2017: 3). A critical aspect of RLI –​and its theoretical and analytical contribution to the field –​ is the significant shift in analytical focus that it requires. This means moving from an analysis of the communicative resources racialized peoples and communities make use of, to understanding how their use is taken up, construed and interpreted by others, attending to how these perceptions are embedded within, and interact with, broader histories of racial formation and coloniality. For example, drawing on Valdés and Geoffrion-​Vinci (1998), Flores and Rosa (2015) illustrate the example of Estela, a Chicana doctoral student obtaining a PhD in Spanish in an American university, whose Spanish was perceived as inferior to that of her classmates. The authors offer the following analysis: Estela’s Spanish language use is stigmatized vis-​a-​vis European and Latin American varieties of Spanish, which are privileged in mainstream Spanish language learning at the university level in the United States … The notion that there is something unidentifiable, yet inferior, about Estela’s speech … suggests that raciolinguistic ideologies are at play in shaping perceptions of her language use as somehow insufficiently academic. p. 161 An examination of racial hierarchies within a particular context –​in this example, racial hierarchies within the context of U.S. Spanish academic departments –​rather than linguistic differences, is at the root of the linkage of linguistic deficiency with racialized speakers and a key component in a raciolinguistic ideologies analysis. Within a raciolinguistic ideologies framework, the examination of racial hierarchies must be historicized. Rosa and Flores (2017: 2) explain that “[R]‌ather than taking for granted existing categories for parsing and classifying race and language, we seek to understand how and why these categories have been co-​naturalized in particular societal contexts”. This co-​naturalization of categories must be understood as part of the colonial project. Drawing on scholars such as Veronelli (2015), Mignolo (1995), Makoni & Pennycook (2007), among others, Rosa and Flores illustrate how in contexts of European colonization, the category of racial Others was created; and at the same time, an ideology of separate and thus inferior languages followed. The mapping of ways of speaking to racialized groups became a critical part of the process of colonial subjugation, 49

Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro

traces of which are still present in ways of understanding languages and their speakers. In fact, raciolinguistic ideologies do not disappear, but are rearticulated in service of continued domination. An example that illustrates these processes is Vigouroux’s (2017)2 analysis of the French phrase ‘y a’bon’ –​which indexes the inferior French of Black Africans in the dominant French ideological imagination and was the subject of a controversial debate as it was used in a protest chant to refer to the French minister of justice who was Black. Vigouroux traces the discursive pathway of this phrase to its origins in 19th-​century depictions of Black Africans in popular media. These racist depictions showed Black Africans as inferior people with simplified language who were unable to speak ‘proper’ French. These ideas became enregistered in emblems such as the advertising campaigns of a powdered chocolate milk whose visual logo was the friendly African soldier and the phrase ‘Y a’bon’. The historical analysis of how a particular way of speaking became tied to a particular group of people in service of French imperialism, and how such phrases continue to hold the same indexical value in present-​day France is a good illustration of a raciolinguistic ideological analysis that deconstructs the historical ways in which race and language were co-​naturalized. Rosa and Flores (2017: 14) explain: raciolinguistic enregisterment involves asking how and why particular linguistic forms are construed as emblems of particular racial categories and vice versa, in what historical, political, and economic contexts, and with what institutional and interpersonal consequences. As highlighted here, the study of present-​day RLIs rests on an understanding of how processes of coloniality have shaped the production of categories of race and bounded languages as well as their co-​naturalization. Another key component to the RLI framework is an understanding of the white listening subject, which Rosa and Flores define as “racially hegemonic modes of perception that shape how racialized subjects’ language practices are construed and valued” (2017: 6). The white listening subject refers to dominant ways of categorizing speech as ‘adequate’ or ‘deficient’ depending on the racial position of the speaker, rather than on objective characteristics of their language practices. Flores and Rosa’s articulation of the white listening subject draws heavily on linguistic anthropologist Miyako Inoue’s concept of the listening subject and the notion of indexical inversion. Inoue (2006, cited in Flores & Rosa, 2015) proposed that Japanese women’s language was less of an observable empirical category than an ideological category produced by masculine listening subjects, who framed schoolgirls’ speech as a problem to be overcome. The notion of indexical inversion attempts to explain how language ideologies tied up to social categories in particular political–​historical contexts produce the perception of linguistic forms. Rosa and Flores take up this notion to also explain how RLIs are implicit in the production of perception of racialized language forms as coming from racialized speakers. The white listening subject does not refer to individual people, nor includes all those who are identified or identify as white but understands whiteness as an “ideological position and mode of perception that shapes our racialized society” (151) and can be inhabited by all speakers in society. The white listening and perceiving subject can also overdetermine a range of semiotic signs, such as “literacy practices, physical features, bodily comportment, and sartorial style” (9), signs which are subject to over-​scrutiny and seen through deficit-​lenses when perceived in racialized subjects. Indeed, the white listening gaze is not only embodied by human actors but also animated “through nonhuman entities such as technologies and institutions infused with raciolinguistic ideologies that endow them with the capacity to act as perceiving subjects” (Rosa & Flores, 2017: 10). Andrade

50

Raciolinguistic Ideologies

and Franco (2022) have recently commented on the ways in which the Sanas app, which aims to change English accents with a click, serves to reproduce and maintain raciolinguistic ideologies which frame the problem of discrimination on language practices of ‘non-​native’ speakers and offer linguistic changes, in this case, homogenization or whitening towards Standard English as a solution. The authors are skeptical that eliminating an accent, if at all possible, can in fact counter the embodied nature of discrimination of racialized populations, and perceptively note how this app serves as a clear example of how inequality continues to be sustained in our technological interactions. Because of this shift of focus, an RLI framework also proposes a distinct theory of social change to guide efforts to create more just societies for racialized populations. Rather than proposing to modify, alter or change the language practices of racialized populations, this framework proposes working towards showcasing and dismantling the racial formations (e.g. White supremacy, Eurocentrism) that are instantiated in our social structures and institutions. As such, a raciolinguistic analysis must also be rooted in an examination of the political economic conditions that allow for the different valorization of linguistic and semiotic signs that come to be associated with different groups of people. Historically, the theory of change informing sociolinguistic research included illustrating the legitimacy and systematicity of the language practices of racialized groups (e.g. Labov) and advocating for increased access to linguistic (and other) resources for stigmatized groups. Yet, these advocacy efforts, while well intentioned and oftentimes necessary, fail to account for the structural and historical forces at the root of material and symbolic inequities.

Case studies of RLI research In this section, we present examples of how we have employed a raciolinguistic ideologies framework to study the language use and learning experiences of multilingual speakers in different contexts. Across, we highlight our use of different RLI analytical concepts –​raciolinguistic socialization, assemblages and enregisterment –​identifying their interpretive potential.

Case 1: Raciolinguistic socialization in dual-​language U.S. education Raciolinguistic ideologies are especially salient in schools, where ideologies of correct language use are constantly reinforced. It was in the context of a Spanish–​English bilingual primary school programme in the US that I (Sofía) examined how race and class impacted the experiences of a group of focal children (Chaparro, 2019). Specifically, the concept of raciolinguistic ideologies helped me understand how children’s linguistic practices and bilingual language development were differently perceived and evaluated based on the child’s racial and classed position. In addition to raciolinguistic ideologies as a theoretical frame, I understood language learning as a process of language socialization, whereby learners are socialized in and through language and through this process gain cultural and linguistic competence. I proposed the term raciolinguistic socialization to capture both these ideas, as this concept brings to the fore the way that, in classroom and educational spaces, and through everyday interaction, children are socialized in ways that reinforce perceptions of language use and ability that are intimately tied to racialization and to class position. Indeed, part of understanding the work of raciolinguistic ideologies involves analyzing how race and class

51

Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro

become important mediating factors in how children’s language practices … were evaluated and perceived by teachers and other students. p. 3 Through ethnographic discourse-​analytic research that spanned the kindergarten and part of 1st grade year, I studied the interaction and experiences of six focal children that came from diverse ethnolinguistic and socio-​economic backgrounds. While the language practices and development of the children were like each other, how these practices and abilities were perceived and evaluated was markedly different depending on the child’s socio-​economic and ethno-​racial backgrounds. These evaluations often happened in subtle, everyday ways through interaction with classmates and the teachers, including myself. Using examples from transcriptions of recorded classroom interactions, field notes, and interviews, I trace the raciolinguistic socialization trajectories of three children, Santiago, Zoe and Larissa, which I’ve summarized in Table 4.1 below. By analyzing how these children’s language use and development were talked about and evaluated –​either explicitly or implicitly –​I was able to trace patterns in the ways these evaluations were tied to racialized and classed social positionings. In the case of Santiago, his parents wanted to enroll him in a bilingual programme for him to learn Spanish and to develop a positive sense of his cultural identity. They felt he had been resistant to learning Spanish at home. Throughout the interview, they described this in various ways –​ they wanted him to connect with his “Spanish identity”; with his “culture” or “half culture”; they wanted him to connect to his Costa Rican heritage, or “half Costa Rican and half Irish and German heritage”; they recognized that he was bi-​racial and wasn’t “un blanquito de pelo rubio” (a white boy with blond hair) (5). Note the variety of terms used: terms that refer to nation-​states; languages; and phenotypical appearance, all of which assume a naturalized connection to the named language Spanish. For 7-​year-​old Santiago to better embody being a child of Latino heritage, he needed to develop proficiency in Spanish. In other words, Santiago was being socialized into a marked identity as ‘Latino’, yet whose defining quality he had yet to develop, i.e. Spanish language proficiency. Not only was Santiago socialized as different from his

Table 4.1 Focal students Santiago, Zoe and Larissa Student (pseudonym)

Background

Language profile

Perceptions/​Evaluations of abilities and language use

Santiago

Bi-​racial: White mother, Hispanic father Both bilingual college-​educated professionals White monolingual parents, college-​ educated professionals Mexican Spanish-​ dominant mother, recent immigrant, working class

English dominant in speaking; bilingual in listening

Racialized as Latino, perceived ‘natural’ connection to Spanish as part of his identity yet still in development, assumed competent in spite of work and behaviour Perceived as smart, good at school, language mixing seen as evidence of her growing bilingualism

Zoe

Larissa

English dominant with emerging Spanish proficiency Spanish dominant with emerging English proficiency

52

Positioned as in need of help and interventions, not positioned as ‘Spanish expert’, not positioned as bilingual or understanding English

Raciolinguistic Ideologies

white peers, but also, as different from his working-​class Latinx classmates, since both his parents were college-​educated professionals. In contrast to how much Santiago’s identity was discussed as part of the reasoning for his learning Spanish, Zoe, a white child whose parents were college-​educated professionals, didn’t experience the burden of having to embody her cultural identity in linguistic ways. Instead, her enthusiastic learning of Spanish was often noted and praised by the adults around her. As a child who was familiar with print and schooled literacy, she excelled in the classroom in ways that made her a confident student who was perceived as smart by her teachers and peers. One of the classmates at her table, Larissa, was a shy student whose first experience of school was this classroom. She was not as comfortable with doing school as Zoe was and was identified by the teacher as a student that would need considerable support in her literacy development. She was the daughter of a Mexican woman who had immigrated to the US and was raising her along with her two other daughters. Consider the excerpt in Table 4.2, a transcript from a recorded interaction between Zoe, Larissa and their teacher, Ms. O. This interaction highlights the way that Zoe was positioned as a knowledgeable student able to help her classmates, whereas Larissa was positioned as someone needing help. Before this excerpt, Zoe had been ‘testing’ Larissa on her letter knowledge. Zoe would write down a letter in Larissa’s notebook and Larissa would have to say it out loud, an utterance which was evaluated by Zoe as either correct or incorrect. Noticing Zoe, a bit too excited and out of her chair, Ms. O joins the conversation to check on the girls and their work. At the end of line 1, Ms.

Table 4.2 Interaction between Zoe, Larissa and Ms. O Transcript

Translations

1

Ms. O: sentadita Zoe sentadita Zoe. ¿Por qué no lees con Larissa, ven? ¿Ya leíste todo esto con Larissa? ¿Si? How is she doing?

2 3 4

Z: good Ms. O: //​good? L: (to Ms. O) una vez yo, ¿te acuerdas cuando fui con Maestra Connie y me sabía todas las letras?

Ms. O: Sitting down, Zoe, sitting down. Why don’t you read with Larissa, come? Did you already read this with Larissa? Yes? How is she doing?

5

Ms. O: Claro que si mi amor porque así vas avanzando L: y me gané una carita feliz. Ms. O: si señora (flipping pages) este es el de matemáticas, ok? quiero que hagas los numeritos, hasta el 50. ¿Ya los sabes hacer hasta el 50 solita? ¿Sin mirar?

6 7

8 9 10 11 12

Z: Maestra? I taught her… (Zoe is flipping pages and points to one) –​this. Ms. O: Beautiful. Z: I taught her all that. Ms. O: Is she doing good? Z: yes

53

L (to Ms. O): One time I, remember when I went with Ms. Connie and I knew all the letters? Ms. O: Of course, my love that’s because you are making progress L: and I earned a happy face. Ms. O: yes, ma’am (flipping pages in Larissa’s notebook). This one is for math, ok? I want you to do your numbers, up to 50. You know how to do up to 50 on your own? Without looking? Z: Teacher? I taught her … (Zoe is flipping pages and points to one) –​this.

Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro

O asks Zoe how Larissa is doing, positioning Zoe as someone able to evaluate her classmate, to which Zoe replies, “Good.” Larissa, asserting her own agency as a learner and good student, reminds Ms. O about the time she did a really good job when she was pulled from the classroom to be tested by another teacher. While Ms. O acknowledges this comment, she continues checking Larissa’s progress and directing her to continue with her math work. And in lines 8–​12, Zoe continues to embody the role of the teacher, reporting to Ms. O everything she has taught Larissa. In bilingual classrooms, intentional pair work is a teaching strategy that is used so that students learn from each other. Indeed, the theory behind linguistically integrated bilingual classrooms is that students learn language from each other. Hypothetically, then, Zoe would be the one learning Spanish from Larissa. Yet, what I observed throughout the course of the year, is that Zoe was consistently positioned as the ‘knower’ even when she herself was learning the language in which Larissa was fluent. And Larissa, because she was still learning the literacy skills which Zoe had already mastered through previous exposure, was consistently perceived as needing assistance. This interactional snapshot in the classroom lives of Zoe and Larissa serves to illustrate the implicit, everyday ways through which each girl was positioned according to how she was perceived in terms of language and academic abilities. Their trajectories also show how the socio-​economic privilege (or disadvantage) of each student impacted how each child’s language and academic ability was perceived and evaluated. Indeed, Rosa and Flores stress that raciolinguistic ideologies should not be considered separate from the intersecting ways other axes of differentiation impact the unequal valuing of students’ ways of speaking and being. Rosa and Flores state: “a comparative intersectional and raciolinguistic approach necessarily considers how assemblages of signs and identities are configured in particular contexts, from particular perspectives, and with particular consequences” (2017: 16). In this case, we see that a child’s racialized and classed positioning impacts how their language (and academic) abilities are evaluated. The consequences of such raciolinguistic socialization and positioning are multiple –​ and in the case of Santiago and Larissa, often negative. The constant imposition of a Latino identity for Santiago and the presumption of its connection to the knowledge/​fluency in Spanish could mean an ambivalence or continued refusal of the language –​ or, as in the case of many Latinxs, shame in not speaking in ways consistent with standardized forms of Spanish. For Larissa, it could mean a constant policing of her ways of speaking, including the difficult-​to-​shed label of ‘English Learner’ which can mean remedial courses throughout her education in U.S. public schools. At the same time, she could be faced with experiences –​like Estel, the doctoral student, a mentioned above –​ whereby her Spanish is perceived as limited or inferior. Zoe’s privilege as white and socio-​economically advantaged mean that her way of speaking will be considered normative and unremarked, and yet her bilingualism will be marked in positive ways that might open educational and professional opportunities. Thus, a raciolinguistic analysis of perceptions of bilingual language development in a bilingual schooling context helps illustrate the inequitable experiences and outcomes for children in these programmes.

Case 2: Raciolinguistic enregisterment in Quechua language education In the following case I (Frances) take us to an urban high school in the southern Peruvian Andes. I show how drawing on a RLI framework allowed me to examine how racial hierarchies influenced the ways in which Quechua–​Spanish bilingualism was perceived and experienced by a diverse bilingual student population in a school context which tried to promote Indigenous language use and learning (Kvietok Dueñas, 2019). While high school teachers and students were supportive of Quechua language education taking place in the school, an RLI informed analysis showed that 54

Raciolinguistic Ideologies

schools were also sites where the raciolinguistic enregisterment of motoseo was sustained in ways that framed rural students’ as linguistically and socially inferior to their Spanish-​dominant bilingual peers who had grown up in urban contexts. Motoseo has been described by linguists as a phenomenon of systematic linguistic transference, explained by the differences between Spanish and Quechua phonemic inventories, with Spanish having five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and Quechua three (a, i, u), and it is used to describe the influence of Quechua on the Spanish pronunciation of Quechua speakers. Yet, as Zavala and Córdova (2010) and Zavala (2011) point out, motoseo is a highly stigmatized feature which has been historically enregistered to index those who produce it as inferior to those who don’t and contributes to upholding marginalization. Grounded in modern-​colonial racial hierarchies (Veronelli, 2015), social hierarchies in this Andean context continue to operate along a weighted axis of Eurocentric Whiteness and Indianness, and racial differences among social groups are understood primarily in terms of cultural rather than phenotypical differences. Geographical location, linguistic and social practices (including coming from a rural community, L1 Indigenous language proficiency, engaging in communal practices) have been racialized to index deficiency and backwardness (see also Huayhua, 2014; Zavala & Back, 2017). Up to the present day, individuals from rural communities continue to occupy racial positions closer to Indianness. Across decades, vowel alternation has been bundled together with rural Quechua speakers to index inferiority through processes of raciolinguistic enregisterment, a process “whereby linguistic and racial forms are jointly constructed as sets and rendered mutually recognizable as named languages/​varieties and racial categories” (Rosa & Flores, 2017: 11), such that racialized bodies (rural Andean individuals) are expected to look like a language (motoseo) and certain language practices are expected to sound like a particular racial group. A raciolinguistic enregisterment perspective allows us to understand that language practices, or semiotic repertoires, do not arbitrarily gain a distinct social range (Agha, 2005) (that is, social values of personhood, situation and relationship they index, e.g. proper, cool, deficient, etc.) nor social domain (groups who use such ways of speaking and groups who understand these social meanings). Instead, this perspective highlights the ways in which language practices are co-​ naturalized with particular social categories within specific racial hierarchies. It is this coupling of language and race which shapes the valorizations of language practices and our perceptions of who engages, or not, in such practices. In the following interview excerpt, I show dominant understandings of motoseo which circulated among high school students. Jason, a Spanish-​dominant bilingual with emerging speaking abilities in Quechua who grew up in a bilingual family in the outskirt of town, and whose parents worked as schoolteachers, described the ways in which motoseo is linked to rural L1 Quechua speakers in deficient ways and how it shaped youth experiences in schools: [mote3] happens more to those that, let’s say, had Quechua Quechua roots … because look, to my classmates that don’t speak any Quechua they don’t make mistakes, I mean, they don’t have the famous mote, and those who, let’s say, know some, like that, they also don’t make mistakes … my classmate Yeny who, let’s say, speaks well Quechua and sometimes she is presenting and it comes out, let’s say, the so-​called mote, let’s say nosotros mesmos’ (we ourselves),4 she says something like that, so we make fun, and she turns red, but the good thing is that, let’s say, she takes it okay … it was something funny but also enjoyable and it wasn’t, let’s say, anything negative … I think it will serve her to, let’s say, enunciate better and it will also be for her improvement, even though we made fun, we didn’t make fun with an evil intention … if it becomes too much, then we know how to control it.5 55

Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro

Vowel alternations are explained as ‘mistakes’ caused by high Quechua proficiency of this rural individual. His classmate Yeny, a clear example of a motoso, is someone who is not in control of her linguistic practices (‘it comes out’), an object of unquestioned mockery (‘so we make fun’) and as an individual in need of betterment (‘it will serve her … to enunciate better’, ‘for her improvement’). The matter-​of-​fact tone with which Jason narrated this reported event, especially his own and his peers’ reactions towards Yeny, also show how discrimination of rural students is normalized. Rural students like Yeny who produced or were heard to produce motoseo, recalled being stopped in the middle of their presentations by peers and sometimes teachers, who would point out their ‘mistakes’ and offer recasts they were meant to produce. A student even recalled how a Quechua-​speaking classmate was cut off by her teacher after producing an instance of motoseo with the phrase “Explica en quechua si no puedes hablar el castellano” (“Explain in Quechua if you can’t speak Spanish”). Mote utterances would also be repeated back to youth who produced it days after said events. Far from being unremarked funny events, those on the receiving end described feeling tormented by these exchanges, internalized ideologies of the inferiority of their Spanish practices and their sense of self and took it upon themselves to alter their speech to prevent future discrimination, although sometimes they asked their peers to stop. Following an RLI lens allowed me to consider how rural students were overdetermined to engage in instances of motoseo, even when their language practices did not necessarily correspond to this practice. Going back to Yeny’s case, I analyze how her participation in a classroom presentation is narrated to me in an interview with a classmate as a clear example of motoseo: me acuerdo una ocasión que estábamos exponiendo sobre Noruega [el país], Yeny dijo “Noriega”, y decimos “Noruega” todos. “Nor-​nor-​Noriega” dice, y “No, Noruega, di Noruega” y estaba tan nerviosa que estaba volviendo a cometer el “Noriega”. “No, pronuncia bien, Noruega.” I remember that one time we were presenting about Norway [the country], Yeny said “Noriega” and we all said “Noruega”. “Nor-​nor-​Noriega” she says, and “No, Noruega, say Noruega” and she was so nervous that she was making the same “Noriega”. “No, pronounce well, Noruega.” Following the vowel alternation order of linguistic motoseo phenomena, possible vowel alternations would be perceived in Spanish as ‘Noroega’, ‘Noruiga’, ‘Noroiga’, ‘Nuruega’, ‘Nuruiga’ and ‘Noroega’, none mentioned by Jason. It seems more likely the ‘Noriega–​Noruega’ mismatch, in the context of a class presentation where she is being corrected by her peers, draws on her knowledge of a common Spanish last name (Noriega) to approximate to what is perhaps an unknown or uncommon country to her (Noruega). These reasons are not considered in her peers’ narrative of what occurred. Instead, continued to be heard through the white listening and perceiving subject, Yeny stands as someone who confuses her languages, is not in control of her speech, and who needs correction from her peers. Yeny’s case recalls that of Lilia Paredes, who despite not being a Quechua-​speaker, was also overdetermined to engage in motoseo to explain the perceived deviancy of her speech. Processes of raciolinguistic enregisterment which overdetermined rural students to produce motoseo also shaped who was not heard to produce such practices. An RLI lens encouraged me to

56

Raciolinguistic Ideologies

consider instances of vowel alternation or pronunciations which differed from Standard Spanish practices produced by all youth and consider their differing evaluations. This analytical exercise showed how, if one sets out to look for it, we can find instances where not only rural students’ ways of speaking distanced from normative Spanish pronunciation, but also students with different socialization trajectories. Yet for those students inhabiting positions closer to whiteness, such as Spanish-​dominant bilinguals not identified as having grown up in rural communities with Quechua as a first language, or whose parents engaged in wage-​earning activities other than agricultural practices as their main livelihood, most of these bilingual and non-​normative practices went unnoticed by their peers and even by themselves, and when produced in (mocking) stylizations, received positive recognition and celebration by some youth. And notably, emergent Quechua-​ learners were not ridiculed by peers in Quechua class presentations when they produced Quechua utterances that included traces of Spanish phonemes. These students did experience their own set of challenges, yet they did not experience an ever-​present policing of their supposedly inherent inferior cognitive, social and communicative abilities. This case shows how racial hierarchies continue to be at play not only in how Indigenous language use by rural speakers is perceived, which has been widely examined across the globe, but also how language practices which draw on a wider range of their linguistic repertoires are evaluated in ways that continue to frame racialized bilingual rural students as ‘lesser than communicative beings’ (Veronelli, 2015). Drawing on participant observation and interview data showed how the raciolinguistic enregisterment of motoseo continues to be sustained across youth evaluations of their peers and themselves, fueled by over assignation of language practices to particular racialized groups and erasure of similarities which threaten this configuration. Considering context-​specific histories of coloniality, analysts can examine processes of raciolinguistic enregisterment to shed light on the ways in which racial hierarchies are transformed and maintained in and through language, including contexts which seek to promote language diversity, and with different consequences for bilingual speakers.

RLIs in conversation with other research traditions While RLI draws on contributions from several research traditions –​ specifically, critical race theory, critical studies of language, bilingualism, and linguistic anthropology –​ it also connects to other approaches to the study of language and race in society. Understanding areas of overlap and distinctiveness can help researchers select suitable frameworks that fit their agendas. Samy Alim, John Rickford and Arnetha Ball’s Raciolinguistics (2016) edited volume explores the central role language plays in shaping ideas about race and how race shapes ideas about language, offering case studies from around the globe. Following the editors, Raciolinguistics builds on RLI, yet also differs from it: [We are] using the term raciolinguistics in a different way, that is, as an umbrella term to refer to an emerging field dedicated to bringing to bear the diverse methods of linguistic analysis –​ discourse analysis, ethnographic linguistic anthropological studies, quantitative variationist sociolinguistics, applied linguistics and language educational analyses, etc. –​to ask and answer critical questions about the relations between language, race, and power across diverse ethnoracial contexts and societies. p. 27

57

Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro

Raciolinguistics scholarship can offer a wider range of conceptual and methodological approaches to understand the relationships between language and race. Yet, this wider stance also means that some of the key elements of a RLI analysis (see Sections 2 and 3) might not be addressed. While the study of raciolinguistic ideologies can fall within a raciolinguistics lens, not all scholarship which falls under this umbrella term necessarily addresses raciolinguistic ideologies. The study of RLI questions the seemingly objective co-​naturalization of language and race and the taken-​for-​ granted objectivity of language practices and linguistic categories as departing points of analysis. Because of its critical and anti-​racist theoretical foundation, an RLI perspective places the object of study on the listening subject and not on language practices of racialized populations alone, which does not characterize all raciolinguistics research. Additionally, both research lines don’t necessarily share the same theory of social change and can carry different implications for how the relationship between language and race is to be studied and transformed. Finally, whereas raciolinguistics might be understood as a subfield of linguistics, the lens of RLI seeks to permeate all the ways in which we study language and society. The growing interest in decolonial and Southern perspectives to the study of multilingualism in society in the past decade (see Chapter 10), also warrants attention to points of convergence and divergence between RLI and decolonial/​Southern perspectives. With grounding on decolonial theory, Latin American scholars like Fernando Garcés (2009) and Gabriella Veronelli (2015) have proposed the concepts of colonialidad lingüística (linguistic coloniality) and the coloniality of language, respectively, to examine the process of racialization of colonized subjects as communicative subjects, which are rooted in the colonial difference which sets some bodies as more/​less than human than others. These theorizations are akin to RLI’s approach to question the taken-​for-​ granted co-​naturalization of language and race and uncover modern-​colonial racial hierarchies as root cause of linguistic inequality in society. This scholarship provides an important account of the co-​naturalization of language and race from distinct contexts than the US, where the RLI framework is born out of, and encourage analysts to examine what the white listening and perceiving subject looks like in different contexts of coloniality. We believe there is a need for more detailed deconstructions of how raciolinguistic ideologies have been created and sustained across history in a wider range of contexts of coloniality across the globe. Indigenous, decolonial and Southern approaches to the study of multilingualism and language in society not only question what we come to understand as bilingualism or multilingualism, but even more so, what we understand by language, and ask if there can even be one universal ontological category of ‘language’ (see Chapter 10; Leonard, 2021). Additionally, for decolonial scholarship, the racialization of colonized others as communicative subjects is linked to their ontological, epistemological, and axiological inferiorization, something not necessarily highlighted by RLI-​informed studies. Garcés (2009), in his examination of the colonial matrix in the Andes, for example, shows how the coloniality of power and knowledge rested on processes of racialization which extended to “otros órdenes de la vida” (other orders of life), including the racialization of languages, but also knowledges and spiritualities. Engaging with ongoing conversations in these fields seems a fruitful avenue for RLI research. First, it can continue to widen examinations of processes by which not only linguistic practices, but the full range of practices that fall under different ontological understandings of ‘language’ (including diverse semiotic signs, modes, relationships, interactions between human and non-​human actors, for example) are drawn upon in processes of raciolinguistic enregisterment. And second, RLI analysis can join efforts which seek to question racialized perceptions of ways of languaging alongside different ways of being and knowing.

58

Raciolinguistic Ideologies

RLIs and the study of multilingualism Analytically, a raciolinguistic ideological lens requires an understanding, or better yet, an unlearning of the taken-​for-​granted analytical categories we have come to expect in studies of multilingualism and society, including language, race, gender, class, etc. This, in our experience, requires constant vigilance on the part of the analyst. It requires constant reflection on ways in which we are categorizing and describing the participants and ways of speaking in our studies, including how we write and frame our questions of study, and how we engage in the analysis of our data. Related to this is the required understanding of colonial histories and legacies: how the categories of bounded languages and ways of speaking were created in the service of imperialism and nation-​state formation, as well as the categories of groups of people based on perceived phenotypic traits in relation/​contrast to whiteness/​Europeanness, as well as how these coupling together of language and racial categories is re-​articulated across time. Much of the work employing a raciolinguistic ideological lens6 has been conducted in multilingual educational contexts, such as schools and university settings, has involved educational actors, such as students or teachers, and has been published in educational journals. And, while most research has been conducted in the US, scholars have examined multilingual phenomena from an RLI lens in Austria, Brazil, Finland, Senegal, China, France, South Africa, Spain, the UK, Netherlands and Belgium, and Portugal. Ongoing scholarship pays increasing attention to how categories such as religious identities, gender, migratory status and disability are drawn upon to sustain raciolinguistic ideologies and inequities (Flores, Phuong & Venegas, 2020; Mustonen, 2021; Thoma, 2020), how the white listening and hearing subject is inhabited not only by individual actors but throughout educational systems and mechanisms such as standardized tests and home language surveys (Campbell-​Montalvo, 2021; Siordia & Kim, 2021), as well as considering what RLI-​inspired classroom-​focused social change might look like in different contexts (Flores, 2020; Milu, 2021; Smith, 2019). Outside of educational contexts, an RLI perspective has been used to examine land transformation policies in South Africa (Ndhlovu, 2019); to examining the concept of the ‘vernacular’ in English medieval studies (Rajendran, 2019), the embodiment of the white listening subject in domestic Spanish handbooks (Divot, 2020) and for the semiotic analysis of gender and race in social media (China, 2020; Delfino, 2021). An RLI framework offers valuable analytical tools to tackle the study of racialized multilingualisms from interactional and ethnographic perspectives. RLI’s strong connection to linguistic anthropology allows researchers to consider the process by which the racialization of communicative subjects is maintained, reproduced and contested in and through interaction. Researchers employing an RLI lens increasingly draw on different methodological approaches, including interviews, case studies, narrative inquiries, biographical analysis, autoethnographies, critical discourse analysis of data artifacts and ethnographies. As the RLI-​framework is combined with different methodological traditions, it will be important to identify which developments enhance its interpretive potential and how different methodological orientations manage, or not, to attend to the essential elements that guide this framework. Analysis of contemporary manifestations of raciolinguistic ideologies, for example, will need to keep in mind a historical and context-​specific understanding of how contemporary ideologies under examination are implicated in longer processes of raciolinguistic enregisterment. RLI does not subscribe to a particular set of methodological paradigms, nor considers how RLI research is to be produced and by whom. An area of promising development of the RLI framework lies in how such scholarship relates to wider efforts to decolonize knowledge production. Engagement with scholarship from decolonizing and Indigenous knowledge and methodological 59

Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro

traditions (Chilisa, 2012; Leonard, 2021), as well as participatory research from the Global South (Kenfield, 2021; Haboud, 2023), would encourage RLI scholars to contribute to needed efforts to consider what counts as valid and legitimate knowledge and ways of knowing in the study of multilingualism and society (Ndhlovu, 2021). An exciting direction forward is thinking about who is using this lens, and for what purposes. A raciolinguistic ideologies perspective has allowed scholars of colour to turn their eye towards their own fields. For example, medieval studies scholar, Carla María Thomas (2021), wrote an autoethnographic account of her experience as a white Latina, analyzing her ethnoracial positioning as well as her languaging to address the racism prevalent in her field, and as a call to colleagues to consider the racializing process and raciolinguistic ideologies that have marginalized certain voices in the field. Similarly, Wesley Leonard (2021), a myaamia Native scholar, questions the dominance of the white linguistic anthropologist gaze which underlies how scholars are expected to produce, disseminate and evaluate anthropological knowledge about language. Turning away from projects which seek to socialize BIPOC scholars into normative and ‘appropriate’ academic practices, Leonard seeks to reimagine and transform the norms of the field through an Indigenous research protocols perspective. These are powerful examples of work that seeks to transform current racial hierarchies –​illustrating the potential of this perspective to motivate structural change. An RLI perspective holds much promise for examining how inequality in diverse multilingual contexts continues to be normalized and sustained. The insistence on a historical analysis of the co-​naturalization of language and race in specific contexts, the shift in analytical focus it entails, the attention it turns to hegemonic ways of listening and its theory of social change make this theoretical framework a significant contribution to our ways of thinking and analyzing multilingual speakers and settings. Its value to scholarship of language and education specifically, and the study of multilingualism in general, is evident in the work that scholars continue to produce that are pushing the boundaries of our thinking in generative ways.

Related topics Chapter 2 Looking at multilingualisms from the Global South; Chapter 3 (De)colonial multilingual/​multimodal practices: resisting and re-​existing voices from Latin America; Chapter 5 Unequal Englishes in the Global South; Chapter 10 Linguistic citizenship; Chapter 15 Decolonizing multilingual pedagogies.

Notes 1 This work was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme, project number 223265. 2 In this article, Vigouroux does not explicitly cite Flores & Rosa (2015), perhaps given that both articles were published at the same time. However, we have chosen her work as a good example of a linguistic anthropological analysis that includes a historical examination of colonial racial and linguistic logics, with an illustration of how these are re-​articulated in the indexical phrase ‘y’a bon’ that is the subject of the analysis. 3 In this site, motoseo, mote and moteo are used interchangeably. 4 We have kept the original mote utterance and provide English translation in parenthesis. 5 Original Spanish text was omitted due to space considerations. 6 We base these observations on a search of scholarly literature, including books and articles, published up until December 2021 in English and Spanish which explicitly included the use of RLI theoretical framework in the abstract and mentioned it in the manuscript. We acknowledge that the authors engaged with different elements of the RLI framework, and in different depth, across their studies. We also acknowledge this search is limited in its focus of academic publications and languages of publication, and we do not take it to be an exhaustive representation of RLI scholarship.

60

Raciolinguistic Ideologies

Further reading Flores, N. 2019. Translanguaging into raciolinguistic ideologies: a personal reflection on the legacy of Ofelia García. Journal of Multilingual Education Research. 9(5) 45–60. Flores, N. & Rosa, J. 2015. Undoing appropriateness: raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review. 85(2):149–​171. Rosa, J. 2019. Looking like a Language, Sounding like a Race: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and the Learning of Latinidad. Oxford University Press. Rosa, J. & Flores, N. 2017. Unsettling race and language: toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society. 46(5); 621–​647.

References Agha, A. 2005. Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 15(1): 38–​59. Alim, H.S., Rickford, J.R. & Ball, A.F. Eds. 2016. Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes our Ideas about Race. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Andrade, L. & Franco, R. 2022. Cambiar de Acento con un Clic. https://​trama​crit​ica.pe/​persp​ecti​vas/​2022/​01/​ 15/​camb​iar-​de-​ace​nto-​con-​un-​clic/​. Campbell-​Montalvo, R. 2021. Linguistic re-​formation in Florida heartland schools: school erasures of indigenous Latino languages. American Educational Research Journal. 58(1): 32–​67. Chaparro, S.E. 2019. But mom! I’m not a Spanish boy: raciolinguistic socialization in a two-​way immersion bilingual program. Linguistics and Education. 50: 1–​12. Chilisa, B. 2012. Indigenous Research Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. China, A. 2020. Racialization and gender in Tumblr: Beyoncé as a raciolinguistic semiotic resource. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 265: 81–​105. Delfino, J. 2021. White allies and the semiotics of wokeness: raciolinguistic chronotopes of white virtue on Facebook. Linguistic Anthropology. 31(2): 238–​257. Divot, D. 2020. Domestic Spanish handbooks: language and labor in the American home. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 262:17–​37. Flores, N. 2019. Translanguaging into raciolinguistic ideologies: a personal reflection on the legacy of Ofelia García. Journal of Multilingual Education Research. 9:5 45–​60. Flores, N. 2020. From academic language to language architecture: challenging raciolinguistic ideologies in research and practice. Theory Into Practice. 59:22–​31. Flores, N., Phuong, J. & Venegas, K.M. 2020. “Technically an EL”: the production of raciolinguistic categories in a dual language school. TESOL quarterly. 54(3):629–​651. Flores, N. & Rosa, J. 2015. Undoing appropriateness: raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review. 85(2):149–​171. Garcés, F. 2009. ¿Colonialidad o Interculturalidad? Representaciones de la Lengua y el Conocimiento quechuas. La Paz, Bolivia: PIEB. Haboud Bumachar, M. (2023). Desde la documentación activa a la revitalización contextualizada: experiencias con comunidades kichwahablantes en Ecuador. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2023(280):91–134. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2022-0043. Huayhua, M. 2014. Racism and social interaction in a southern Peruvian combi. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 37(13): 2399–​2417. Kenfield, Y.H. 2021. Enacting and Envisioning Decolonial Forces while Sustaining Indigenous Language: Bilingual College Students in the Andes. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kvietok Dueñas. 2019. Youth Bilingualism, Identity and Quechua Language Planning and Policy in the Urban Peruvian Andes. Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. https://​rep​osit​ory.upenn.edu/​edi​sser​tati​ons/​3293. Leonard, W.Y. 2021. Toward an anti-​racist linguistic anthropology: an Indigenous response to White Supremacy. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 31(2):218–​237. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. Eds. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mignolo, W. 1995. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, territoriality, and Colonization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Milu, E. 2021. Diversity of raciolinguistic experiences in the writing classroom: an argument for a transnational Black language pedagogy. College English. 415–​441.

61

Frances Kvietok Dueñas and Sofía Chaparro Mustonen, S. 2021. ‘I’ll always have black hair’ –​challenging raciolinguistic ideologies in Finnish schools. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy. 7(3):159–​168. Ndhlovu, F. 2019. South Africa’s social transformation policies: raciolinguistic ideologies and neoliberal rhetoric. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 14(2):131–​151. Ndhlovu, F. 2021. Decolonising sociolinguistics research: methodological turn-​around next? International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2021(267–​268). 193–​201. Rajendran, S. 2019. Undoing “the vernacular”: dismantling structures of raciolinguistic supremacy. Literature compass. 16(9):1–​13. Rosa, J. 2019. Looking like a Language, Sounding like a Race: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and the Learning of Latinidad. Oxford University Press. Rosa, J. & Flores, N. 2017. Unsettling race and language: toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society. 46(5):621–​647. Siordia, C. & Kim, K.M. 2021. How language proficiency standardized assessments inequitably impact Latinx long-​term English learners. TESOL Journal. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tesj.639. Smith, P. 2019. (Re)positioning in the Englishes and (English) literacies of a Black immigrant youth: towards a transraciolinguistic approach. Theory into practice. 58(3):292–​303. Thoma, N. 2020, ‘I don’t want to be pushed into an Islamic school’: biography and raciolinguistic ideologies in education. Race Ethnicity and Education. 10.1080/​13613324.2020.1798390. Thomas, C.M. 2021, Embodying antiracist White Latinidad in medieval studies. Literature Compass. 18(10):1–​14. Veronelli, G.A. 2015. Sobre la colonialidad del lenguaje y el decir. Universitas Humanística, 81:(33–​58). Vigouroux, C.B. 2017. The discursive pathway of two centuries of raciolinguistic stereotyping: ‘Africans as incapable of speaking French’. Language in Society. 46(1):5–​21. Zavala, V. 2011. Racialization of the bilingual student in higher education: a case from the Peruvian Andes. Linguistics and Education. 22(4):393–​405. Zavala, V. & Back, M. Eds. 2017. Racismo y Lenguaje. Lima, Perú: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Zavala, V. & Córdova, G. 2010. Decir y Callar: Lenguaje, Equidad y poder en la Universidad Peruana. http://​red.pucp.edu.pe/​ridei/​files/​2011/​08/​Decir-​y-​Cal​lar.pdf.

62

5 UNEQUAL ENGLISHES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH Ruanni Tupas

Introduction The term ‘Global South’ is a contested concept primarily because the contours of geopolitical relations are complicated by spaces and regions of marginality even in highly industrialized countries. In the ‘Southern Question’, Antonio Gramsci writes about Italy’s industrialized North and underdeveloped South (Gündoğan, 2008), with Southern workers being colonized by Northern capitalists (Dados & Connell, 2012). It was then development economics with its attendant framing of global relations as core and periphery which has internationalized the mobilization of ‘Global South’ and ‘Global North’ (Prebisch, 1981; Wallerstein, 1974). In this paper, we take Global South to mean as referring mainly to regions of Latin America, Asia, Africa and Oceania which have shared experiences of political, cultural and economic marginalization because of solidarities of marginality drawn from “an entire history of colonialism, neo-​imperialism, and differential economic and social change through which large inequalities in living standards, life expectancy, and access to resources are maintained” (Dados & Connel, 2012: 13). ‘Global South’ points to the intertwined logics of coloniality, neoliberalism and racism which have dictated the way particular groups of people have been subjugated for centuries until today. This paper argues that through the lens of the Global South, the spread not only of English but, more importantly, of Englishes, has been uneven. Much has been said about the negative consequences of the spread of the English language, and a substantial amount of work on its localization and pluralization has emerged to counter such negative views of English as a global language. However, while post-​colonial Englishes have been celebrated as liberatory, such celebration has glossed over the continuing marginalization of speakers and learners of English whose localized or pluralized versions of the global language have not given them the expected linguistic capital to navigate their social world with access to its social and material privileges. Intersections of class, race, gender, colonialism and neoliberalism have produced conditions of language learning where the promise of English has benefitted some but further marginalized others. Thus, the class-​ and race-​driven operations of English in the Global South have shown that the subjugated people’s use of the language has led to inequalities of Englishes –​or Unequal Englishes. To put it in another way, unframing the localization and pluralization of English from the ‘world’ of World Englishes or, more specifically, the ‘Asia’ of Asian Englishes (Bolton et al., 2020), the ‘Africa’ of African DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-6

63

Ruanni Tupas

Englishes (Mutonya, 2008), or the ‘South America’ of South American Englishes (Rajagopalan, 2006) (among other regional constellations of Englishes), will help unravel the ideologies and mechanisms of silencing which mask the overlapping conditions of inequality serving the matrix of the local operations of English. ‘Global South’ brings back the spotlight on inequalities of Englishes without erasing possibilities of agency among speakers of these varieties.

The globalization and localization of English Globalization and localization are social processes that are inextricable from each other. Where there is globalization, there is localization. In the context of global English, these twin social processes are conceptualized together in the dominant paradigms of World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca and English as an international language –​ thus, ‘Global Englishes’ (Galloway & Rose, 2015) –​in such a way that global English is deemed to operate within local cultural and socio-​economic matrices. Thus, global English is realized as local English or, for that matter, local Englishes (Kachru, 1986). This is not, however, how global English is always operationalized. In language policymaking, applied linguistics, including and perhaps especially the Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), and popular discourses, the spread of English is associated more with globalization and homogenization rather than localization and pluralization (Graddol, 1996), not so much because there is lack of recognition of the diversity or diversification of English, but because of the view of globalization as a homogenizing force, and localization as undesirable. Kachru (1996) early on criticized approaches to understanding and the study of the diversification of English: “Any non-​linguistic indicators –​cultural, social and religious –​have been viewed as the markers of deficiency and not merely of difference. The manifestations of language contact were viewed as interference” (140). The phenomenon of global English is then used not only as a justification for the continued (re)assertion of the dominance of English in educational and other social contexts but, equally important, for the legitimized character of native-​speaker norms and standards. What is ignored in the equation (both consciously or unconsciously) is the fact that culture has mediated the spread of English through globalization, and it is the cultural appropriation of English through its spread that has led to localization and pluralization. What has been missed is the central role of speakers of English who, through “use of appropriate resistance and empowerment strategies” (Rajagopalan, 2003: 98), have transformed the English language, for example through creative language use in the writing of national literatures and code-​switching in everyday communication. It is these innovations and new practices emerging from the mediation of culture and the speakers responsible for them that have animated the post-​colonial take of many scholars on the spread of English (Kachru, 1986; Bhatt, 2001; Rajagopalan, 2003; Bolton et al., 2020). After all, the spread of English through globalization (along with ideologies such as native speakerism associated with it) has been mainly a product of colonialism, thus the tantalizing view of cultural mediation as resistance against English as a colonial language and a repository of colonial ideologies and practices, makes much sense. Thus, instead of simply viewing the spread of English as a function of globalization, scholars of Englishes have correctly understood the spread as globalization/​localization. This has opened up uneasy but much-​needed conversations about the legitimacy of so-​called ‘non-​native’ Englishes and their speakers, resulting in the reappraisal of assumptions embedded in the practice of TESOL and other related fields around the world. The scholars and the practices which their work has generated in the field have contributed to unpacking racial and racist language beliefs, such as native speakerism (the belief that ‘the native speaker’ is the 64

Unequal Englishes in the Global South

authority in English language use and teaching), which have served as the ideological anchors of the infrastructures of knowledge production and practice in TESOL, applied linguistics and related areas. Musthofiyah and Isnainiyah (2019), for example, question internalized racism embedded in the continued promotion of ‘Standard English’ and argue that an understanding and embrace of the pluralized nature of the language could be taken as a symbolic resistance to such form of racism. Hall (2012), on the other hand, contends that while the construct and the mobilization of native speakerism have been extensively critiqued for at least two decades now, “there still remain concerns about a hidden racism in the TESOL and TEFL profession” (p. 108; see De Costa et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the dominant logics of the global spread of English are framed largely within bounded nation-​based cultural localization such that Englishes become pluralized according to constructed national identity markers. Thus, the spread of English, mainly engineered by colonialism and neoliberal globalization, has led to the emergence of post-​colonial Englishes such as Philippine English, Malaysian English, Indian English, to name a few. While this categorization of localized Englishes has indeed highlighted the plural or heterogenous nature of global English, which as mentioned above has taken on political and ideological meanings as the colonized people’s resistive ways of fighting back against oppressive colonial and racist practices and rule, such categorization has hidden from view overlapping conditions of inequality which shape or structure global and local relations of power between communities of speakers of Englishes (Tupas, 2015; Sabaté-​Dalmau, 2018; Canilao, 2020). In other words, there is more to the politics of Englishes today than simply the speakers of national post-​colonial Englishes wresting power from the so-​ called native speakers of English and establishing their own legitimate norms of language use. The local dynamics of language politics, of course still linked with global configurations of power relations, has been largely ignored (Saraceni & Jacob, 2021). Central to this erasure is the way the role of localization and pluralization has been positioned theoretically –​as one side of the Janus-​faced status of English today (Kachru, 1996). It is a product of the binary sets of roles, beliefs and attitudes assigned to the two-​faced English. In this binary thinking, localization and pluralization are sources of celebration because colonialism is now a thing of the past. We have been given two choices: English as a colonial or as a post-​colonial language (Kachru, 1986; 1996; Gonzalez, 1976). Kachru’s (1996) work frames this as ‘agony’ for some, while ‘ecstasy’ for others: And thereby hangs a linguistic tale of cross-​cultural attitudes about the forms and functions of world Englishes. What is viewed as deficit by one group of English users indicates pragmatic success to other users. What causes linguistic agony to one group is the cause of ecstasy for the other. p. 150 What is not part of the conceptualization of post-​colonial English as mobilized by many scholars in the field is the coloniality of English, with coloniality here viewed as incorporating “colonialism and imperialism but goes beyond them; this is why coloniality did not end with the end of colonialism (formal independence of nation states)” (Escobar, 2004; p. 219). All this means that while the changes we have done on the language are indeed indications of our agentive nature as post-​colonial speakers, such changes are still worked out within conditions traceable back to practices and structures of colonialism. The dominant thinking, as mentioned above, has remained the same: it is true that English is a product of colonialism but so-​called non-​native speakers who have been subjected to the rapacity of colonialism have nevertheless changed the language 65

Ruanni Tupas

according to their cultural and political needs and wants, so what we have now is an English language which has been freed from the shackles of colonialism (Paterno, 2018; Rajagopalan, 2003). This paper will not rehearse arguments concerning the constructed nature of the nation in World Englishes as this has been done by many other scholars (Saraceni & Jacob, 2021; Parakrama, 1995; Pennycook, 2009). The point that needs to be highlighted here is the question about what has been glossed over by the post-​colonial celebration of nation-​based framing of the localization and pluralization of English. To address this question, this paper discusses the politics of Englishes in the Philippines today but, by doing so, it will make connections with speakers of Englishes in other Southern nations, the majority of whom remain marginalized culturally, socio-​economically and politically, while a small elite take control of the ‘educated’ standard, or more specifically access to it and the symbolic and material resources the standard engenders. These small elite, by virtue of their ‘non-​native’ affiliations, in turn are framed as inferior speakers in relation to their ‘native’ counterparts in the global market. Such multilayered politics of Englishes will unravel if the ‘nation’ is dropped as our lens for understanding and appraising the different ways we use English in the Global South; indeed, different but overlapping configurations of Englishes and the social relations that embed them also emerge. The first among these configurations are inequalities of access to privileged Englishes within communities of speakers, such that while everyone may have access to the language, due in part by compulsory schooling in English or perhaps the ubiquity of the language in the linguistic landscape, only a small elite among them deploy a variety of English which is socially marked as desirable, correct and/​or marketable. However, privileged and marginalized speakers within these communities are further imbricated in configurations of solidarities with other communities of speakers historically and ideologically separated by the construction of ‘nations’. There are, for example, translocal solidarities that situate speakers within socio-​economic, cultural and political axes of marginalization and oppression, while translocal communities of English-​educated elite speakers also share similar conditions of privilege. Such solidarities break down national boundaries such that the concentric circles of Englishes are reconfigured: the centre is now constituted by ‘educated’ Englishes which have close affinities with traditional native speakers of Englishes (Thirusanku & Yunus, 2012; Madrunio, 2004), while the peripheral ones are occupied by speakers of undervalued or less valued Englishes. These peripheral ones across translocal spaces are “Outer Circles everywhere, whose speakers, because of positions of relative powerlessness, are largely unable to gain access to such [educated English] standards” (Tupas, 2006: 170). Such already multilayered and interlinked life conditions of speakers are further complicated by the fact that in the global market, racialized and colonially induced speakers in the Global South –​ varied in terms of their socio-​economic and cultural affiliations –​ are also located in intersecting local and global dynamics of power. For example, while the ‘educated’ speakers of English command prestige over other speakers in their own communities, like everyone else in these communities they also suffer linguistic and racial discrimination because of the non-​native flavour of their Englishes and the historically undesirable bodies in which they inhabit. Global coloniality fundamentally sustains the imperial logics of unequal power relations which are grounded in racialized hierarchization of people (Escobar, 2004; Mignolo, 2017). In the politics of Global English, it manifests massively in native speakerist ideologies and practices which construct ‘non-​native’ speakers in Southern communities as deficient and/​or incompetent speakers of English (Kabel, 2009). The overlapping and multilayered configurations of life conditions of speakers in the South are unpacked more concretely in the following sections. 66

Unequal Englishes in the Global South

Configurations of unequal Englishes in the Global South Local nexuses of power For at least four decades now, some scholars writing about the politics of Englishes in the Global South have alerted us to the vast range of unequally valued local Englishes emerging from the different racialized and ethnicized class positions of their speakers. Kandiah (1981), for example, remarked that the “English forms and expressions arising from the mouths and pens of Sri Lankans” (p. 63) are wide-​ranging but those who contribute to the making of what is known as Sri Lankan English are bilingual speakers who “constitute the westernized middle class, who live in the towns” (p. 63). Thus, for Parakrama (1995), there is a need to ‘de-​hegemonize’ Sri Lankan English, or democratize it by broadening the range of acceptability to include the Englishes of the peripheral speakers of the language in the country. Tollefson (1986) wrote about the false promise of English in the Philippines among the huge marginalized sectors because, while they seek English-​medium instruction for their children to give them a good future, the schools that the children end up with are ill-​equipped to provide them with quality instruction in the use of English. The kind of English they learn is acceptable in the job market only in so far as low-​paying or cheap labour-​demanding jobs are concerned. Ramanathan (2005), on the other hand, maps out the great class divide between students from English-​medium and vernacular-​medium schools in India not simply because of lack of access to English among vernacular-​medium students, but because of the multifarious structural and cultural constraints which prevent them from learning English that is sufficient for upward social mobility. The issue here is not so much about which forms and expressions should constitute legitimate/​legitimized Englishes, but rather how conditions facilitating the process of legitimization of such Englishes include and exclude particular groups of English speakers and learners. However, while we cannot really say they have been ignored, these insights of scholars which expose the multiplicity of unequally valued ‘sub-​national’ Englishes have been overshadowed by the more tantalizing view of localization and pluralization as liberatory and post-​colonial as discussed above. It seems to have been forgotten that globalization has facilitated the “rapid and uneven flows of goods, people, ideas, images, products and money” (Blackmore, 2015: 485). The consequence is that localization paradigms have not been able to reconcile the centrality of the continuing and prevalent operations of inequalities of Englishes and their speakers with the agency of these speakers to exploit the forms, meanings and functions of English to their advantage. Adopting Mignolo’s (2017) words, how is it possible for speakers “to begin to re-​exist” (p. 40) without disconnecting them from the conditions which facilitate(d) their re-​existence? Overdeterminist understandings of the power of English around the world have been checked or curbed by the incorporation of resistance and agency among the subjugated English speakers into the conceptual matrix of global English, but in the process the conditions of (im)possibility for agentive speakers to re-​appear have been glossed over. The case of call centre representatives in the Philippines, for example, can help us make sense of the configurations of unequal Englishes in the Global South today (Tupas & Salonga, 2016; Salonga, 2010). They have for the past decade or two become the new breed of young Filipinos who speak English ‘well enough’ to be hired in call centres. The salary in call centres among entry level workers is higher than most entry level professional jobs in the Philippines, thus making working in a call centre a sought-​after job. However, only a handful of applicants –​ estimated to be between 3% and 5% –​ eventually get hired because the great majority do not get enough training in school or draw cultural habitus from home to be able to act out the variety of English that approximates accents and practices associated with the perceived standard 67

Ruanni Tupas

English, which is generally American English for most Philippines-​based call centres. This is symptomatic of deeper local dynamics of social relations in the country where different ways of using English accrue to groups of speakers who belong to different socio-​economic and cultural backgrounds. Those who go to good schools, typically private schools or, sometimes, highly competitive state universities, and sited in largely urban areas, constitute a very small group of English users whose variety of the language is the one which is privileged in school, the workplace, and language-​in-​education policies (Berowa & Regala-​Flores, 2020; Martin, 2014; Tayao, 2004). A call centre language trainer, ‘Sarah’, encapsulates this unequal local dynamic which takes form in the industry: You have to admit, really, the middle class to the well off, they’re the ones who actually get to watch cable, or they’re the ones who get to buy dictionaries and encyclopedias for their kids, or the quality of education that they get, you know, everything just works for them. So, for example, even if [they] didn’t graduate from college –​a lot of call centers do welcome undergrads –​their high school education probably came from Ateneo, La Salle Greenhills, or even Miriam [exclusive private schools in the Philippines]. They survive and thrive in the contact center industry. They grew up with computers. They grew up with all of the cable channels available to you and they are very comfortable with the language. That’s an edge right there. in Salonga, 2015: 137 In other words, an English linguistic hierarchy mediates social and power relations in the country because an ‘educated’ Philippine English –​ not simply the ability to speak English –​ provides both symbolic and material privileges to those who speak it. Scholars have pointed us to many local Englishes which intersect with their speakers’ social class and ethnolinguistic positionings, but they are one and the same in saying that these varieties do not provide the same privileges for their speakers as those who use the ‘educated’ variety fluently (Berowa & Regala-​Flores, 2020; Martin, 2014; Tupas & Salonga, 2016). In other words, for young Filipino workers today, localized Englishes help configure the unequal social relations between them which, in turn, sustain rather than transform, class-​based inequalities which have plagued the country for decades. The agentive properties of the ‘educated’ variety of Philippine English, however, cannot be denied. Filipino call centre agents attest to how the mobilization of their own English in the workplace has enabled them to showcase efficient and excellent work, aided most importantly by a cultural habitus (including intercultural knowledge) that allows them to creatively navigate intercultural relations between them and their counterparts overseas, as well as between them and their mostly American clientele (Salonga, 2015; 2010). However, to frame this exercise of agency as a post-​colonial celebration of erstwhile subjugated people’s freedom from conditions of coloniality is a stretch because it excludes the experiences of those Filipino workers whose Englishes and the habituses associated with them (Salonga, 2015; 2010; Tupas & Salonga, 2016) have prevented them from partaking of the material benefits provided by the call centre industry. Salonga (2015) has found that “only particular kinds of people, usually those who are already privileged, given that they have been deemed to speak the desired variety of English, can take part in what the [call centre] industry has to offer” (p. 139). Creativity and agency in the use of English cannot be disconnected from the social conditions which have made these possible for certain groups of people, and not possible for others. 68

Unequal Englishes in the Global South

In other Southern contexts, Parakrama (1995) has also pointed us to class-​based inequalities between speakers smoothened out by ‘Sri Lankan English’; Henry (2015) has highlighted a similar point in relation to English in China, except that it is complexified by the urban/​rural socio-​economic divide where learners from socio-​economically disadvantaged rural regions generate English which is mocked or devalued even by teachers. Incorporating the notion of Unequal Englishes into a translingual framework which, they argue, needs to centre structuring conditions in language use, Dovchin et al. (2016) observe inequalities of English language use among young Mongolian and Bangladeshi speakers: not all language mixes are treated equally because those which absorb the non-​prestigious English varieties point to speakers embedded in specific configurations of social underprivilege. All this shows us that local relations of power between speakers lie underneath the ideological matrices of national ‘educated’ Englishes which have for the most part been considered the legitimate post-​colonial varieties of English. If we tear down this nation-​based framework of understanding and appraising the politics of localization and pluralization of English, what emerge are variegated local configurations of social relations. Such relations are mobilized hugely by the logics of coloniality and neoliberal globalization. Speakers of English in the Global South are unequal because there are elite speakers who have historically been accorded the privilege to access society’s material and symbolic goods, partly because of their complicities with their colonizers to protect their wealth and power, and partly because they were the ones who inherited the running of the nation at the end of formal colonialism (Constantino, 1970; Phillipson, 1992).

The role of neoliberalism The demands for workers of the world to serve as ‘cogs’ of globalization (Ramanathan, 2005) sustain such relations of power precisely because capital requires particular bodies, behaviours and languages for particular niched work in the neoliberal global market. In fact, this is the case of educational systems around the world that have been systematically restructured to open up the schools to the logics of neoliberalism. One example is the individual responsibilization (De Lissovoy, 2018) of learning and attuning young human bodies for profitability and marketability. Thus, the ‘need’ to study English has become an individual moral responsibility and failure to do so is likewise blamed on the individual and not in any way linked with the failure of state and global institutions to safeguard the welfare of the most vulnerable children in school and in society in general. This is the case of yeongeo yeolpung (English frenzy) in South Korea which “valorizes competence in English as a crucial index of human capital development and ideal neoliberal subjecthood” (Park, 2015: 62) thus creating a conflicted social condition within which Koreans mobilize their lives because “unequal access to opportunities for English language learning makes English a salient point of social tension” (p. 62). In short, as mentioned earlier, English has become a language of coloniality and neoliberalism. Neoliberal discourses and practices accruing to English language use in the schools today reinforce and consolidate further the power of English to stratify the lives of users and learners of the language. The story of the coloniality of present-​day local relations reverberates across the regions of the Global South –​for example, oppressed workers at the bottom of the supply chain in Mozambique work within continuing colonial class, gender and racial relations of power (Stevano, 2021); in general, state-​sponsored education mobilizes and is mobilized by local divisions between rich and poor, elite formations and even the teaching of English in order to sustain Western hegemony (Hickling-​Hudson et al., 2004: 10). It is this type of relations, as argued, which forms the social matrix of unequal Englishes (Lorente, 2017; Tupas, 2019). 69

Ruanni Tupas

Translocal solidarities and alignments The same logics of coloniality and neoliberal globalization complicate the Filipino call centre workers’ deployment of ‘educated’ Philippine English. While it establishes them in privileged positions vis-​à-​vis their Filipino counterparts who fail(ed) to make it to the industry because of their ‘unmarketable’ Englishes, it also places them in perpetually precarious situations because of microaggressions they experience at work (Salonga, 2010; Tupas & Salonga, 2016). Their brand of English is recognizably ‘non-​native’ even if it remains generally comprehensible to customers from the United States. Thus, they narrate experiences of being mocked or insulted by customers who associate negative values and meanings with the Filipinos’ accents. Lloyd, a call centre worker who believes he can shift between accents at work, still complains of discriminating treatment because of his ‘non-​native’ accent: There are really customers who would make you feel like you do not deserve speaking that language [English]. I’m not a native speaker, sometimes I commit lapses, and sometimes it really makes you feel that you are different from them [customers]. They get to that point that they really had to say it, ‘Okay, I’ll repeat.’ There are those markers that [are] really belittling of your personality. in Tupas & Salonga, 2016: 376 At the centre of these volatile intercultural interactions is a network of stereotypes and standard language ideologies which serve as the lenses through which largely American English speakers engage with the Filipino call centre workers. In fact, it is native-​speakerism which drives the global operationalization of communicative practices in outsourcing industries, as evidenced for example by required trainings for accent neutralization (Aneesh, 2012; Rahman, 2009) among the so-​called non-​native workers. This exacerbates the workers’ precarious positions at work as it adds to a number of devalued identities and practices that the workers are expected to ‘correct’ to remain in the job. Thus, “[p]‌roducing the desired sound may prove just as difficult as, or perhaps even more difficult than, producing the desired look … For this reason, equally, call centre workers can be abused or punished if they do not achieve the desired sound” (Salonga, 2015:139). The privileging of ‘standard English’ in global and multinational companies’ search for capital and profit around the world affirms neoliberalism’s connections with global coloniality where knowledge, power and being are ensconced in a power structure which makes it difficult for regions in the Global South to “create their own futures” (Ndlovu-​Gatsheni, 2014: 182). In the context of the global industry of English, knowledge production remains unequally skewed in favour of the so-​called native English-​speaking countries, propagating native speakerism, as well as taking control of mechanisms which define and create what counts as expertise, knowledge, best practices, language standards and theories (Tupas, 2019; Gray, 2010; Isik, 2008). There have been attempts at localization and indigenization of knowledge and pedagogy –​in fact, these have been the trend for the past few decades to counter the cultural imperialism brought forth by the imposition and continuing dominance of English in the linguistic and educational ecologies of the Global South (Canagarajah, 1999; Bisong, 1995) –​ but ownership and control of the production of knowledge remain largely mobilized by infrastructures and institutions of power in the US, UK and Europe, “an outcome of the colonization of the world and the expansion of neoliberalism” (Dados, 2020: 63). Thus, in educational systems around the world, especially the Global South, which are pressured to supply the global market with trained bodies for capital accumulation and profit consolidation, standard English ideologies and native-​speakerism are perpetuated in 70

Unequal Englishes in the Global South

the classrooms through teacher education, language teaching methodologies and textbooks, thus sustaining the infrastructures of the global English industry (Lowe & Lawrence, 2018; Tupas, 2019; Gray, 2010; Isik, 2008). Thus, all this points to two trajectories of intersecting translocal solidarities of marginality among speakers and users of English in the Global South. On the one hand, speakers and users of ‘educated’ national post-​colonial Englishes share among themselves experiences of microaggression and other forms of racial discrimination by virtue of their being so-​called non-​ native speakers of English. They share with those within their communities and between other communities beyond the confines of the imagined boundaries of nations, a position of marginality vis-​à-​vis their ‘native English’-​speaking counterparts in contexts such as education and the global workplace. Therefore, it seems that the post-​colonial struggle amply described by scholars of localization and pluralization is a continuing struggle, and perhaps more so now as a translocal struggle because of the ‘mad rush’ (Xiaoqiong, 2005) towards English around the world. On the other hand, local relations between the ‘educated’ post-​colonial speakers and users of English and the greater majority within their communities who speak and use other, but undervalued, Englishes, are such that the former are largely the recipients of symbolic and material privileges afforded by inequalities of Englishes. Thus, the localization and pluralization of English have generated yet again translocal solidarities, but this time among great majorities of people whose Englishes have further marginalized them within their own communities because these are not educated, as well as useful but only in areas of work which are relatively lowly paid and precariously untenured because their skills are deemed dispensable or easily replaceable. Therefore, the grand narrative of the spread of English in the world, and in the regions of the Global South, is far more complex and nuanced. It has generated local and translocal relations of power between speakers, resulting in the emergence of intersecting solidarities of marginality and elite alignments which transcend, perhaps even dismantle, the boundaries of national imaginaries. Fortunately, being able to identify these ‘new’ spaces of solidarities and alignments can lead users and learners of English in the Global South to establishing differently configured social ties and multilayered shared experience of possibilities of resistance against the coloniality of English language practices and ideologies.

Unequal Englishes in the Global South Therefore, through the lens of ‘Unequal Englishes in the Global South’, we understand the politics of localization and pluralization as complex and highly nuanced, and cannot be explained away simply by a choice between the two faces of English –​as a colonial or as a post-​colonial face –​or, a choice between a celebration of its speakers’ resistive practices against the language’s colonial baggage, and an overdeterminist take on the speakers’ inability to take ownership over the language and use it for their own political and cultural purposes. Unequal Englishes as a lens helps us get away from this trap of choosing between agony and ecstasy. For example, it is possible to see people in the Global South as dynamic and creative users and speakers of English, but such dynamism and creativity should be seen as mobilized within structuring conditions of global coloniality and neoliberal globalization. In this sense, localization and pluralization in the Global South occur as colonial and neoliberal mechanisms themselves “lock many groups out of the benefits of ‘globalisation’ ” (Novelli & Cardozo, 2008: 476) –​ an ironic but realistic take on what we earlier referred to at the start of the paper as the twin phenomena of the globalization and localization of English. The globalization of English means its localization as well, but the process has been uneven because people live and operate within unequal nexuses of power and social relations, such that what we see and mobilize on the ground are, indeed, 71

Ruanni Tupas

unequal Englishes, and not simply the Englishes of the world. What we see is the privileged operationalization of an ideology which aims, wittingly or unwittingly, to erase the messiness and overlapping of structuring conditions which configure relations between people as speakers such that while everyone may agree on the power of English, not all are empowered to use it. The preceding sentence reminds us though that narratives and experiences of marginalization are not equal among speakers of unequal Englishes. Locally, an elite group of speakers draws the line between them and the majority of speakers whose Englishes are not the desirable ones in the market. In turn, such alignments draw up translocal solidarities with similarly configured groups of speakers in other communities. However, ‘native’ and ‘non-​native’ global demarcations also intersect with such local and translocal solidarities and alignments. Regardless of class and education, for example, ‘non-​native’ speakers in the Southern communities of variegated but unequal ‘multilingualisms’ (Heugh et al., 2021) suffer from colonially formed racialized microaggressions which perpetually make them work precariously in already unstable job markets today. Let us bear in mind that empirically the world ‘under globalization’ has seen in recent decades “the trend of increasing social and economic inequality within and between countries and regions” (Mohanty, 2018: 211). This is especially so in the Global South where poverty and conflict are rife. It is the same global and local mechanisms which mobilize unequal Englishes, leading us to question the wisdom of English as a language that benefits all. Its localization and pluralization in the Global South are part of the grander project of reasserting or sustaining English in different parts of the world –​for example, through the imposition of English as medium of instruction –​for “profit without caring if that led to increasing inequalities” (p. 212).

Related topics Chapter 2 Looking at multilingualisms from the Global South; Chapter 4 Raciolinguistic Ideologies; Chapter 19 Multilingualism, the new economy and the neoliberal governance of speakers; Chapter 24 Multilingualism in the workplace: Issues of space and social order; Chapter 27 Multilingualism in asylum and migration procedures.

Further reading Ahn, E. & Smagulova, J. 2021. English language choices in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. World Englishes. 41(1): 9–​23. Dovchin, S., Sultana, S. & Pennycook, A. 2016. Unequal translingual Englishes in the Asian peripheries. Asian Englishes. 18(2): 92–​108. Morikawa, T. & Parba, J. 2022. Diversification, desire, and hierarchization of unequal Englishes on online eikaiwa. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1–​16, https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​ 632.2022.2080​833. Park, J.S.Y. 2015. Structures of feeling in unequal Englishes. In Unequal Englishes: The Politics of Englishes Today. R. Tupas, Ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 59–​73. Sabaté-​Dalmau, M. 2018. ‘I speak small’: unequal Englishes and transnational identities among Ghanaian migrants. International Journal of Multilingualism. 15(4): 365–​382.

References Aneesh, A. 2012. Negotiating globalization: men and women of India’s call centers. Journal of Social Issues. 68(3): 514–​533. Berowa, A.M.C. & Regala-​Flores, E. 2020. Toward an inclusive description of the segmental phonology of Philippine English. The Asian ESP Journal. 16(4): 211–​232.

72

Unequal Englishes in the Global South Bhatt, R.M. 2001. World Englishes. Annual Review of Anthropology. 30(1): 527–​550. Bisong, J. 1995. Language choice and cultural imperialism: a Nigerian perspective. ELT Journal. 49(2): 122–​132. Blackmore, J. 2015. Gender inequality and education: changing local/​global relations in a ‘post-​colonial’ world and the implications for feminist research. In Second International Handbook on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research. J. Zajda, Ed. Dordrecht: Springer. 485–​501. Bolton, K., Botha, W. & Kirkpatrick, A. (Eds.) 2020. The Handbook of Asian Englishes. NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Canagarajah, A. S. 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canilao, M.L.E.N. 2020. Foregrounding Philippine Englishes in fostering linguistic equality. Asian Englishes. 22(2): 195–​215. Constantino, R. 1970. The mis-​education of the Filipino. Journal of Contemporary Asia. 1(1): 20–​36. Dados, N. 2020. Knowledge, power and the Global South: epistemes and economies after colonialism. In A Research Agenda for Critical Political Economy. B. Dunn, Ed. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. 61–​76. Dados, N. & Connel, R. 2012. The Global South. Contexts. 11(1): 12–​13. De Costa, P.I., Green-​Eneix, C., Li, W. & Rawal, H. 2021. Interrogating race in the NEST/​NNEST ideological dichotomy: insights from raciolinguistics, culturally sustaining pedagogy and translanguaging. In World Englishes: Ideologies. R. Rubdy & R. Tupas, Eds. London: Bloomsbury. 127–​140. De Lissovoy, N. 2018. Pedagogy of the anxious: rethinking critical pedagogy in the context of neoliberal autonomy and responsibilization. Journal of Education Policy. 33(2): 187–​205. Dovchin, S., Sultana, S. & Pennycook, A. 2016. Unequal translingual Englishes in the Asian peripheries. Asian Englishes. 18(2): 92–​108. Escobar, A. 2004. Beyond the Third World: imperial globality, global coloniality and anti-​globalisation social movements. Third World Quarterly. 25(1): 207–​230. Galloway, N. & Rose, H. 2015. Introducing Global Englishes. London & New York: Routledge. Gonzalez, A. 1976. Content in English language materials in the Philippines: a case study of cultural and linguistic emancipation. Philippine Studies. 24: 443–​454. Graddol, D. 1996. Global English, global culture? In Redesigning English: New Texts, New Identities. Goodman, S. &. Graddol, D. Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 181–​238. Gray, J. 2010. The branding of English and the culture of the new capitalism: representations of the world of work in English language textbooks. Applied Linguistics.31(5): 714–​733. Gündoğan, E. 2008. Conceptions of hegemony in Antonio Gramsci’s southern question and the prison notebooks. New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry. 2(1): 45–​60. Hall, S.J. 2012. Deconstructing aspects of native speakerism: reflections from in-​service teacher education. The Journal of Asia TEFL. 9(3): 107–​130. Henry, E.S. 2015. ‘Just an old joke’: Chinglish, narrative, and linguistic inequality in the Chinese English classroom. In Unequal Englishes: The Politics of Englishes Today. R. Tupas, Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 95–​110. Heugh, K., Taylor-​Leech, K. & De Costa, P.I. 2021. A Sociolinguistics of the South. New York & London: Routledge. Hickling-​Hudson, A., Matthews, J. & Woods, A. 2004. Education, post-​colonialism and disruptions. In Disrupting Preconceptions: Post-​colonialism and Education. A. Woods, J. Matthews & A. Hickling-​ Hudson, Eds. Queensland: Post Pressed. 1–​16. Isik, A. 2008. Linguistic imperialism and foreign language teaching. Journal of Asia TEFL. 5(1): 123–​144. Kabel, A. 2009. Native-​speakerism, stereotyping and the collusion of applied linguistics. System. 37(1): 12–​22. Kachru, B.B. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-​Native Englishes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B.B. 1996. World Englishes: agony and ecstasy. Journal of Aesthetic Education. 30(2): 135–​155. Kandiah, T. 1981. Lankan English schizoglossia. English World-​Wide. 2(1): 63–​81. Lorente, B.P. 2017. Scripts of Servitude: Language, Labour Migration and Transnational Domestic Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lowe, R.J. & Lawrence, L. 2018. Native-​speakerism and ‘hidden curricula’ in ELT training: a duoethnography. Journal of Language and Discrimination. 2(2): 162–​187. Martin, I. 2014. Philippine English revisited. World Englishes. 33(1): 50–​59.

73

Ruanni Tupas Mignolo, W.D. 2017. Coloniality is far from over, and so must be decoloniality. Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry. 43(1): 38–​45. Mohanty, M. 2018. Inequality from the perspective of the Global South. In The Oxford Handbook of Global Studies. M. Juergensmeyer, S. Sassen, M.B. Steger & V. Faessel, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 211–​227. Musthofiyah, U. & Isnainiyah, L. 2019. World Englishes –​A symbolic power to resist internalized racism. ISoLEC Proceedings 2019. 14–​15 September 2019. 113–​16. http://​iso​lec.um.ac.id/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​ 2020/​02/​24-​Uning-​Must​hofi​yah-​and-​Lilik-​Isn​aini​yah_​113-​116.pdf. Mutonya, M. 2008. African Englishes: acoustic analysis of vowels. World Englishes. 27(3-​4): 434–​449. Ndlovu-​Gatsheni, S.J. 2014. Global coloniality and the challenges of creating African futures. Strategic Review for Southern Africa. 36(2): 181–​202. Novelli, M. & Cardozo, M.T.L. 2008. Conflict, education and the global south: new critical directions. International Journal of Educational Development. 28(4): 473–​488. Parakrama, A. 1995. De-​hegemonizing Language Standards: Learning from (Post) Colonial Englishes about English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Park, J.S-​Y. 2015. Structures of feeling in unequal Englishes. In Unequal Englishes: Politics of Englishes Today. R. Tupas, Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 59–​73. Paterno, M.G. 2018. Anguish as mother tongue: English in a multilingual context. In Reconceptualizing English Education in a Multilingual Society. I. Martin, Ed. Singapore: Springer. 67–​83. Pennycook, A. 2009. Plurilithic Englishes: towards a 3D model. In Global Englishes in Asian Contexts. K. Murata & J. Jenkins, Eds. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 194–​207. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prebisch, R. 1981. The Latin American periphery in the global system of capitalism. Cepal Review. 13: 143–​150. Rahman, T. 2009. Language ideology, identity and the commodification of language in the call centers of Pakistan. Language in Society. 38(2): 233–​258. Rajagopalan, K. 2006. South American Englishes. In The Handbook of World Englishes. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C.L. Nelson, Eds. MA, USA: Blackwell. 145–​157. Rajagopalan, K. 2003. The ambivalent role of English in Brazilian politics. World Englishes. 22(2): 91–​101. Ramanathan, V. 2005. The English-​Vernacular Divide. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rañosa-​Madrunio, M.B. 2004. The linguistic features of complaint letters to editors in Philippine English and Singapore English. Asian Englishes. 7(2): 52–​73. Sabaté-​Dalmau, M. 2018. ‘I speak small’: unequal Englishes and transnational identities among Ghanaian migrants. International Journal of Multilingualism. 15(4): 365–​382. Salonga, A.O. 2015. Performing gayness and English in an offshore call center industry. In Unequal Englishes: Politics of Englishes Today. R. Tupas, Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 130–​142. Salonga, A.O. 2010. Language and situated agency: an exploration of the dominant linguistic and communication practices in the Philippine offshore call centers. Ph.D. Thesis. National University of Singapore. Saraceni, M. & Jacob, C. 2021. Decolonizing (world) Englishes. In Research Developments in World Englishes. A. Onysko, Ed. London: Bloomsbury. 11–​28. Stevano, S. 2021. The workplace at the bottom of global supply chains as a site of reproduction of colonial relations: reflections on the cashew-​processing industry in Mozambique. Gender, Work & Organization. Early Online Publication: https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​gwao.12757. Tayao, M.L.G. 2004. The evolving study of Philippine English phonology. World Englishes. 23(1): 77–​90. Thirusanku, J. & Yunus, M. M. 2012. The many faces of Malaysian English. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2012: 1–​14. Tollefson, J.W. 1986. Language policy and the radical left in the Philippines: the New People’s Army and its antecedents. Language Problems and Language Planning. 10(2): 177–​189. Tupas, R. 2006. Standard Englishes: pedagogical paradigms and their conditions of (im)possibility. In English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles. R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni, Eds. London: Continuum. 169–​185. Tupas, R. Ed. 2015. Unequal Englishes: The Politics of Englishes Today. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tupas, R. 2019. Entanglements of colonialism, social class, and unequal Englishes. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 23(5): 529–​542.

74

Unequal Englishes in the Global South Tupas, R. & Salonga, A. 2016. Unequal Englishes in the Philippines. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 20(3): 367–​381. Wallerstein, I. 1974. The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 16(4): 387–​415. Xiaoqiong, H. 2005. China English, at home and in the world. English Today. 21(3): 27–​38.

75

PART II

Concepts and theories in multilingualism

6 MATERIALITIES AND ONTOLOGIES Thinking Multilingualism through Language Materiality, Post-​Humanism and New Materialism Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach

Introduction Language is conventionally viewed as the quintessentially human facility, as ‘what makes us human’ and differentiates humans from other forms of life and the material world. This view of language has been a pillar of the European Enlightenment, with its emphasis on the capacity for rational thought, categorization and representationalism. It became central in the structuralist linguistics of de Saussure in the early 1920s. Much of this thinking still dominates common sense thought about language in general, language learning and education, drawing on the idea of the language system or langue being seen as “a self-​contained whole and a principle of classification” (de Saussure, 1959: 9). Structuralist linguists gave priority to the identification and description of language, understood as an abstract system or langue and as composed of distinct units (or signs) in structured relationships with each other. As a result, ideas and concepts related to language came to be seen as separated from the material substance of language, from its concrete form in actual language production and from concrete acts of speaking. This has left a strong and long-​ lasting legacy, positioning the symbolic, and its role in human development, as the key referent for understandings of language and literacy. This immateriality of language strengthened the ideas, so dominant in the northern episteme, that differentiate humans (together with their symbolic communication) from other living beings, from the land and the material world, and that separate language from that material world. Literacy has come to consolidate and reify language seen in this way, by constructing an edifice of forms of two-​dimensional representation of the world. These have been credited with grand consequences including the separation of history from myth, the civilized from the primitive, the abstract from the concrete, the individual from the communitarian, the rational from the non-​rational. This chapter engages with recent work that focuses on repositioning, reconceptualizing and unthinking language itself, through (1) centring the materiality of language itself and (2) decentring the human. We examine what these bodies of work offer to the theorizing of multilingualism. Centring the materiality of language itself, what has been called “language materiality” DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-8

79

Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach

(Cavanaugh & Shankar, 2017) is an emerging field of inquiry largely located within linguistic anthropology, but also within sociolinguistics and semiotics, although work within education and literacy studies is also focusing on the materiality of spoken and written language. Indigenous perspectives figure strongly in this body of research. Decentring the human is a central concern of both post-​humanism and new materialism, and while there are different genealogies and perspectives across post-​humanism and new materialism, we discuss them together with regard to how they view the project of de-​centring the human. While indigenous perspectives have not been taken up widely in post-​humanism and new materialism, recent critical work has attempted to engage with these (see Canagarajah, 2022). All these bodies of work put a renewed emphasis on the concept of ontology. Studies centring the materiality of language focus on meaning-​making, or semiosis, as a central construct. Thus far, the emphasis has largely been on human meaning-​making, but in the process of unthinking language, animal and plant communication (as well as relations between these) are being explored. Engaging closely with the materiality of language itself has led to productive scholarship on language ontologies (which we will explain below). Much of the research in this area is informed by Charles Sanders Peirce’s theories of the sign (also explained below) which differ significantly from Saussure’s. Post-​humanism and new materialism both overlap and contrast with the language materiality approach. Together post-​humanism and new materialism promise a decisive theoretical break with the differentiation of humans from the material world, viewing humans as entangled with the environment, other living and non-​living entities and involved in forms of agency that are distributed across a wide range of ontological types (in other words, ‘beings’, ‘things’, ‘forms of matter’ or ‘objects’). While there are differences between post-​humanism and new materialism, both share the aim of decentring the human subject and the human, subjective perspective as the primary or sole vintage point from which to look at the world and understand it. We explore these different fields, considering how theorizing multilingualism could benefit from a greater consideration of materiality/​materialities and ontology/​ontologies. We first outline the emerging fields of inquiry into the materiality of language and language ontologies and then present key concepts in post-​humanism and new materialism. Case studies are threaded through each of these sections. We then consider overlaps as well as divergences between these fields.

Centring the materiality of language: key concepts in language materiality and language ontologies Work on the materiality of language that we consider here aims to pursue three broad goals: (1) to centre materiality in the study of language and semiosis, (2) to challenge the dematerialization of language that is the hallmark of structuralist linguistics and (3) to unthink language as it has commonly been thought about. Earlier work on materiality, conducted from a social semiotic perspective, informed developments in the field of multimodality, while studies anchored in an anthropological and sociolinguistic perspective, enriched the field of literacy studies. More recent fields of inquiry are based largely in linguistic anthropology and take two slightly differing directions. The first can be grouped under the term language materiality (Shankar & Cavanaugh, 2017). The second is linked but places more emphasis on an ontological approach, asking “questions about what constitutes language to start with” (Pennycook, 2020: 359; Heuck & Heirich, 2018). Before going into these we provide some background differentiating between ways in which the term language is used. Love’s (2004) distinction between first-​order and second-​order

80

Materialities and Ontologies

language is worth considering, with first order viewed as embodied and processual. As Thibault (2017: 74) explains, “(F)irst order language is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained and changed by the real-​time activity of participants,” often seen as languaging and/​or language practices (Maturana, 1970; Cowley, 2011). The second order refers to the idea of a denotational code-​like system of “abstracta” that can be separated from embodied and affective dynamics. This is sometimes referred to as Language with the capital L. Thibault (2017: 74) argues that “to construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging”. By this he means that a problem emerges when we mistake the second order (the abstract system) for what is happening when people use language in everyday life –​the “real world” as he puts it. In conceptualizing multilingualism as part of this way of thinking about language, Krause’s (2021) concept of “nomolanguage or nomolanguages” is useful. By this, she means named languages as separate, homogenous entities, with the prefix “nomo-​pertaining to a name or names because we normally distinguish named language units from the phenomenon language only by an article (‘a’ or ‘the’ language) or an -​s (languages)” (ibid: 5). Krause argues that nomolanguages emerge “as the outcome of linguistic, administrative and didactic sorting, writing and naming practices” (ibid: 5). She further argues that “the use of the prefix ‘nomo-​’ continuously unsettles deeply entrenched ideas of separate nomolanguages as primordial entities and as necessary and always definitive of the phenomenon language”. In the South African township where her linguistic ethnography was conducted, teachers view the languaging that takes place in the school and the community as emerging from this primordial understanding of nomolanguages (Krause, 2021: 6) i.e. it is the second order that is seen as real and the first order (languaging) as simply an epiphenomenon of this.

Language materiality Shankar and Cavanaugh’s overview (2012) and edited collection Language and Materiality (2017) describe an emerging field of inquiry, and argue for the development of the theory of language materiality. Arguing that instead of viewing language and materiality side by side and by conceptualizing materiality alongside but distinct from language they follow Raymond Williams’ (1977: 38) view that “language is a distinctive material process”. The authors see “the language of everyday life as material practice: embedded within structures of history and power, including class relations and markets, but also having physical presence” (2017: 2). Language practices and ideologies are not immaterial and to claim so is to miss the role of language in constructing social processes through interaction with material objects, infrastructures and environments (Budach, Kell & Patrick, 2015) as well as its presence, actual sounds and shapes and their effects. More recent work ties these ideas into a focus on indigenous perspectives, with a special issue of Multilingua (2021) containing articles on language materiality amongst indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities “who have developed a continuous dialogue with their local environments and territories … . often based on carefulness and respect for other-​than-​human entities”, according to the editors, Siragusa and Virtanen (2021: 429). Sidnell (2020) outlines three ways in which materiality is manifested in language practices. These include (1) the material quality of the signs themselves. Materiality is also evident in the particular ways in which signs (2) make reference to the world in which interaction takes place and (3) construct consequential action. These might be present in distinct ways in language practices,

81

Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach

or they might all be present together in a moment of semiosis or they may unfold into each other over spatial and temporal scales. (1) The material quality of signs is evident in the embodiment of sound, language and semiosis with vocal phonation taking the form of cries, sounds, speech, chant, humming or song. Written words, scripts, orthographies and texts can be as much visual, emblematic or iconic (Lupke, 2018; Choksi, 2021) as they are symbolic, and they can be reified (Kell, 2015), embodied, relayed, worshipped, ingested (Keane, 2013). Some studies show that the material form that language takes in cases like these can be marked through the choice of one nomolanguage (in contrast to another nomolanguage) in order to differentiate the valuing of languages for particular purposes. Signing enables connections within and across deaf and hearing communities and new modes of communication are developing amongst deafblind groupings (Kusters, 2021), with an approach called Protactile relying entirely on touch (Snoddon, 2021). Materiality and languaging are thus co-​constituted with multisemioticity, the corporeal, the sensorium. (2) The second aspect, addressing how the sign makes reference to the world in which the action takes place, puts more emphasis on language materiality and semiosis. In contrast to Saussure’s focus on language as abstracted and symbolic, language here is not an isolable realm of semiosis in the semiology of Charles Sanders Peirce. While the linguistic symbol takes its place in his trichotomy of the icon, the index and the symbol, the icon and the index are as important in the process whereby experiences become signs in ceaseless, unfolding moments of semiosis. In this way Peirce brings together “feeling, sensation, experience and the conceptualisation of signs” (Merrell, 2001: 32). Often overlooked in Peirce’s work is his analysis of the ways in which signs come into being through their relatedness involving what he calls firstness, secondness and thirdness, but these should not be thought of separately or sequentially. • Firstness is quality. It inheres basically in what are called “qualia”. These are commonly defined as instances of subjective experience, explained by Peirce as “what there is such as it is, without reference to anything else” like the redness of a rose, the sound of a cymbal, the taste of an orange, the sharpness of a pinprick. • Secondness is what a quale (the singular form of qualia) may be or may effect in relation to something else, but without relation to any third entity (at that point). This is what Peirce called the representamen. • Thirdness is what there is insofar as it is capable of bringing an entity involving secondness into relation with a quale. This is what is called the interpretant.   This triadic relationship is often very difficult to understand. A well-​known example can help to grasp this and is based on Savan’s (1988, in Sidnell, 2020: 292) discussion of a red paint chip (a small coloured square of paper intended to demonstrate a colour from a paint shop). On the chip, is ‘redness’ and the particular redness is the quale. But as Sidnell describes, “the chip itself is an ‘existent’ and if I arrive home to find it on the kitchen table, or taped to the wall, I will assume that someone has been to the paint store and perhaps that they intend to paint the room.” We can therefore think of this sign having secondness as a token or a representamen. The token can be recognized: “it is after all a paint chip and not just a red piece of cardboard” (ibid: 292) or perhaps a coloured square for use in mathematics teaching. The redness has been materialized into a paint chip, which itself is material. The red chip may then be discussed with regard to what effect it may have –​ “this colour red is very fashionable at the moment”, thus entering 82

Materialities and Ontologies

into circulating discourses about homes and interior design (for example). The chip is then an interpretant (thirdness). Sidnell carries on to explain that if the chip is then used to decide whether the room should be painted red, the chip could then be taped to the wall to consider, sense or feel simply its quality of redness (returning to its firstness or quale).   This shift towards Peircean semiotics is having an important effect, not least towards thinking about materiality and language. To clarify Peirce’s argument –​ there is no semiosis without materiality. Materiality is what Peirce called secondness, the instantiation of a sign token which exists due to its quale –​ the particular red which inheres in that particular paint chip. Peirce (in Sidnell, 2020: 294) also applied this to words: “a printed word is black, has a certain number of letters and those letters have certain shapes. Such characters of a sign I call its material quality.” Thirdness brings the second entity into relation with the first one, and involves habit, regularity, law or convention. Sidnell (ibid: 301) argues that “Peirce’s semiotic realism refuses any a priori opposition of representation and world … This does not deny the existence of an external world, quite the opposite. But that external world is continuous with the internal one; both are mediated by signs” (our emphasis).   Shankar and Cavanaugh (2017: 15) show how this view of materiality yields new insights into how we think about language. They argue that “investigations of ‘qualia’ … in contexts of language use have revealed insights about how characterological features of speakers shaped by language ideology and register use are as much conveyed through qualia, or qualities, as they are through indexicality or reference”. We will pick this point up below when we move on to discuss language ontologies. (3) ​A third aspect to consider is how consequential action resulting from flows of semiosis can tie linguistic analysis into political economy themes, sometimes drawing on Marxist materialism. The roots of this approach can be traced back to Marx and Hegel but also more recently to Voloshinov and Williams. Their political economic approaches understood language as a material form of social practice (Voloshinov, 1973; Williams, 1977), locating it within the development of capitalism and processes of commodification. Bourdieu’s work on the linguistic marketplace revealed how language functions as a form of capital and how it circulates through the political, economic and cultural to enable the production of value. An easily accessible example of this in recent times is the commodification of accents through businesses which trade in circulating products which enhance people’s ability to speak English, for example, with American accents (see Blommaert, 2010). Shankar and Cavanaugh (2012: 360) describe how as the everyday use of a vernacular in Bergamo in Italy decreases, it is increasingly entextualized through a process of objectification (into dictionaries, volumes of poetry etc.). They explain how performance in contexts, like theatre, “transform the vernacular from a communicative medium to one of acquisition and display”. These three ways of examining how materiality is manifested in languaging can be seen in the following study. Ferguson (2021) draws on key themes pertaining to language materiality and political economy through exploring the affective and the aesthetic. She investigates contemporary uses of “blessing poems” or “algys” in the Sakha language, used in the Sakha Republic in the Russian Federation. She shows how through creating somatic poetry in the form of algys, powerful sensory experiences can be evoked. These link the production of qualia and revealing of connections between the old materiality of a spoken algys and the vital experience of a particular world view (such as cosmological chronotopes) that this may evoke. The algys are conduits for the ontological power of words but may also gain further power through associated material processes; here the power is sociopolitical. 83

Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach

Siragusa and Zhukova’s study (2021) in Northwestern Russia amongst the indigenous minority grouping, the Veps, shows how the capacity of certain Vepsian words as verbal charms are perceived to affect the land and its human and other-​than-​human dwellers. The authors suggest that material (in)visible elements of language are not perceived to be materially separate from objects, tools and substances but “form part of a broader ontological event” in which “humans and other than human agencies can attend to one another while promoting changes in people and the environment”. Furthermore, “ritualised language is ontologically appreciated as material and as having weight” (p. 465). Studies such as this lead us more deeply into questioning what language is.

Language ontologies A language materiality approach notes that “theorizing language materially is an ontological move” (Shankar & Cavanaugh, 2017; Ferguson, 2021). Ontologies of language are about language’s (and languages’) being in the world. As Demuro and Gurney (2020: 1) state, “(R)ather than asking what we know about language, theorizing with ontologies prompts us to engage with what language is –​or, might be (authors’ emphasis).” Language ontologies are therefore foundational to cosmologies and epistemologies and could include animal and plant sounding, language, communication or semiosis. The study of indigenous ways of being, of knowing and of communicating has also been important in providing new ways of understanding language/​s and their ontological status and has contributed to what has been called the “ontological turn”, largely in anthropology, philosophy and Science and Technology Studies (STS) (Viveiros de Castro, 1998). Thinking about languaging and languages ontologically has the potential for building a wider set of theories about how (in addition to everyday human communication) flows of semiosis connect all living things in the world in which we live. This enables us to think more widely about for example, the ways in which humans may connect with animals through their taking on of animal form and communicating with animals in ancestor worship or ritual (Oakdale, 2022); the waggle dance of bees to indicate where pollen can be found (Von Frisch, 1965) or the shapes that trees take as they grow within forests (Kohn, 2013). At its most basic level, ontology refers to how the nature of reality is understood, what kinds of things can and do exist –​ basic categories or kinds of being and their relations. But Blaser (2009: 877) argues that “ontologies do not precede mundane practices, rather they are shaped through the practices and interactions of both human and non-​humans”. Hence ontologies perform themselves into worlds. Blaser thus uses the terms ontologies and worlds synonymously as worlds that are constantly changing and in-​the-​making. He argues further that ontologies also “manifest as ‘stories’ in which the assumptions of what kinds of things and relations make up a given world are readily graspable” (p. 877). Theorizing ontologies, especially indigenous, therefore requires engagement with languaging; it may require rethinking and unthinking language/​s, nomolanguages and therefore multilingualism. The ontological turn in anthropology assumes that reality and its underlying relations and patterns may differ across different groups of people, described by the Zapatista (in Escobar, 2018: xvi) as “a world where many worlds fit”, or the “pluriverse” (Mignolo, 2000), thus linking with theories of coloniality/​decoloniality which have been given impetus by mass struggles for decolonization and #blacklivesmatter. In what follows we outline what have been viewed as earlier language ontologies and then describe recent developments in this area as each hold implications for theorizing multilingualism. Saussurian structuralist linguistics has provided a very prominent ontology of language, which informs commonly accepted understandings of what language is. Its concept of the 84

Materialities and Ontologies

two-​part linguistic sign privileged an interest in meaning as an idea that was seen as (only) arbitrarily connected to its linguistic forms –​this is the principle of arbitrariness. These foundational principles of separation and of arbitrariness led to an emphasis on the symbolic functions of the forms of language as part of a system, rather than on language as a material property and the effects it can produce. These principles lead to the centrality of representationalism, where language is seen as carrying meaning by naming a thing in the world (denotational function) or referring to that thing (referentialist function). Because of the lineage back to Saussure, the dematerialization of language is central. Demuro and Gurney (2021: 6) call this “language as object” and Ortega (2018: 69) views this as an “essentialist ontology of language”. Rooted within the northern episteme, Saussure developed his framework using his own language, French, but saw it as being universal across languages. This conceptualization of language served as a blueprint for other European languages and as a model, universalizing and essentializing a particular understanding of language. This has transferred widely, especially to countries which were colonized where indigenous languages would have been codified into nomolanguages in accordance with the divisions into tribal groups fostered by colonial administrations. In contrast, Ortega (2018: 70) argues that “non-​essentialist ontologies accord meaning a central weight and see the link between form and meaning as motivated”. Language is therefore seen as constructing meaning in practice. By this we mean that people use language according to their interests and they choose the language they use according to its aptness for the function they wish to achieve. In this motivation between form and meaning which happens in contextualized ways, ideologies and identities come into play and the ways in which language indexes and constructs wider contextual features is foregrounded. Harkness (2015: 575) suggests that this amounts to a shift where “indexicality replaces denotation as the more encompassing dimension of social action”. The importance of this shift has led to the vast body of work on language ideologies which has been so influential in the field of multilingualism and has led to powerful ways of conceptualizing power and domination as these are played out in language policies and practices, as well as racial, class and gender identities and positioning. Demuro and Gurney’s (2021) term for this is “language as practice”. As Demuro and Gurney (ibid.) point out, a third way of thinking about language ontologies is through the concept of the assemblage. An ontological approach to language as assemblage focuses on the forms that language takes through the uses of media and technologies and regards how languages and scripts themselves take forms as assemblages, for instance as flows of semiosis. This is providing new impetus to rethink multilingualism through a focus on multiscriptalism and trans-​scripting. A number of studies in this vein (1) recognize the complexity, variability and materiality of the relation between scripts and languages (graphemes and phonemes), (2) focus on trans-​scripting (Choksi, 2021) and (3) explore the notion of graphic inscription rather than literacy (Debenport & Webster, 2019). Choksi (2021) provides examples in his study of graphic politics in West Bengal, where intricate contestations take place in a multilingual and multiscriptal environments around political struggles for autonomy. In contrast with the above three, recent and striking work on language ontological approaches is published in a Special Issue of Language and Communication (2018) on ‘Language in the Amerindian imagination: An inquiry into linguistic natures’. This research is sketching out powerful new directions in language ontologies which are highly generative for understanding materiality in languaging and for new ways of thinking about multilingualism. In their editorial, Heuck and Heirich (2018: 2) argue that in the efforts to overcome the conceptual gap between languaging and what language is in a more general sense (what we have referred to above as the 85

Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach

second order concept), much research has “shifted the focus away from ‘language’, narrowly defined, towards semiosis, discourse, performance and related concepts”. They suggest that bypassing the question of a definition of language and confining our theoretical frameworks to concepts such as ‘semiosis’ or ‘action’ removes our analysis even further away from the phenomena we are observing … We are simply transferring the problem of linguistic (or semiotic, discursive etc.) ideological difference to another level. Their ontological approach is not seen as an alternative to the language ideological approach, and they wish to take work on language ideologies further. However, they suggest that the language ideological approach leaves the object of inquiry intact. Some of these issues are discussed by Magnus Course (2018) in his article titled ‘Words beyond meaning in Mapuche language ideology’. Having worked amongst the indigenous Chilean/​Argentinian group, the Mapuche, Course finds himself asking if Mapudungun (the language of the Mapuche people) and Spanish are two different kinds of the same thing? Or are they two different things? Entering deeply into his Mapuche interlocutors’ thinking through many years of ethnographic research, his writing on this starts to bring us back round to the first-​ order and second-​order language that we outlined earlier. In phrasing his first question as he did (are Mapudungun and Spanish two different kinds of the same thing?), he first speculates as to whether this is a debate about language ideology. But he then asks himself whether language ideology may actually be skating around the question of what language actually is. The ethnographic work showed that certain practices, especially ritual practices, had to be carried out in Mapudungun, not Spanish. He shows how this can be argued through on the basis of a language ideological position but is convinced that that is not enough. He thus argues (2018: 12) that Spanish, like other non-​Mapuche languages, is understood as an arbitrary and fungible system of representation. Mapudungun on the other hand, is understood as deeply and fundamentally attached to the very fabric of the world. Spanish is to Mapudungun as symbol is to index. ibid: 12 While they are both classified as ‘speech’, Spanish is “white people’s speech” while Mapudungun is “the speech of the land”. For the Mapuche, language carries a force in excess of and beyond that of a speaker’s intent and which is distinct from the speaker and beyond his or her control. The term ‘newen’ or ‘force’ is both singular and multiple and can refer to a volitional multiplicity of forces inherent within and constitutive of the world. Course then goes further to argue that the Peircean concept of index (which he initially uses to describe Mapudungun) is fundamentally about meaning, but he argues that while Mapudungun bears meaning, it also does more than that –​it always has an excess, a force irreducible to meaning. He then comes round to argue that Mapudungun and Spanish are both two different versions of the same thing and they are different things. As stated in our introduction we aimed to introduce the concepts of materiality or materialities, and ontology or ontologies through work which centres the materiality of language itself. We also stated that rethinking language involves decentring the human as this is conceptualized by post-​ humanism and new materialism. It is to this that we now turn.

86

Materialities and Ontologies

Decentring the human: post-​humanism/​new materialism and relational ontologies Many post-​humanist and new materialist researchers make reference to the need to overcome binaries and oppositions, in particular between human and non-​human, between culture/​society and nature, as well as the macro and micro, animate and inanimate, and materiality and meaning. These binaries have figured large in key premises in post-​humanist and new materialist approaches, in particular the work of feminist scholars in post-​humanism (Braidotti, 2013; Barad, 2003), or scholars of the new materialism (Bennett, 2010; Coole & Frost, 2010), all of whom argue that the discursive/​linguistic turn happened at the expense of a focus on materiality. In 2003, Barad argued: “Language matters. Discourse matters. Culture Matters. There is an important sense in which the only thing that does not seem to matter anymore is matter” (ibid.: 801). From the early 2000s onwards, Barad’s work gave impetus to a wave of thinking that has taken off across diverse fields, proposing different ways of thinking and of being in this interconnected material world with materiality as a vital force (Bennett, 2010). In shifting the focus away from language and the discursive, post-​humanist and new materialist scholars go beyond and also reject many approaches based in social constructivism that focus on the social and the activity of humans in it. They also stretch beyond and critique post-​structuralist approaches that, while challenging the boundedness and contingency of languages and the boundaries between them, as well as their hierarchical ordering and their systemic, determining social effects still retain their focus largely on the (speaking) subject (engaging with language in one form or another) as the main actor, designing and shaping social reality. Post-​humanist and new materialist thinkers see the world from an ontological perspective, with ontology seen as that which is concerned with what it is to be alive, to exist. An ontological approach here (in contrast to the language ontologies discussed above) tries rather to understand how entities or ontological types –​human, and non-​human –​enter in relation with each other and how, through these relations, reality is experienced, shaped and changing. Working with the idea of a relational ontology (DeLanda, 2016), the approach aims at understanding how human and non-​human entities work together to co-​produce meaning and what we experience as reality. To imagine how such a relational ontology could be studied, a number of concepts have been developed. A first analogy proposed is the rhizome (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) –​or the invitation to thinking rhizomatically. The authors describe the rhizome as a nonlinear network that “connects any point to any other point” (idem, p. 9), a network of lines that are not arborescent (treelike). According to the authors, rhizomes, on the contrary, unfold horizontally and non-​hierarchically. Anything can be linked to anything else, even things that have nothing in common or to do between themselves. This results in proposing a flat ontology that refuses to privilege the subject-​object, human-​world relation. Levi Bryant (2011: 246) states, “a flat ontology argues that all entities are on equal ontological footing and that no entity, whether artificial or natural, symbolic or physical, possesses greater ontological dignity than other objects.” Critiquing current practices of representationalism or how humans imagine and represent the world, he says further that “my ambition is to diminish an almost exclusive focus on propositions, representations, norms, signs, narratives, discourses, and so on, so as to cultivate a greater appreciation for nonhuman actors such as animate and inanimate natural entities, technologies, and such” (ibid. 246). Also crucial is the concept of assemblage (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980) which was inspired by the study of dynamic complex systems in mathematics and the self-​organizing capacities of matter. The term derives its meaning from the French word ‘agencement’ describing a collection of things which have been gathered together or assembled, usually translated into English as ‘arrangement’,

87

Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach

‘putting together’, or ‘laying out’ (DeLanda, 2016). An assemblage does not point to a (finished or fixed) product, but to a process of ‘arranging’, ‘joining up’ and ‘piecing together’. An assemblage is neither fixed, nor permanent. Based on this understanding, we consider an assemblage to be an ensemble of elements, human and non-​human, that “function collectively in a contextually unique manner to produce something (e.g. teaching practice, a situated identity)” (Strom & Martin, 2017: 7, emphasis in the original). Non-​humans can take a variety of forms: concrete (a desk, a light), material (sounds, smells), discursive and linguistic (ways of address, language used) or abstract (ideas, protocols). In this way, the linguistic is not viewed as a privileged entity in a relational ontology or within assemblages. Inspired by the work of Deleuze, Braidotti (2013) suggested the concept of nomadic thought/​ theory. In her work, she aims to deterritorialize the established understanding of what counts as human, along with our relationship to animals, the environment, and changing notions of materialism. In her work, as in the writings of other post-​humanist thinkers, the dimension of ethics is fundamental and crucial. Also referred to as ontoethics (Grosz & Hill, 2017), these relate to the ontological relationships of humans and non-​humans in the world, what they look like, and how they should change to safeguard our planet and establish a respectful way of living together. This includes recognizing the harm inflicted by colonialism (Toohey et al., 2020) and the acknowledgement and beginning engagement and collaboration with indigenous people, scholars and scholarship, (Honeyford & Watt, 2020) whose ways of life are embedded in relational ontologies, long predating Cartesian philosophy and its Western critiques. A last question to ask is about the quality of relationships that develop between elements in an assemblage and the forces driving their connectivity. A crucial concept here is affect. Drawing on Spinoza (1985), affect is defined as the “capacity of a body to affect another body”. Affect is different from emotion. Emotion focuses on the effects produced by and within a feeling human subject, even though this feeling can be triggered by an outside force or influence, whereas affect is a force that is co-​produced by all interrelated entities, human and non-​human. Here is where agency comes in. While Cartesian philosophy contends that only humans have agency and the capacity to ‘act’, post-​humanist and new materialist thinkers acknowledge that all parts –​human and non-​human –​ entering assemblages have the potential to become actants (Latour, 2005) and part of co-​producing affect and affective relations in an assemblage. Affective flow describes strong, temporary forces that can unfold in an assemblage –​ being possibly both, positive or negative. These forces can lead to access different or new ways of knowing, that have not been planned or previously scripted, and that the elements involved in intra-​action cause to emerge. They can open access to the unconscious and ways of knowing that exceed the capacity of conscious, rational thought residing in human subjects alone or in the interaction with other humans.

Implications of post-​humanist and new materialist thought for theorizing multilingualism Applications of post-​humanist and new materialist thinking in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics are still relatively new. Pennycook’s book on Post-​human Applied Linguistics (2018) provided a first comprehensive translation of post-​human, new materialist thought connecting it to research and theoretical developments in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics, asking important questions about how post-​human and new materialist thinking might change our view of languages, language practices, language policies and the ways to study them. Researchers with an interest in multilingualism only recently started to explore the role of material conditions and materiality for language practice in interaction (Kell, 2015; Budach, Patrick & MacKay, 2015), in 88

Materialities and Ontologies

language policy (Canagarajah, 2020), in multilingual classrooms (Martin 2019), and for multilingual language learners interacting with digital technology (Toohey et al. 2015). Post-​humanist and new materialist concepts can help expand previous theoretical developments around translanguaging (Garcìa & Li, 2014), multimodality (Kress 2009), and conceptual work on repertoires (Agha, 2007). They expand the notion of the multilingual and semiotic repertoire “defined as the totality of resources or tools that people use when they communicate (such as speech, image, text, gesture, sign, gaze, facial expression, posture, objects and so on)” (Kusters, 2021: 183) to a semiotic assemblage, defined as expanding “the semiotic inventory and relocating repertoires in the dynamic relations among objects, places and linguistic resources, an emergent property deriving from the interactions between people, artefacts and space” (Pennycook, 2017: 11–​12). Pennycook (2020) has connected the post-​humanist concept of entanglement (Ingold, 2012) with previous work in research on linguistic landscapes. He explores the notion of social semiotic trajectories that include relations among English and other languages but also among Englishes and other entanglements such as a backstreet sign for an English school in the Philippines. This sign, he says: “suggests an assemblage of cheap English, sexual desire, neoliberal goals, domestic workers, multilingual repertoires, Korean English frenzy, American colonialism, brownouts, call centres, racial hierarchies, global inequality, unequal resources, researcher subjectivity and tangled wires” (ibid: 222). Toohey and colleagues (2015) explore the entanglements of children, digital tools and literacy practices, investigating how young multilingual learners in Canada engage in complex multilingual language and literacy practices using digital technologies to create videos about sustainability and social justice. Researchers explore new materiality theories and the notion of a socio-​material assemblage to understand how human beings interact with other kinds of materials –​ cameras, texts, storyboards –​to accomplish perhaps novel tasks. Exploring videomaking as a socio-​material assemblage, the authors say about language learning, that such an approach “might challenge our conceptions of language and literacy learning. For new materiality theorists, language and literacy cannot be an ‘out-​there’ kind of ‘thing’ that learners put ‘inside’ themselves. Rather, “languages and literacies and people and their activities and other materials accompany one another and are entangled in socio-​material assemblages that rub up against one another in complex and as yet unpredictable ways” (461). It is important to note that post-​humanism and new materialism are not yet coherent theories, nor did the key theorists intend to focus their gaze on language, linguistic or communicative practice or multilingualism. In fact, they aimed to turn their gaze away from these areas. However, their work is seen as offering a fertile ground for revitalizing the ‘critical’ in critical applied linguistics research which Pennycook (2010: 16) bemoans “has become conventional and moribund”. He further argues (2018: 17) that post-​humanist applied linguistics “that incorporates a political understanding of human interrelationships with the material world” offers a much-​needed alternative for thinking about the relationship between language, discourse and reality in a post-​truth era.

Convergence and divergence between language materiality and post-​humanism/​new materialist approaches We have discussed above firstly, centring the materiality of language and secondly, decentring the human. We aimed to distinguish how materiality and ontology are conceptualized in the language materiality approach and in the post-​humanist and new materialist approaches. While we have 89

Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach

presented language materiality and post-​humanism/​new materialism as somewhat distinct, there is convergence between them, as well as significant divergences which we discuss very briefly.

Cross-​species and animal language One area of overlap is research into cross-​species communication and animal language which is making a powerful contribution to both the centring of the materiality of language and the decentring of the human. Providing an ontological challenge to the idea of language being the central feature that divides humans from animals and the material world, it enables us to widen our understanding of what counts as language. Since the symbolic is not the key aspect for nonhuman communication (as it has conventionally been positioned with human language), a focus on the materiality of sounds, gestures and movements comes to the fore, as well as the interaction with material substances and objects. Kohn (2013) in his work on how the Runa people communicate with dogs also argues that iconic and indexical signs are crucially important in communication for non-​human organisms, and that these are also forms of representation. Sociolinguist, Leonie Cornips (2019) engaged in a project which drew on post-​humanist and new materialist theory to develop a sociolinguistic and non-​anthropocentric approach to rethinking agency and language amongst animals and between humans and animals. Her ethnographic work has focused on dairy cows and how they “imbue their physical space with meaning through materiality, the body and language” (Cornips, 2019: 177).

Debating ontologies Language materiality works with the concept of language ontologies but also draws on the body of theory making up the ontological turn which draws heavily on indigenous perspectives and traces the effects of conquest and colonialism, not least the effects on how dominant conceptions of language have taken hold and spread. In contrast, post-​humanism and new materialism base their conceptual apparatus on the concepts of flat ontology and relational ontology and the work has developed from within and as a critique of the northern episteme. Much of their theoretical work is based on the identification of the Anthropocene as a key guiding concept as explained by Braidotti (2013: 5–​6): post-​human theory is a generative tool to help us re-​think the basic unit of reference for the human in the bio-​genetic age known as ‘anthropocene’, the historical moment when the Human has become a geological force capable of affecting all life on this planet. By extension, it can also help us re-​think the basic tenets of our interaction with both human and non-​human agents on a planetary scale. At a time when political awareness of the effects of conquest, colonialism and slavery are starting to become more visible globally, one can critique post-​humanism and new materialism for refocusing efforts for change on ‘the Human’ as if ‘we are all in this together’. A narrow focus on the Anthropocene as emerging from processes of industrialization in the north is challenged by coloniality/​decoloniality theory which instead traces the current global environmental crisis back to 1492 and the start of the colonization of the Americas. As Pithouse (2020) with reference to decoloniality theorists, argues that 1492 is the moment at which there is a bifurcation of history and that Dussel (1995: 185) argues that it involved “a special kind of sacrificial violence

90

Materialities and Ontologies

which eventually eclipsed whatever was non-​European”. According to Pithouse (2020: 12), Sylvia Wynter saw the 1492 event as: setting in motion the bringing together of separated branches of our human species within the framework of a single history that we all now live, and while it led to incredible techno-​ scientific and other such dazzling achievements as well as to the well-​being of one restricted portion of humanity, it also led to the systematic large-​scale degradation and devalorisation, even the extinction of a large majority of the peoples of the earth. Much of the critique of the European Enlightenment (from post-​humanism and new materialism as well as other fields) focuses on the way it framed a world of supposed universals which invisibilized the exclusions on which it was based. But what the decoloniality theorists have shown is how the 1492 moment involved an earlier and dramatic process in which this framework spread across the world through colonialism, feeding into Enlightenment thought which then justified the extinction, degradation and devalorization of “the large majority of the peoples of the earth” (and their ways of living with the land, as well as their languages) on which it was based (Wynter, cited in Pithouse, 2020). A further difference can be seen in how the concepts of ‘the environment’ and the ‘planet’ figure large in post-​humanist and new materialist writing, while in the scholarship associated with language materiality, the land and the earth, figure large.

How agency and urgency are conceptualized: the political and the planetary The concept of flat ontology rejects the dualism dividing humans and material world, rather distributing agency between them, and thereby engaging with the ecological planetary crisis. This could however result in the loss of analytical tools for political action, which are perhaps more urgently needed than ever before. While the ethical imperative of decentring the human in relation to other ontological types is important and necessary, a generic construct of the ‘human’ in sensuous engagement with vibrant matter becomes the focus of inquiry rather than how a particular version of the human comes into being, with other phenomena. Versioning the human lies behind the devastation that colonialism, imperialism and capitalism have wrought upon those humans who have been othered and the worlds within which they have lived.

How materiality is conceptualized In general, materiality within post-​humanism and new materialism is set as something other than the discursive, the linguistic. Nakassis (2013: 403) problematizes this by arguing that this way of conceptualizing materiality can be used “as a wedge to open up a space beyond semiosis (or often ‘discourse’)”. In this way it is seen and used analytically to “caption an exteriority, that which cannot be signified, that which escapes ‘meaning’, even as it makes it possible. Implicitly, then, discourse and semiosis are understood as abstract, idealist and non-​material”. The question needs to be asked whether this perpetuates the binary that the theory is trying to deconstruct. By way of contrast, the analytical move in the language materiality and language ontologies approach shows that language itself is material and has material effects. Within these fields, the move towards the Peircean approach enables us to see that language itself is not something separate from the material. It is only a particular ontology of language (Language as Saussurean essentialism) that has come to be separated off so decisively.

91

Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach

Ontoethics and research: data and the agency of objects Along with the focus on the ‘new’ in post-​humanism and new materiality goes a call for rethinking the notion of data and of research methods. As mentioned above ‘ontoethics’ refers to the flat ontology where humans cannot be privileged as subjects, authors or even participants in research, but must be placed at level with the other non-​human and inanimate parts of the assemblage being studied. This presents challenges for the ways in which researchers decide on projects, collect and analyze data. In a paper widely cited in post-​humanist and new materialist approaches to education research, MacLure (2013: 660) states that “data have their ways of making themselves intelligible to us” and talks about ways in which, when analyzing data, the “data starts to glow”. The paper is called ‘Research without representation: Language and materiality in post-​qualitative research’ and MacLure (ibid. p. 663) argues that “perhaps the shock of the altered status of language within a materialist ontology has not yet been fully felt” and that “language itself in a materialist conceptualization ought to be so fundamentally changed as to become almost unrecognizable”. Her claims in the paper remain speculative as there are no examples of this. But the work on language ontologies discussed above provide detailed examples where this happens –​we are thrown into shock at the multiple ways in which language materiality challenges our conceptions of language and changes them to make language close to unrecognizable, an ontological shift.

Conclusion In summary, post-​humanist theory and new materialist theory hold similar perspectives on materiality and ontology when it comes to language and on multilingualism. The empirical studies in these fields which do address language largely draw on the third ontology outlined above, where language is viewed largely as part of assemblages of other ontological types (material objects, animals, infrastructures and so on). The second ontology (that which has made the shift towards indexical understandings of language and of language ideologies –​ ‘language as practice’), which has made such gains in advancing understandings of language, power and inequality, has not figured highly in research in post-​humanism and new materialism, although scholars like Canagarajah, (2020) and Pennycook and Makoni (2020) have made powerful contributions across these areas. But these gaps have largely left language itself as black-​boxed and as defined by the ontology shaped by the Saussurean perspective –​the ‘language as object’ ontology, the symbolic. The theory of language materiality, taken together with main provisions of the ontological turn, offers very new ways of thinking about language and multilingualism, as well as about how the study of written language can be brought into the mainstream. At the same time, the research in this field shows the continuity and flows between linguistic communication, other modes of semiosis, and other living beings, as well as material objects and, especially, the land. It helps us to see how people and groups dwell within different ontologies of language and negotiate them, at the same time as they construct them. Post-​humanism and new materialism do not set out to study language (while the linguistic and discursive figures deeply in the originating studies of these fields) while the field of language materiality, of course, does. It is clear that these different bodies of theory have much to offer each other, and they are clearly becoming entangled with each other in productive and exciting ways.

92

Materialities and Ontologies

Related topics Chapter 1 Lessons for decolonization from pre-​colonial translingualism; Chapter 8 Multilingualism and multimodality; Chapter 28 Multilingualism and linguistic landscapes.

Further reading Cavanaugh, J. & Shankar, S. Eds. 2017. Language and Materiality: Theoretical and Ethnographic Explorations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. (This edited collection provides an excellent overview of the emerging field of language materiality, in relation to new materialisms, ideology and semiotics.) Hauck, J. & Heurich, G. Eds. 2018. Special Issue of Language and Communication: Language in the Amerindian imagination: an inquiry into linguistic natures. Vol 63. (The editorial of this special issue is of great interest, as are a number of the articles dealing with the concept of language ontologies.) Pennycook, A. 2018. Post-​humanist Applied Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge. (This was one of the first books to theorize the implications of post-​humanism for applied linguistics and multilingualism.) Siragusa, L. & Virtanen, P. Eds. 2021. Special Issue of Multilingua: Non-​human agencies, the environment, and the materiality of indigenous languages. 40 (4). (This special issue brings together a number of articles which grapple with questions of language ontologies and materiality, with a focus on the implication of these concepts for multilingualism).

References Agha, A. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs. 28(3): 801–​821. Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Duke University Press. Blaser, M. 2009. Political ontologies: cultural studies without cultures. Cultural Studies, 23: 873–​895. Braidotti, R. 2013. The Post-​Human. London: Policy Press. Bryant, L. 2011. The Democracy of Objects. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Budach, G., Kell, C. & Patrick, D. 2015. Objects and language in transcontextual communication. Social Semiotics. 25(4): 387–​400. Budach, G., Patrick, D. & Mackay, T. 2015. “Talk around objects”: designing trajectories of belonging in an urban Inuit community. Social Semiotics. 25(4): 446–​464. Canagarajah, S. 2020. Reconsidering material conditions in language politics: a revised agenda for resistance. Nordic Journal of English Studies. 19(3): 101–​114. Canagarajah, S. 2022. Challenges in decolonizing linguistics: the politics of enregisterment and the divergent uptakes of translingualism. Educational Linguist. 1(1): 25–​55. Cavanaugh, J.R. & Shankar, S. Eds. 2017. Language and Materiality: Ethnographic and Theoretical Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Choksi, N. (2021) Graphic Politics in Eastern India. London: Bloomsbury. Coole, D. & Frost, S. 2010. New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Cornips, L. 2019. The final frontier: non-​linguistic animals on the research agenda. Linguistics in the Netherlands. Course, M. 2018. Words beyond meaning in Mapuche language ideology. Annual Language & Communication. 63: 9–​14. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lang​com.2018.03.007. Cowley, S. 2011. Taking a language stance. Ecological Psychology. 23: 1–​25. De Landa, M. 2016. Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Debenport, E. & Webster, A. 2019. From literacy/​literacies to graphic pluralism and inscriptive practices. Annual Review of Anthropology. 48: 389–​404. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by B. Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

93

Catherine Kell and Gabriele Budach Demuro, E. & Gurney, L. 2021. Languages/​languaging as world-​making: The ontological bases of language. Language and Communication. 83: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101307 de Saussure, F. D. 1959. Course in General Linguistics.. Translated by Roy Harris. London: Duckworth. Dussel, E. 1995 The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of “the Other” and the Myth of Modernity. New York: Continuum. Escobar, A. 2018. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy and the Making of Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ferguson, J. 2021. How words make the world: language materialities and the circulation of Sakha algys. Multilingua, 40(4): 433–​461. García, O. & Li, W. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Pivot. Grosz, E. & Hill, R. 2017. Onto-​ethics and difference: an interview with Elizabeth Grosz. Australian Feminist Law Journal. 43(1): 5–​14. Harkness, N. 2015. The pragmatics of qualia in practices. Annual Review of Anthropology. 44: 573–​589. https://​doi.org/​10.1146/​annu​rev-​ant​hro-​102​313-​030​032 Hauck, J. & Heurich, G. 2018. Language in the Amerindian imagination: an inquiry into linguistic natures. Language and Communication. 63: 1–​8. Honeyford, M.A. & Watt, J. 2020. Practising place-​thought and engaging in critical place inquiry in a public park: listening, letting go, and unsettling our writing pedagogies. In Transforming Language and Literacy Education. 32–​53. London & New York: Routledge. Ingold, T. 2012. Towards an ecology of materials. Annual Review of Anthropology. (41) 427–​440. Keane, W. 2013. On spirit writing: materialities of language and the religious work of transduction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 19: 1–​17. Kell, C. 2015. Making people happen: materiality and movement in meaning-​making trajectories. Social Semiotics. 25(4): 446–​464. Kell, C. 2017. Traveling texts, translocal/​transnational literacies, and transcontextual analysis. In The Routledge Handbook of Migration and Language. S. Canagarajah, Ed. 413–​434. Kohn, E. 2013. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology beyond the Human. Oakland: University of California Press. Krause, L. 2021. Relanguaging Language from a South African Township School. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kress, G. 2009. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London & New York: Routledge. Kusters, A. 2021. Introduction: the semiotic repertoire: assemblages and evaluation of resources. International Journal of Multilingualism. 18(2): 183–​189. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-​Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Love, N. 2004. Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences. 26: 690–​709. Lupke, F. 2018. Escaping the tyranny of writing: West African regimes of writing as a model for multilingual literacy. In C. Weth & K. Juffermans, Eds. Tyrannies of Writing: Ideologies of the Written Word. London & New York: Bloomsbury. MacLure, M. 2013. Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-​qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 658–​667. Martin, A.D. 2019. The agentic capacities of mundane objects for educational equity: narratives of material entanglements in a culturally diverse urban classroom. Educational Research for Social Change. 8(1): 86–​100. Maturana, H.R. 1970. Biology of cognition. BCL report # 9.0. Urbana: University of Illinois. Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J. 1998. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: New Science Library. Merrell, F. 2001. Charles Sanders Peirce’s concept of the sign. In P. Cobley. The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics. London &New York: Routledge. Mignolo, W. 2000. Local Histories/​Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking, Princeton Studies in Culture/​Power/​History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Nakassis, C.V. 2013. Materiality, materialisation. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 3(3): 399–​406. Oakdale, S. 2022. Amazonian Cosmopolitans: Navigating a Shamanic Cosmos, Shifting Indigenous Policies and Other Modern Projects. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

94

Materialities and Ontologies Ortega, L. 2018. Ontologies of language, second language acquisition and world Englishes. World Englishes. 37: 64–​79. Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a Local Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. 2020.Translingual entanglements of English. World Englishes. 39(2): 222–​235. Pennycook, A. 2017. Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism. 14(3): 269–​282. Pennycook, A. 2018. Post-​humanist Applied Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge. Pithouse, R. 2020. Becoming Human after 1492. Wakefield, CA: Daraja Press. Shankar, S. & Cavanaugh, J. 2012. Language and materiality in global capitalism. Annual Review of Anthopology. 41: 335–​369. Shankar, S. & Cavanaugh, J. 2017. Toward a theory of language materiality: an introduction. In Language and Materiality: Ethnographic and Theoretical Explorations. J. Cavanaugh & S. Shankar, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–​28. DOI: 10.1017/​9781316848418.001. Sidnell, J. 2020. Sign theory and the materiality of discourse. In A. Da Fina & A. Georgakopoulou. The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies. 282–​305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siragusa, L. & Virtanen, P.K. 2021. The materiality of languages in engagement with the environment. Multilingua. www.degruy​ter.com/​docum​ent/​doi/​10.1515/​multi-​2021-​0057/​html. Siragusa, L. & Zhukova, O. 2021. Blowing specific words: verbal charms as material suspended events. Multilingua. 40(4): 463–​483. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​multi-​2020-​0049. Snoddon, K. 2021. Writing as being: on the existential primacy of writing for a deaf scholar. Qualitative Inquiry. 28(6): 722–​731. Spinoza, B. 1985. Collected Works of Spinoza. E. Curley, Ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Strom, K. & Martin, A.D. 2017. Becoming-​teacher: A Rhizomatic Look at First-​year Teaching. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Thibault, P. 2017. The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love’s two order of language. Language Sciences. 61:74–​85. Toohey, K., Dagenais, D., Fodor, A., Hof, L., Nuñez, O., Singh, A. & Schulze, L. 2015. “That sounds so cooool”: entanglements of children, digital tools, and literacy practices. TESOL Quarterly. 49(3): 461–​485. Toohey, K., Smythe, S., Dagenais, D., & Forte, M., Eds. 2020. Transforming Language and Literacy Education: New Materialism, Posthumanism, and Ontoethics. London & New York: Routledge. https://​ doi.org/​10.4324/​978042​9491​702 Viveiros de Castro, E. 1998. Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 4: 469–​88. Voloshinov, V.N. 1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Von Frisch, L. 1965. The Dance Language and Orientation of Bees. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Williams, R. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

95

7 TRANSLANGUAGING AND TRANS-​S EMIOTIZING Marianne Turner and Angel M.Y. Lin

Introduction Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing (TL-​TS) refer to concepts and theories that focus on describing the ways people communicate, rather than abstracting different languages from these communicative processes. This recent trend in theorizing draws on a long tradition of integrational approaches to understanding human communication and sense making (Harris, 1996; Love, 2004; Makoni & Pennycook, 2005; Thibault, 2011), amongst others. Linguistic/​semiotic diversity is considered to be intrinsic to this focus on communicative processes. Confronting deficit views of officially defined ‘non-​standardized’ ways of communicating, is a key concern of TL-​TS literature. Ways in which (emergent) bi/​multilinguals communicate –​ how they draw upon their communicative resources –​does not fall neatly within standardized constructions/​prescriptions of language purity. Individuals are pulled towards powerful state-​officiated standardization but also push towards creative and non-​standard forms (Bakhtin, 1981). Language as a social –​and therefore political –​construct is a focus of TL-​TS, as is the problematizing of the categorization of languages that results in linguistic hierarchies. Languages that sit at, or near the top of, these hierarchies in any given country are taken-​for-​granted languages of schooling, (elite) career progression and access to institutions. They also include foreign languages that are seen as prestigious for historical or geopolitical (usually colonial) reasons, or because they are promoted as a global lingua franca. In this chapter, we will begin by discussing TL-​TS as a theoretical lens to counter official ideologies on un/​acceptable communicative behaviour. Much has been written about translanguaging in particular, drawing on different perspectives. We will focus on certain threads that have been influential in this scholarship. The threads include Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of heteroglossia, Swain’s (2006) sociocultural perspective on languaging, and a dynamic, distributed view of language (Thibault, 2011). These perspectives help to deconstruct language categories and linguistic hierarchies, as do arguments that show the categories and hierarchies to be ideological constructions and political inventions (Makoni & Pennycook, 2005). The categories can end up ‘pathologizing’ other ways of speaking/​meaning-​making, and also the speakers/​writers themselves (May, 2017). Problematizing this is a central aspect of TL-​TS, and a translanguaging approach has led to a unified yet heteroglossic view of linguistic repertoire being put forward (Otheguy, García & Reid, 2015). 96

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-9

Translanguaging and Trans-Semiotizing

We will then focus on TL-​TS as practice, or what people do with their linguistic repertoires, paying particular attention to how translanguaging is distinguished from code-​switching and translation, and to ‘transfeaturing’ (Lin, Wu & Lemke, 2020) as a form of TL-​TS. The creativity that arises from the use of an extended linguistic repertoire free of any standardized policing will be a further focus. We will take a special look at the application of TL-​TS to formal education: translanguaging was conceptualized as a pedagogical concept before developing more broadly into the domains of theory and practice. In this section, we will discuss both benefits and challenges when applying translanguaging pedagogy, including to classrooms more removed from the contexts for which translanguaging was initially generated. Finally, we will address what we view as the potential of TL-​TS by positioning it as a majority theory and will suggest future research directions.

TL-​TS as a theoretical perspective TL-​TS is a theoretical perspective that focuses on the dynamic nature of language and signs. This is different from the more traditional linguistic focus on what Saussure (1983) referred to as langue –​ the abstract and shared conventions of language systems that can be extrapolated to a system of rules. The priority given in scholarship to languages as discrete systems with particular rules has, perhaps unwittingly, provided fertile ground for maintaining the linguistic hierarchies that TL-​TS seeks to disrupt. This language-​as-​system way of thinking has promoted the idea that there are correct forms of different languages, and that these are the standard by which communication can be measured. Standardized language goes hand in hand with coloniality, or an epistemology of universal truth that presides over various other ways of knowing (Mignolo, 1996; de Sousa Santos, 2014; Shepherd, 2020; Walsh & Mignolo, 2018). From a decolonial perspective, the more traditional prioritization given to standardized structures by modern linguistics helps to illustrate how this field “has been shaped – ​and continues to be shaped –​by its colonial heritage” (Deumert & Storch, 2020:3). TL-​TS scholarship seeks to combat the colonial heritage of linguistics by drawing on dialogic, practice-​based theorizations of language and languaging. A Bakhtinian view of language has been particularly influential on TL-​TS theory-​building. Bakhtin (1981) considered language to be deeply rooted in a history of social interactions, such that the form and the content of discourse are inseparable. He argued that language is a living thing and includes a dialogic tension between the processes that pull towards unification and standardization and those which push away into fragmentation, transformation and creativity (ibid.). The tension is dialogic because utterances are formed through both what has come before and the creative potential of the speaker. This creative potential allows for heteroglossia, which Bakhtin (ibid.) viewed as happening within ‘one’ language, or intralanguage differentiation. Theory-​ building around the notions of TL-​TS incorporates the idea of heteroglossia by conceptualizing language holistically. An individual has one linguistic repertoire, which may consist of what are viewed as being different languages. The trans-​ prefix refers to creativity and fluidity, but it also refers to the linguistic repertoire of bi/​multilinguals, or crossings. For example, García (2009: 45) considered translanguaging to be the “multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds”. A focus on the heteroglossic language practice of bilinguals is also apparent in Li’s (2018) discussion on his initial attraction to the expression translanguaging. His interest was sparked by Swain’s (2006: 97) sociocultural work on languaging as “a process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language”. Li (2018: 16) posed the question: “How is the thinking process affected by simultaneous use of multiple languages?” The notion of 97

Marianne Turner and Angel M.Y. Lin

translanguaging thus problematizes a focus on different named languages via its embrace of a holistic linguistic repertoire but takes as its initial point of departure the languaging experiences of bi/​multilinguals. This does not mean that monolinguals are excluded from a TL-​TS perspective: everyone has a linguistic/​semiotic repertoire. However, rather than privileging monolingualism, a TL-​TS approach takes (emergent) bi/​multilinguals as its point of departure. Current thinking about TL-​TS also draws on a distributed view of language in that language is conceptualized as “embodied, embedded processes of languaging behavior” (Thibault, 2011: 211). This understanding of language reflects the distributed view of mind, in which the mind cannot be separated from the body or the world, and it reflects the argument that the way we think is highly situated (Love, 2004). A distributed view of language goes beyond linguistic signs to encompass a semiotic repertoire. For example, García and Li (2014: 42) argued that “a trans-​semiotic system with many meaning-​making signs, primarily linguistic ones … combine to make up a person’s semiotic repertoire”. While the trans-​semiotizing (TS) view shares a lot with the tradition of multimodality research (Kress, 2000; van Leeuwan, 2005), the trans-​semiotizing view, like the translanguaging view, has a greater emphasis on the fluid, dynamic process of whole-​body sense making. It also honours Halliday’s preference for the term ‘trans-​semiotic’ (Halliday, 2013, cited in Lin, 2015). The fluid, dynamic acts involved in creating, mixing and entangling various communicative resources, are also captured in concepts such as assemblages (Pennycook, 2017), orchestration (Zhu, Li & Lyons, 2017) and spatial repertoires (Canagarajah, 2017), and can be viewed through the distributed notion of first-​order languaging, or whole-​body sense-​making (Thibault, 2011). First-​ order languaging cannot belong to any one person: its social, dialogic nature means that it cannot be reduced to an abstract code. TL-​TS can be seen as aligning with first-​order languaging –​it is process-​ oriented, embodied and dialogic. This can be contrasted with second-​order language, which refers to what people generally understand ‘language’ to be –​ lexicogrammatical patterns that facilitate and conform to cultural expectations (Thibault, 2011). Second-​order language refers to “stabilized cultural patterns on longer, slower cultural timescales” (Thibault, 2011: 216). Named languages, such as English, Japanese and French align with second-​order language (Turner & Lin, 2020). Attention to first-​order languaging is a deliberate way of critiquing and dismantling the centrality of languages that carry prestige. The legacy of colonialism lives on in the distinguishing and naming of languages, and the norms for these languages are monolingual. Historically, when people speak more than one language they are commonly judged by monolingual standards, and the languages are considered to be ‘solitudes’ in that they are to be kept separate (cf Cummins, 2007). This results in a view that bi/multilingualism is the ability to conform to monolingual norms in more than one language (see García, 2009). Theory-​building around TL-​TS seeks to contest this prevailing attitude towards languages, and the way it misses the richness of language practices that do not conform to monolingual norms and are not attributed any status. TL-​TS as a theoretical perspective has its origins in addressing this kind of inequity, most conspicuously that which has been experienced by “racialized bilinguals”, meaning “people who, as a result of long processes of domination and colonization, have been positioned as inferior in racial and linguistic terms” (García et al., 2021: 1). Focusing on the linguistic repertoire of speakers –​their first-​order languaging –​and the richness of this aims to unsettle the hegemony and prestige of named languages. Finally, highlighting a speaker’s linguistic repertoire in a holistic way has led to a unitary view of language (Otheguy, García & Reid, 2015). There is still some debate about the way language is processed in our mind and how this relates to how we use it; for example, how we might ‘chunk’ language into patterns for easier retrieval, and how much this can be connected to our understanding of named languages, albeit in a blurred and overlapping way (see MacSwan, 2017). 98

Translanguaging and Trans-Semiotizing

There remains a conceptual challenge in considering language and signs as a unified repertoire and highlighting the linguistic/​semiotic experiences of bi/​multilinguals. To illustrate this challenge, Hall (2019: 86) understands the term ‘repertoire’ to mean “the totality of an individual’s language knowledge” and “conventionalized constellations of semiotic resources for taking action,” and Cenoz and Gorter (2019: 132) suggest that the word “multilingual” be included alongside “repertoire” in order to draw attention to the “relationship between languages and semiotic resources”. These kinds of challenges still need to be resolved. This area of theory-​building remains a work in progress. Nevertheless, from a sociolinguistic perspective, the strong emphasis on first-​order languaging acts as a powerful way to focus on the sophistication of minoritized speakers’ practices, and addresses deficit discourses that stem from monolingual norms.

TL-​TS as practice The TL-​TS analytic lens on the linguistic/​semiotic experiences of (emergent) bi/​multilinguals is very clear in its application. Bi/​multilingual communication is conceptualized in terms of everyday practices, or “situated, processual and interactional communicative practices” (Mazzaferro, 2018: 1), and research contexts range from formal, institutional contexts, such as schools, universities and workplaces, to informal settings, such as families, communities and urban linguistic landscapes (ibid.). TL-​TS practices commonly occur in (the sometimes in-​between) spaces that are not highly regimented –​the usual unmarked communication that takes place between individuals with a shared linguistic repertoire, or when there are no other ways to make meaning (García & Li 2014). These practices can be creative and playful. Li (2016 15–17) gives a number of words and expressions created by Chinese users of English by leveraging common English morphological patterns to express Chinese meanings and ideas. Two examples are: “Goveruption (government + corruption) 政府贪污” and “Democrazy (democracy + crazy) 痴心妄想”. In TL-​TS scholarship, it is very much the practices that are the focus, not the product. In its alignment with a distributed view of language and first-​order languaging, TL-​TS refers to process. Baynham and Lee (2019) give examples of English travelling into Japanese in the form of katakana (the Japanese script for foreign words), becoming incorporated into Japanese morphological patterns, and then being absorbed into Japanese. The expressions are no longer considered to be creative, just as when a metaphor ‘dies’ when it becomes so well used that it is taken for granted and is no longer a stylistic turn of phrase. Baynham and Lee (ibid.: 38) refer to this as “remnants of a translanguaging process” that are absorbed in this way (italics in original). However, there is no absolute distinction between what are considered to be remnants and communicative resources that are still the shuttling between languages. This blurriness can be related to Thibault’s (2011) reference to the importance of time in second-​order language: to be fully viewed as remnants of translanguaging, certain languaging practices need to stand the test of time. The process orientation of TL-​TS also distinguishes it from translation, which can be either a process or a product: Translanguaging aspires to be nowhere in particular, not unlike an itinerant traveller dwelling in the present moment, always on the move but without a fixed schedule or destination … once fossilization happens, translanguaging vaporizes. [In contrast, translation] works its way towards culmination in some semiotic resolution. Baynham & Lee, 2019: 39 Indeed, given the focus on process and practice, the concept of translanguaging is often considered to be synonymous with code-​switching (CS), or “the alternating use of two languages in the same stretch 99

Marianne Turner and Angel M.Y. Lin

of discourse by a bilingual speaker” (Bullock & Toribio, 2009: xii). This is unsurprising because, as Lin and Li (2012: 470) pointed out, “by far the bulk of CS research to date is based on the analysis of naturally occurring bilingual speech data,” and this is also true of TL-​TS research. The kind of data under study for both CS and TL-​TS is similar, but the lens through which it is analyzed differs. Much CS research retains a focus on language codes, or the Saussurian way of thinking that measures language against correct or standard forms. TL-​TS research focuses on practices based on a distributed view that anchors them in the processes (situated contexts at different time scales) in which they arise. This process-​oriented conceptualization of language –​ first-​order languaging –​ also allows for ideas such as transfeaturing, or differences in styles, registers and dialects (Lin et al., 2020). Just as with languages, it is nearly impossible to draw clearly defined boundaries around these features. Lemke made the point that “there really is not such a thing as a dialect, there is only dialectal variation” (ibid.: 51). Transfeaturing practices also focus on meaning-​making as a whole because it is the speakers who are the centre of analysis, rather than the different codes: the way the speakers index relationships and produce meaning through their choices of language varieties (ibid.). Transfeaturing includes the linguistic/​semiotic repertoire of monolinguals. The TL-​TS lens can thus include the languaging practices of monolinguals given its theoretical focus on a holistic linguistic repertoire, as opposed to discrete language systems, or codes. Finally, translanguaging-​as-​practice can align with long-​existing world views. For example, Makalela (2015) noted the complementarity of translanguaging and the African epistemology of ubuntu, which has a holistic focus on community and the interwoven nature of human existence. As expressed by Makalela (2017: 12), “this communal way of life and philosophy finds full expression in the value of interdependence and the interconnectedness of human beings and their cultural product, as represented by the mantra I am because you are, you are because we are.” Ubuntu language practices were subject to linguistic control during European colonization, when language systems were positioned as discrete rather than fluid (Makoni, 2003; Makalela, 2005). This vision of discrete languages has been influential in different ways; for example, Monz (2020: 268) found in her study that Bambara speakers from Mali who had spent time residing in France and returned to Mali “deliberately tried to separate the languages in their repertoire one from another and aspired to use a ‘pure’ Bambara”. She noted that this choice was made with no reflection on the treatment of African migrants in France. Nevertheless, it could be viewed as indicative of the relationship between language and identity: “the exclusive choice of one African language should be seen as an identification with this language” and a restorative action after a migration experience that resulted in identity loss (ibid.: 271). The relationship between language and identity is important to consider in translanguaging practices: keeping a language ‘pure’ is not possible from a TL-​TS perspective, but a desire for this purity can be strong.

TL-​TS in education The concept of TL-​TS has gained the most ground in the field of education, particularly translanguaging. The term ‘translanguaging’ (trawsieithu) was first used in Wales in the context of Welsh/​English bilingual education programmes (Williams, 1994). It was originally conceptualized as a structured and practical approach to alternating between Welsh and English. García (2009) adopted the term to refer to bilinguals’ holistic use of their extended language practices in formal education settings. Thus, translanguaging began its conceptual life as a pedagogical orientation, and was then explored as a theoretical perspective on language, with trans-​semiotizing as a natural continuation of this perspective. In this chapter, we have discussed the TL-​TS theoretical perspective first because from a pedagogical –​or practical –​perspective in a classroom, it can be 100

Translanguaging and Trans-Semiotizing

difficult to see the difference between translanguaging and switching between languages (code-​ switching) in a more traditional sense. It is the focus on the speaker or on the particular named languages that distinguishes them. There are different purposes for applying TL-​TS in class, or in working towards different kinds of pedagogical goals (García & Li, 2014). These include the co-​ constructing and displaying of knowledge (e.g. Gumperz & Cook-​Gumperz, 2005; Martin-​Beltrán, 2014), developing language resources and promoting metalinguistic awareness (García & Kano, 2014; Lewis, Jones & Baker, 2012; Martin-​Beltrán, 2014), affirming bi/​multilingual identities (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; Lin & He, 2017), unpacking the meaning of monolingual texts (da Costa Cabral, 2018) and critically reflecting on language inequality (e.g. Flores & García, 2017; Lau, 2020). Additional goals include the development of background knowledge and the differentiation of instructional goals for monolingual, bilingual and emergent bilingual students (García & Li, 2014). Differentiation can further be considered in relation to students’ linguistic repertoire rather than to instructional goals –​students have different roles to play in activities, for ­example –​and this can also lead to increased learning and affirmation of (emergent) bi/​multilingual learners’ repertoires (Turner, 2017). As can be seen in the goals above, attention is generally paid to the pedagogical value of TL-​ TS in different educational contexts, rather than to spontaneous TL-​TS that is unconnected or may disrupt learning (for example, moments when students use their full linguistic repertoire to speak about the weekend in the middle of a classroom task). There are numerous studies across different education levels and settings that have confirmed this pedagogical value (e.g. BonacinaPugh et al., 2021; Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; Creese, Blackledge & Takhi, 2014; Duarte, 2018, García & Kano, 2014; Little & Kirwan, 2018; Martin-Beltrán, 2014; Menken & Sánchez, 2019; Tian et al., 2020). Literature related to professional development has also been produced in order to help teachers implement translanguaging in schools (e.g. Espinosa & Ascenzi-​Moreno, 2021; Fu, Hadjioannou & Zhou, 2019; García, Johnston & Seltzer, 2017). The main aim of the professional development literature is to affirm the use of students’ linguistic/​semiotic repertoires and to work with them to enhance teaching and learning. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the significance of context when discussing TL-​TS in formal education. This is especially true because standardizing forces in schools can relegate the use of a broader range of linguistic and semiotic resources to the supportive role of scaffolding, rather than a more transformative role of disrupting linguistic hierarchies at an institutional level (Jaspers, 2018). Context-​sensitive professional development is also very important –​ without it, translanguaging may not be perceived to be effective (e.g. Gallante, 2020). We will now address three interrelated contextual issues we see running through TL-​TS scholarship: (1) student learning, (2) the access paradox, and (3) the desire to protect minoritized (named) languages from dominant languages.

Student learning As can be seen from the objectives of translanguaging pedagogy mentioned earlier, students’ access to learning can include their ability to co-​construct meaning, language awareness, and the affirmation of their linguistic repertoire in a holistic sense. Empirical studies from various regions and contexts around the world attest to the way TL-​TS can help students. For example, Leung (2019) found that children in an early childhood setting in Hong Kong used translanguaging practices in visual arts as a way to express themselves. In a study conducted at the primary school level in Australia, Turner (2019) found that the incorporation of students’ extended 101

Marianne Turner and Angel M.Y. Lin

linguistic repertoire affirmed bi/​multilingual identities and also promoted language awareness. At secondary level, Probyn’s (2015) study of Year 8 science teachers in South Africa showed that one teacher was able to enhance students’ opportunities to learn science through purposeful incorporation of isiXhosa into lessons, rather than shifting to isiXhosa in a reactive way or only using English (the medium of instruction). This strategic use of translanguaging in the secondary science classroom was also noted by Lin and Lo (2017) in Hong Kong. At university level, Wang and Curdt-​Christiansen (2019) found translanguaging to have a beneficial effect on student learning in an English-​medium business management programme in higher education in China. Makalela (2015) noted the positive effects of translanguaging pedagogy for university students studying to be teachers in South Africa via “reinforcing plural identities, bridging linguistic and cultural boundaries and increasing reasoning power through integrated multilingual practices” (213). Building on the TL-​TS lens, a study (Wu & Lin, 2019) of a series of CLIL biology lessons shows that the TL-​TS whole-​body sensemaking practices in the lesson series generated a continuous flow of entanglement and inter-​animation (cf Bakhtin, 1981) of the students’ familiar everyday semiotic and cultural patterns and the school-defined semiotic and cultural patterns. It further showed that TL-​TS practices cannot be seen as just a (temporary) scaffold for learning the target language and knowledge. Instead, TL-​TS practices enabled the development of a complex first-​hand epistemic experience for the students, creating a holistic ‘feeling-​meaning’ of a new kind (Lemke, 2018), as evidenced in the post-​lesson student interviews and survey. For further examples of studies on student learning via TL-​TS practices in different types of educational settings, see Bonacina-​Pugh et al. (2021).

The access paradox and language status Alongside the benefits, there are also challenges in the uptake of TL-​TS pedagogy in formal education. Given the centrality of power relations underpinning perceptions of TL-​TS in different types of formal educational institutions, a very important challenge is the possibility of disadvantaging students by not giving them enough exposure to standardized language, or the language that will give them access to higher education and employment opportunities (Heugh et al., 2017). This issue can be referred to as the ‘access paradox’ (Lodge, 1997). In the words of Janks (2004: 36): if you provide more people with access to the dominant variety of the dominant language, you perpetuate a situation of increasing returns and you maintain its dominance. If, on the other hand, you deny students access, you perpetuate their marginalization in a society that continues to recognize this language as a mark of distinction. There are also a great number of resources in that language that result from its dominance, and students are further denied access to these resources (ibid.). The access paradox was a concern raised in the South African context when looking at longitudinal data from system-​ wide assessment: “ ‘Unsystematic’ use of classroom multilingual practices (code-​mixing or translanguaging) is no guarantee for educational equity, rather it can exacerbate disadvantage” (Heugh et al., 2017: 213). The paradox can be applied to any context, since it is the dominant variety of the dominant language that carries prestige, but it is especially conspicuous in countries with a colonial history.

102

Translanguaging and Trans-Semiotizing

Although the benefits of translanguaging have been well established, it is important to note the continuing imperative for teachers to facilitate the teaching and learning of standardized language in formal education. The theoretical and pedagogical project of TL-​TS is to disrupt linguistic hierarchies and the notion of languages as bounded, discrete systems, including disruption of the standardized nature of the language of schooling. However, it can be a nuanced endeavour for teachers and school leaders in light of the paradox. Language status and the value attributed to language separation can also lead to discomfort with TL-​TS pedagogy and can render languages considered to be lower-​status invisible. In some settings, researchers have found that translanguaging is deliberately avoided: for example, Al-​ Bataineh and Gallagher (2018) found that student teachers in the United Arab Emirates were uncomfortable combining English and Arabic language practices in stories for children, and were also opposed to using the Emirati dialect, which was viewed as less prestigious than classical Arabic. In the Nepali context, Sah and Li (2021) found that legitimate translanguaging referred to language practices associated with Nepali and English, and not the home languages of minoritised students. In Indonesia, Rasman (2018) noted that student use of their full linguistic repertoire was ideologically constrained by the higher status of Bahasa Indonesia and English. In this case, it was Javanese that was avoided by the students. These examples show that notions of linguistic status and prestige can be strongly felt in formal education contexts, even where there may be space for students’ linguistic repertoire to be leveraged for learning in the classroom. Simultaneously raising students’ critical awareness of the domination of standardized varieties while providing access to them, or a critical pragmatic approach (Harwood & Hadley, 2004; Janks, 2004), is a possible practical strategy for teachers to deal with this dilemma.

Protecting minoritized (named) languages Another issue that has arisen in scholarship on translanguaging as a pedagogical approach is the potential risk to the teaching and learning of minority languages if students are ‘empowered’ to use the dominant language via translanguaging. This does not only affect majority language speakers learning another language, but also minority community languages. In settings such as Australia, language attrition is very common among second-​generation migrants (Eisenchlas et al., 2013), and students can be more comfortable speaking English than the language of their parents (Turner, 2019). In a similar vein, in the context of the Basque Country in Spain, Cenoz and Gorter (2017) noted that the Basque teachers were apprehensive that translanguaging would encourage the use of Spanish. Cenoz and Gorter (ibid.: 909) subsequently offered five principles for thinking about settings where exposure to minority languages is an important consideration: 1. Design functional breathing spaces for using the minority language 2. Develop the need to use the minority languages through translanguaging 3. Use emergent multilinguals’ resources to reinforce all languages by developing metalinguistic awareness 4. Enhance language awareness 5. Link spontaneous translanguaging to pedagogical activities. These principles are based on the need to be strategic, as well as promoting the pedagogical benefits of translanguaging. The first principle of functional breathing spaces is a way of ensuring attention to minoritized languages that are a medium of instruction at school. In their discussion on translanguaging allocation policy in the context of the United States, Sánchez et al. (2018) 103

Marianne Turner and Angel M.Y. Lin

conceptualized these spaces as “basic spaces”, which give bilingual students “the opportunity to hear and use one language or another exclusively … or, said another way, so that bilingual students learn, at appropriate times, to select and suppress features of their linguistic repertoire as called for by particular situations” (43). The principle of functional breathing (or basic) spaces is accompanied by the other principles which all incorporate the concept of translanguaging. The second principle focuses on deliberately planning meaning-​making to happen through use of the minority language as well as the dominant language, so students cannot rely on important messaging in only the dominant language. The final three principles focus on translanguaging as a way to help students understand how language is used, how the minority language in particular is treated and the importance of strategic translanguaging respectively. The principles recognize the benefits of TL-​TS as well as noting that “the celebration of translanguaging without taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the socio-​linguistic context can have a negative effect on regional minority languages” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017: 910). The way translanguaging can be used strategically alongside immersion in a minoritized language has been further noted in the context of te reo Māori and Samoan in New Zealand. Adopting the first two of Cenoz and Gorter’s (2017) guiding principles, Seals and Olsen-​Reeder (2020) discussed the idea of sustainable translanguaging in this context: “Research into translanguaging seeks to support minority language speakers and their identities, while providing regular access to and support for the minority language(s) in education” (2). Language revitalization efforts may be threatened by the presence of language practices associated with a dominant language. However, a TL-​TS theoretical perspective certainly aligns with having protected spaces that promote the development of students’ linguistic repertoire, especially when the language resources gained are identity-​affirming. Seals and Olsen-​Reeder (2020) referred to the pedagogical goal as “sustainable translanguaging” in that it is important to support minoritized language speakers, and not practices that inadvertently reinforce the dominant language.

Possibilities and future research directions The concept of TL-​TS has a great deal of potential in that it takes (emergent) bi/​multilingual speakers as a point of departure. It challenges the still dominant view of language in society in which monolingual norms, and the ways in which monolinguals speak, are central. The TL-​TS focus on first-​order languaging (cf Thibault, 2011) brings a process orientation to language that is inherent in its naming –​it is not something in the world, but rather an unfolding that refuses ‘thingification’ or codification. This focus provides an opportunity to look at the linguistic/​semiotic repertoire of speakers in a holistic and dynamic way rather than only measuring their repertoire against different standardized languages. Thus, methodologically, analysis of TL-​TS practices may need to go beyond the traditional verbal transcript, in which spatial and gestural information is usually described verbally in brackets. New ways of creating a ‘three-​dimensional’ transcript as well as an event map to focus on analysis of process and events have been experimented with by Roth (2018, 2020) as well as by Wu and Lin (2019) and Wu (2021). At the same time, researching the process of establishing and maintaining a TL-​TS stance in institutions, particularly with teachers and school leaders working towards translanguaging pedagogical goals in educational settings, is important because standardized language ideologies remain highly influential. (Emergent) bi/​multilingual speakers are still often considered to be ‘deficient’: the extent of their linguistic/​semiotic resources remains unrecognized as something of value, or simply invisible (inaudible) in a monolingual environment. TL-​TS scholarship can help to address complex on-​ the-​ground issues in schooling. 104

Translanguaging and Trans-Semiotizing

Bearing in mind how influential monolingual norms are, developing TL-​TS from its current status as a theory pertaining only to research on bi/​multilingualism into a major social semiotic theory, can help to show how the first-​order languaging of monolinguals is conceptually similar to that of bi/​multilinguals. Monolinguals use various styles, registers and/​or dialects and make different language choices depending upon their interlocutors. As Bakhtin (1981: 66) pointed out, monoglossia is “in its essence relative. After all, one’s own language is never a single language”. In our view, theory-​building related to translanguaging needs to be developed from theories that help to affirm (emergent) bi/​multilingual practices against a backdrop of monolingual standards to application in a wider context (Turner & Lin 2020). Exploring the potential of TL-​TS as a major theory of language could serve as a way to privilege the extended linguistic/​semiotic repertoires of bi/​multilingual speakers rather than marginalize them. Practices associated with monolingualism are then included but not at the centre. Contextual sensitivity around TL-​TS in relation to formal education and the professional development of teachers is also an area that needs more research. Formal education is commonly set up to reward students who excel at standardized forms of language. Translanguaging research has to achieve a delicate balance between its emphasis on disrupting linguistic hierarchies and inequity, and the importance (to students) of ensuring that there is no detrimental effect on students’ achievement trajectories in current systems. Heugh (2015) represented this issue as horizontal and vertical language practices, with TL-​TS fitting into the former and standardized language norms into the latter. TL-​TS would benefit greatly from more research that shows its complex relationship with standardized language use, and strategic pedagogical approaches in different settings. This scholarship has certainly begun (e.g. Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Jaspers & Madsen, 2018; Sánchez, García & Solorza, 2018; Turner 2021; Wu & Lin, 2019). Further research and the generation of approaches and contextual frameworks that could be used for professional development across different settings would be of great benefit to teachers who seek to navigate TL-​TS on the ground.

Related topics Chapter 8 Multilingualism and multimodality; Chapter 11 Multilingual literacies; Chapter 15 Decolonizing multilingual pedagogies; Chapter 17 Translanguaging pedagogies in the Global South: review of classroom practices and interventions.

Further reading Baynham, M. & Lee, T.K. 2019. Translation and Translanguaging. London & New York : Routledge. García, O. & Li, W. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Turner, M & Lin, A.M.Y. 2020. Translanguaging and named languages: productive tension and desire. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 23(4): 423–​433. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13670050.2017.1360243

References Al-​Bataineh, A. & Gallagher, K. 2018. Attitudes towards translanguaging: how future teachers perceive the meshing of Arabic and English in children’s storybooks. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–​15. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2018.1471​039. Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist and edited by M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Baynham, M. & Lee, T.K. 2019. Translation and Translanguaging. London & New York: Routledge.

105

Marianne Turner and Angel M.Y. Lin Bonacina-​Pugh, F., da Costa Cabral, I. & Huang, J. 2021. Translanguaging in education. Language Teaching 54: 439–​471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000173 Bullock, B. E. & Toribio, A. J. Eds. 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Codeswitching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canagarajah, S. 2017. Introduction. In S. Canagarajah, Ed. The Routledge Handbook of Migration and Language. London & New York: Routledge. 1–​28. Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. 2011. Focus on multilingualism: a study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language Journal 95: 356–​369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. 2017. Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: threat or opportunity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 38: 901–​912. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632. 2017.1284855 Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. 2019. Multilingualism, translanguaging, and minority languages in SLA. The Modern Language Journal 103 (Supplement 2019): 130–​135. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12529 Creese, A., Blackledge, A. & Takhi, J. 2014. The ideal ‘native speaker’ teacher: negotiating authenticity and legitimacy in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 98(4): 937–​51. https://doi. org/10.1111/modl.12148 Cummins, J. 2007. Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL) 10(2): 221–​240. da Cabra Costal, I. 2018. ‘As línguas têm de estar no seu devido lugar’ (‘Languages have to be in their proper place’): Language ideologies, languagised worlds of schooling and multilingual classroom practices in Timor-​Leste. Current Issues in Language Planning 20(1): 33–​49. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14664​ 208.2018.1503​388. de Sousa Santos, B. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. London & New York: Routledge. Deumert, A., Storch, A. & Shepherd, N. Eds. 2020. Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledges and Epistemes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duarte, J. 2018. Translanguaging in the context of mainstream multilingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism 17(2): 232–​247. https://doi.org/10.1080/​14790718.2018.1512607. Eisenchlas, S., Schalley, A. & Guillemin, D. 2013. The importance of literacy in the home language: the view from Australia. SAGE Open 3(4) 1–​14. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​21582​4401​3507​270. Espinosa, C. & Ascenzi-​Moreno, L. 2021. Rooted in Strength: Using Translanguaging to Grow Multilingual Readers and Writers, New York: Scholastic. Flores, N. & García, O. 2017. A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: from basements and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 37: 14–​29. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0267190517000162 Fu, D., Hadjioannou, X. & Zhou, X. 2019. Translanguaging for Emergent Bilinguals: Inclusive Teaching in the Linguistically Diverse Classroom, New York: Teachers College Press. Galante, A. 2020. Pedagogical translanguaging in a multilingual English program in Canada: student and teacher perspectives of challenges. System. 92(102274). https://doi.org/10.1016/​j.system.2020.102274 García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective, Malden, MA: Wiley-​Blackwell. García, O., Flores, N., Seltzer, K., Li, W., Otheguy, R. & Rosa, J. 2021. Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: a manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​15427​587.2021.1935​957 García, O. & Kano, N. 2014. Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: developing the English writing of Japanese students in the U.S. In J. Conteh & G. Meier, Eds. The Multilingual Turn in Languages Education: Benefits for Individuals and Societies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 258–​277. García, O. & Li, W. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. García, O., Ibarra Johnson, S. & Seltzer, K. 2017. The Translanguaging Classroom: Leveraging Student Bilingualism for Learning. Philadelphia: Caslon. Gumperz, J. J. & Cook-​Gumperz, J. 2005. Making space for bilingual communicative practice. Intercultural Pragmatics. 2(1): 1–​23. Hall, J.K. 2019. The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to a usage-​based understanding of language: expanding the transdisciplinary framework. Modern Language Journal. 103: 80–​94. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12535

106

Translanguaging and Trans-Semiotizing Halliday, M.A.K. 2013. Languages, and language, in today’s changing world. Research seminar given at the University of Hong Kong, 23 October 2013. Harwood, N. & Hadley, G. 2004. Demystifying institutional practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes. 23(4): 355–​377. Harris, R. 1996. Signs, Language, and Communication: Integrational and Segregational Approaches. London: Routledge. Heugh, K. 2015. Epistemologies in multilingual education: translanguaging and genre –​companions in conversation with policy and practice. Language and Education. 29(3): 280–​285. https://doi.org/10.1080/​ 09500782.2014.994529. Heugh, K., Prinsloo, C., Makgamatha, M., Diedericks, G. & Winnaar, L. 2017. Multilingualism(s) and system-​wide assessment: a Southern perspective. Language and Education. 31(3): 197–​216. https://doi. org/10.1080/​09500782.2016.1261894. Janks, H. 2004. The access paradox. English in Australia. 139: 33–​42. Jaspers, J. 2018. The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language and Communication. 58: 1–​10 https://doi.org/10.1016/​j.langcom.2017.12.001. Jaspers, J. & Madsen, L.M. 2018. Fixity and fluidity in sociolinguistic theory and practice. N. J. Jaspers and L.M. Madsen, Eds. Critical Perspectives on Linguistic Fixity and Fluidity Taylor and Francis. 1–​26. Kress, G. 2000. Multimodality: challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly. 34(2): 337–​340. Lau, S. 2020. Translanguaging for critical bi-​literacy: English and French teachers’ collaboration in transgressive pedagogy. In S. Lau & S. Van Viegen Stille, Eds. Critical Plurilingual Pedagogies: Struggling Toward Equity Rather than Equality. Switzerland: Springer. 115–​136. Lemke, J. 2018. Feelings in Places that Used to be Churches [Blog 1 May]. www.jayle​mke.com/​impor​ted-​ 201​1050​1025​959/​2018/​7/​15/​feeli​ngs-​in-​pla​ces-​that-​used-​to-​be-​churc​hes.html. Leung, S.K.Y. 2019. Translanguaging through visual arts in early childhood: a case study in a Hong Kong kindergarten. Asia-​Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education. 13(1): 47–​67. Lewis, G.W., Jones, B. & Baker, C. 2012. Translanguaging: origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research & Evaluation 18: 641–​654. Li, W. 2016. New Chinglish and the post-​multilingualism challenge: translanguaging ELF in China. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 5: i–​25. Li, W. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39(1): 9–​30. https://doi. org/10.1093/​applin/​amx039. Lin, A.M.Y. 2015. Egalitarian bi/​multilingualism and trans-​semiotizing in a global world. in W.E. Wright, S. Boun & O. García, Eds. The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. 19–​37. Lin, A.M.Y. & He, P. 2017. Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL Classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 16: 228–​244, https://doi.org/10.1080/​15348458.2017.1328283. Lin, A.M.Y. & Li, D. 2012. Codeswitching. In M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism London & New York : Routledge. Lin, A.M.Y. & Lo, Y.Y. 2017. Trans/​languaging and the triadic dialogue in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education 31(1) 26–​45. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09500​ 782.2016.1230​125. Lin, A.M.Y., Wu, Y. & Lemke, J.L. 2020. ‘It takes a village to research a village’: conversations of Angel Lin and Jay Lemke on contemporary issues in translanguaging. In S. Lau and S. Van Viegen Stille, Eds. Critical Plurilingual Pedagogies: Struggling Toward Equity Rather than Equality. Switzerland: Springer. 47–​74. Little, D. & Kirwan, D. 2018. From plurilingual repertoires to language awareness: developing primary pupils’ proficiency in the language of schooling. In C. Hélot, C. Frijns, S. Sierens & K. Gorp, Eds. Language Awareness in Multilingual Classrooms in Europe: From Theory to Practice. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 169–​205. Lodge, H. 1997. Providing access to academic literacy in the Arts Foundation Programme at the University of the Witwatersrand in 1996 –​ The theory behind the practice. Unpublished Master’s Research Report, University of the Witwatersrand. Love, N. 2004. Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences 26(6):525–​544. MacSwan, J. 2017. A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal 54(1): 167–​201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216683935

107

Marianne Turner and Angel M.Y. Lin Makalela, L. 2005. ‘We speak eleven tongues’: reconstructing multilingualism in South Africa. In B. Brock-​ Utne and R. Hopson, Eds. Languages of Instruction for African Emancipation: Focus on Post-​colonial Contexts and Considerations. Cape Town & Dar es Salaam: CASAS and Mkuki n Nyota. 147–​174. Makalela, L. 2015. Moving out of linguistic boxes: the effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education. 29(3): 200–​217. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09500​782.2014.994​524. Makalela, L. 2017. Translanguaging practices in a South African institution of higher learning: a case of ubuntu multilingual return. In C. Masak & K. Carroll, Eds. Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 11–​28. Makoni, S. 2003. From misinvention to disinvention of language: multilingualism and the South African constitution. In S. Makoni, G. Smithermann, A. Ball & A. Spears, Eds. Black Linguistics: Language, Society and Politics in Africa and the Americas. London & New York: Routledge. 132–​149. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2005. Disinventing and (re) constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal 2(3): 137–​156. Martin-​Beltrán, M. 2014. What do you want to say? How adolescents use translanguaging to expand learning opportunities. International Multilingual Research Journal 8: 208–​230. https://doi.org/10.1080/1931315 2.2014.914372 Mazzaferro, G. 2018. Translanguaging as Everyday Practice, Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Menken, K. & Sánchez, M. 2019. Translanguaging in English-​only schools: from pedagogy to stance in the disruption of monolingual policies and practices. TESOL Quarterly. 53(3): 741–​767. https://doi. org/10.1002/tesq.513 Mignolo, W. 1996. Linguistic maps, literacy geographies and cultural landscapes: language, languaging and (trans) nationalism. Modern Language Quarterly 56 (2): 181–​196. Monz, K. 2020. Decolonizing decolonization? Desiring pure language in Mali. In A. Deumert, A. Storch & N. Shepherd, Eds. Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledges and Epistemes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 260–​273. Otheguy, R., García, O. & Reid, W. 2015. Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: a perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review. 6(3): 281–​307. https://doi. org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014 Pennycook, A. 2017. Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism. 14(3): 269–​282. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1315810 Probyn, M. 2015. Pedagogical translanguaging: bridging discourses in South African science classrooms. Language and Education. 29(3): 218–​234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.994525 Rasman, R. 2018. To translanguage or not to translanguage? The multilingual practice in an Indonesian EFL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(3): 687–​694. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp. v22i17.5656 Roth, W. M. 2018. Elaborating the later Vygotsky’s radical initiative on the nature and function of language: implications for mathematics education. ZDM 50(6): 975–​986. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11858-018-0912-x Roth, W. M. 2020. Adventures of Mind and Mathematics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Sah, P.K. & Li, G. 2021. Translanguaging or unequal languaging? Unfolding the plurilingual discourse of English medium instruction policy in Nepal’s public schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism https://doi.org/10.1080/​13670050.2020.184901. Sánchez, M.T., García, O. & Solorza, C. 2018. Reframing language allocation policy in dual language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal 41(1): 37–​51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1405098 Saussure‚ F. (de). 1907/​1983. Course in General Linguistics, La Salle‚ IL: Open Court. Seals, C. & Olsen-​Reeder, V. 2020. Translanguaging in conjunction with language revitalization. System 92 1–​11. https://doi.org/10.1016/​j.system.2020.102277. Shepherd, N. 2020. The grammar of decoloniality. In A. Deumert, A. Storch & N. Shepherd, Eds. Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledges and Epistemes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 303–​324. Swain, M. 2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes, Ed., Advanced Language Learning: The Contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky. New York: Continuum. 95–​108. Thibault, P. J. 2011. First-​order languaging dynamics and second-​order language: the distributed language view. Ecological Psychology 23(3): 210–​245. Tian, Z., Aghai, L., Sayer, P. & Schissel, J., Eds. 2020. Envisioning TESOL Through a Translanguaging Lens: Global Perspectives. Switzerland: Springer. 185–​202.

108

Translanguaging and Trans-Semiotizing Turner, M. 2017. Integrating content and language in institutionally monolingual settings: teacher positioning and differentiation. Bilingual Research Journal 40(1): 70–​80. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2016.12 76029 Turner, M. 2019. Multilingualism as a Resource and a Goal: Using and Learning Languages across the Curriculum in Mainstream Schools. Cham: Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan. Turner, M. 2021. Drawing on students’ diverse language resources to facilitate learning in a Japanese–​ English bilingual program in Australia. Language Teaching Research 25(1): 61–​80. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362168820938824 Turner, M & Lin, A.M.Y. 2020. Translanguaging and named languages: productive tension and desire. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 23(4): 423–​433. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13670050.2017.1360243 Van Leeuwen, T. 2005. Multimodality, genre and design. Discourse in Action. 85–​105. London: Routledge. Walsh, C.E. & Mignolo, W. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Wang, W. & Curdt-​Christiansen, X.L. 2019. Translanguaging in a Chinese–​English bilingual education programme: a university-​classroom ethnography. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 22(3): 322–​337. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2018.1526​254. Williams, C. 1994. Arfarniad o dduliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-​destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog [An Evaluation of Teaching and Learning Methods in the Context of Bilingual Secondary Education] Doctoral diss., Bangor: University of Wales. https://​ethos.bl.uk/​Order​Deta​ils.do?uin=​uk.bl.ethos.385​775. Wu, Y. & Lin, A.M.Y. 2019. Translanguaging and trans-​semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: whole-​body sense-​making in the flow of knowledge co-​making. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​ 4): 252–​273. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1629322 Wu, Y. 2021. Translanguaging and Trans-​Semiotising in the Flow of Knowledge Co-​Making in a CLIL Biology Class. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. Zhu, H., Li, W. & Lyons, A. 2017. Polish shop(ping) as translanguaging space. Social Semiotics 27(4): 411–​ 433. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1334390

109

8 MULTILINGUALISM AND MULTIMODALITY Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set

Introduction This chapter offers an overview of the development of the scholarship on multilingualism and multimodality and their increasing integration in the study of human communication and sign-​ making in the 21st century. In particular, this chapter puts forward a view of multilingualism from the South which poses a challenge to a Northern epistemology of the self in which the binaries of mind/​body, person/​materiality, emotions/​rationality are prevalent. The theoretical and methodological developments reviewed in the chapter imply a complex and decolonial perspective on communication to counter an epistemology of binaries. The theoretical impetus of complexity and decoloniality in the social sciences are two important drivers of the growing overlap in scholarship on multilingualism and multimodality. A complexity perspective on communication and sign-​making (Blommaert, 2016) has drawn attention to the proliferation of new terminology which enables the researcher to describe a wider gamut of influences on interaction. Decoloniality (Mignolo, 2009; Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021; Menezes de Souza, 2019: 2021) brings the imperatives to research within and beyond epistemological borders and to emphasize the centrality of the body in meaning-​making and identity processes. Multimodality offers the analytical technologies to engage with these imperatives. Post-​structuralist concepts used to study multilingual practices have proliferated over the past decade. While some scholarship has applied these concepts to the linguistic mode only, other work, particularly in linguistic anthropology, linguistic ethnography and deaf studies, has responded to calls for the integration of the concerns of multilingualism and multimodality. The impetus for the field of multilingualism to attend to multimodality is two-​fold, as argued by Liu & Lin (2021). Firstly, the semiotic landscape in today’s world is increasingly multimodal, and secondly, human actors’ semiotic diversity needs to be valued and aligned with a social justice orientation, including a decolonial orientation. In this chapter we trace the expansion of the notion of linguistic repertoire to recent constructs of semiotic repertoire (Kusters et al., 2017), assemblages and spatial repertoire (Canagarajah, 2018), trans-​semiotizing and whole-​body sense-​making (Lin, 2015, 2019) which encompass the multilingual as well as multimodal aspects of semiosis. We also review the methodological innovations and challenges associated with drawing together these two lenses on social practices 110

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-10

Multilingualism and Multimodality

in diverse fields such as education, linguistic landscapes, sign language and media studies. We will present data from our own work in multilingual education in Southern science classrooms which we analyze using an array of multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA) techniques. Finally, we provide a chapter summary and directions for future research in this area.

Theoretical issues: from logocentric to holistic approaches This section will provide some definitions of multimodality and a review of the intersection between multilingualism and multimodality research. Subsequently, selected recent developments at the intersection of these research areas will be reviewed to show how each argues for a broader approach to the study of communication and sign-​making. Multimodality as a research concern has developed within linguistics with particular influences from the field of social semiotics and sociocultural theory (Lytra, 2012). Here we focus on the influence of social semiotics founded in the work of Halliday (1978). In social semiotics, mode is defined as the shaping of materials for representation by social and historical forces (Kress, 2010). Examples of modes of communication are speech, writing, gesture, image and action, with the list growing all the time as human sign-​making evolves and manipulates existing sign technologies. Multimodality describes both the multiplicity of modes in any semiotic activity as well as the simultaneity of the use of these modes. Multimodality offers a perspective on meaning-​making which goes beyond the insight that many different modes make up the meaning in communication. The theory holds that the co-​presence of modes shapes meaning in new ways. Modes working together become more than the sum of their parts and produce “intersemiotic meanings” (Liu & Lin, 2021: 247) through a process of “orchestration” (Zhu et al., 2020: 67) of different semiotic systems. Multimodality has used the construct of affordance prominently to highlight the potentials and limitations for representing that each mode offers (Kress et al., 2014). Other key concepts are the medium of each mode, which refers to the material substance which is shaped by culture and realizes the mode (for example, music is realized by sound) and the materiality of each mode which refers to its realization in the social world (Kress et al., 2014). There is significant overlap between studies of multilingualism and studies of multimodality as is made apparent when scholars of multimodality draw upon metaphors from multilingualism. For example, an explicit comparison is drawn by Kress (2010: 10) connecting “translation” between named languages and the transformation of the sign into a different mode. The metaphor of translation is also used by Iedema in his proposal of “resemiotisation”: how semiotics are translated from one mode into the other (Iedema, 2003: 29). While sharing a common perspective on meaning-​making and communication, scholars of multimodality and multilingualism in fields such as applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and digital communication have tended to keep concerns of mode and language variety separate. Studies have focused on either multilingualism or multimodality, although see Lytra (2012) for an overview of early studies combining the two foci. With the burgeoning of translanguaging research, however, new impetus has arisen to focus simultaneously on multilingualism and multimodality. Definitions of translanguaging, for example, have allowed room for modes other than the linguistic to be considered in analysis. For example, García & Li (2014), in their foundational text on translanguaging, assert: The focus on signs in our conceptualization of translanguaging enables us to investigate the multimodal nature of communication, especially obvious in complex multilingual contexts. 2014: 28 111

Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set

Li (2017) argues that a multi-​semiotic approach is central to translanguaging theory: Translanguaging for me means transcending the traditional divides between linguistic and non-​linguistic cognitive and semiotic systems. 2017: 12 Despite the acknowledgement of multimodality within translanguaging theory, other modes have until recently only received passing recognition in translanguaging research. Kusters et al. (2017) have argued: In most multimodality studies, researchers focus on participants using one named spoken language within broader embodied human action. Thus, while attending to multimodal communication, they do not attend to multilingual communication. In translanguaging studies the opposite has happened: scholars have attended to multilingual communication without really paying attention to multimodality and simultaneity, and hierarchies within the simultaneous combination of resources. Kusters et al., 2017: 1 A similar argument is made by Block (2014) who refers to the conception of communicative practices exclusively in linguistic terms by applied linguistics as “lingual bias” (p. 56). Kusters et al. (2017) go on to propose the notion of “semiotic repertoire” as an analytical lens to investigate social action. While ‘repertoire’ was previously used to refer to the totality of linguistic features that an individual was able to employ, Kusters et al expanded the notion to enable analysis of the fluid use of different semiotics and different named languages. Furthermore, scholars have asserted the materiality of semiotic repertoires as well as the situatedness of semiosis within the social world. Scollon and Scollon (2003) emphasized the “placeness” of signs in the theory of geosemiotics: the study of the meaning systems by which language is located in the material world (2003: 13). Pennycook & Otsuji (2015) define “spatial repertoires” as “linguistic resources at people’s disposal in a given place” (2015: 162). Blackledge and Creese (2017: 250) assert that “translanguaging has a spatial dimension” and therefore that interactional space is a key consideration as part of a multimodal analysis of interaction. Building on the proposal of the term by Pennycook & Otsuji (2015), Canagarajah describes spatial repertoires as distributed repertoires which exist in a place, or are assembled there, by participants in an activity. They incorporate any “semioticized resources” (Canagarajah, 2018: 37). Space enables the researcher to account for objects, the physical world and co-​present participants which comprise a stage on which different modes and languages interact and are backgrounded and foregrounded at different times. Canagarajah, furthermore, stretches the study of multimodality beyond looking at bounded modes, in a similar way to how scholars of multilingualism have looked beyond bounded languages. To enable this, he draws on the concept of “assemblage”: Assemblage corrects the orientation to non-​verbal resources in scholars addressing ‘multimodality’. From the perspective of assemblage, semiotic resources are not organized into separate modes. To think so is to fall into structuralist thinking. According to assemblage, all modalities, including language, work together and shape each other in communication. Canagarajah, 2018: 39 112

Multilingualism and Multimodality

Linked to the distributed nature of sign-​making is the notion of flow. Lin, Wu and Lemke (2020) draw attention to the dynamic nature of semiotic work and that it is in the flow between actors that meaning is made. Lin (2019) and Liu and Lin (2021) have taken up the notion of flow to analyze the distributed meaning-​making that occurs within CLIL classrooms where different participants contribute different resources to the overall meaning. Angel Lin expresses a commitment to multimodal aspects of translanguaging in her term “trans-​ semiotizing” in which a variety of modes, languages and registers are employed in meaning-​ making. Trans-​semiotizing avoids the logocentrism of the term ‘translanguaging’: The proposal of trans-​semiotizing as a communicative strategy broadens our horizon about bi/​multilingual communication, since languages (as a central semiotic) not only interact with each other but also intertwine with other semiotics (e.g. visual images, gestures, sound and music) in human communication practices during which the common semiotic repertoire expands under the contributions of communicators. He et al., 2016: 5 In Kress’s foundational work on multimodality, there is an acknowledgement of the elevated status accorded to the body in a multimodal framing of interaction. Kress argues that the study of multimodality “represents a move away from high abstraction to the specific, the material; from the mentalistic to the bodily” (Kress, 2010: 13). Scholars of multilingualism have drawn on this insight and are paying more attention to bodily modes such as gesture and proxemics within multilingual interaction. A study which established this as a key concern in the field of multilingualism was the study of translanguaging and the body in a United Kingdom marketplace by Blackledge and Creese (2017). The key participants in the study, two butchers and their customers, had minimally overlapping linguistic repertoires. The authors identified three examples of commercial interaction that relied on the integration of verbal and non-​verbal signs. Features of English (including ‘strategically simplified’ English), Mandarin and features deriving from an East European lexicon were present. Layered onto these were variations in speaking pace and tone. Iconic, metaphoric and dietetic gestures, facial expressions and gaze formed essential parts of the communication. In the examples, the participants combined, accumulated and re-​used one another’s signs in order to achieve their commercial ends as well as to engender conviviality. They conclude that the body is “a normative, integrated resource in the translanguaging repertoire” (Blackledge & Creese, 2017: 266). In another study of an encounter in a shop, Mondada (2019) expands multimodality into multisensoriality in order to capture how embodied practices are used, not only for interacting, but for sensing the world in an intersubjective way. In her study she examined an interaction between customers and a seller in a cheese shop to show how action, bodies and materiality are intertwined. In the field of classroom discourse study in multilingual contexts, Lin emphasizes the role of the body in the semiotic repertoire of students and teachers. Lin (2019) proposes whole-​body sense-​making to explain how learning occurs in a multilingual classroom. Whole-​body sense-​ making is a collective endeavour among interlocutors; it is directed by students’ interests; it has an affective quality; and it draws on the full semiotic repertoire available to the embodied speaker. Wu and Lin (2019) applied Lin’s notion of whole-​body sense-​making to a Hong Kong CLIL biology classroom. The biology teacher followed the principles of the curriculum genre of the Multimodalities Entextualization Cycle (Lin, 2015, 2019) to teach a lesson on transpiration at Grade 10 level. The teacher weaves the scientific drawing, scientific terms in English and real-​time 113

Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set

produced drawing by the teacher together with voicing in everyday Cantonese and gesturing. Wu and Lin argue that the whole-​body sense-​making is “crucial in enabling knowledge co-​making” in the classroom (2019: 268). The role of the body in multilingual studies has been given further impetus from decolonial theory. Decolonial scholars have critiqued the splitting off of language from the body of the speaker/​s as a colonial orthodoxy. In his description of colonial alienation within language in education policy in Africa where the colonial languages dominate in schooling, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o holds that “it is like separating the mind from the body so that they are occupying two unrelated linguistic spheres in the same person” (Ngũgĩ, 1986: 28). Menezes de Souza (2021, 2019) has argued for the body to become more prominent in pedagogies and knowledge production. Coloniality negates the situatedness of knowledge produced in and through physical bodies while decoloniality re-​invigorates an understanding of the “locus of enunciation” or “place from which we speak” (Mignolo, 2009) as being primarily our bodies. Therefore, analyzing the body as a central part of multilingual meaning-​making, such as was the case in the studies by Blackledge and Creese (2017), Mondada (2019) and Wu and Lin (2019) described above, furthers a decolonial perspective. In our work on science learning, we have argued that in translanguaging spaces (Li, 2011) the inclusion of the full linguistic repertoire of participants often unlocks other aspects of their semiotic repertoires, notably the body. The body becomes less regulated, along with the linguistic system, and is used to express meanings beyond what is possible in the monolingual or linguistic-​only modes (Tyler, 2021). Inclusion of multimodality in studies of multilingualism moves away from elite logocentric multilingualism and assists in the analysis of meaning-​making at a grassroots level towards social justice (Menezes de Souza, 2021).

Multilingual/​multimodal methodologies In this section, we seek to explore methodological developments in the recent applied and sociolinguistic research and to make a contribution to an ongoing theoretical and methodological discussion from a group of scholars who advocate bringing together the paradigms of multilingualism and multimodality in research methodology. As noted above, sociolinguistic and applied linguistic scholars have made theoretical advancements with regards to the intersection of multilingualism and multimodality. In light of this, these scholars have called for more varied research methods that transcend the boundaries between language codes and modalities and direct the attention to a more comprehensive multilingual-​multimodal analysis that represents whole-​body sense-​making. These insights are valuable in responding to the methodological challenges that are underpinned by restlessness or dissatisfaction amongst qualitative researchers with the failure of dominant social science methods to adequately account for the visual, the sensory and the digital. Mason & Davies, 2009: 588 Within the broader aim of decolonizing research methodology, there is a move beyond “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) to thick transcription where the written mode is not always considered to be the most appropriate form for data representation. There is a move toward multisensory analysis that brings in the dimension of whole-​body sense-​making represented in graphic modes of transcription and to consider transcription as a situated practice (Mondada, 2007). With the proliferation of digital media and a diversity of modes, a number of scholars have problematized 114

Multilingualism and Multimodality

a traditional linguistic analysis of transcripts and call for a comprehensive framework that inscribes different modalities to capture all visual and auditory resources in the data (Kress, 2003; Pennycook & Makoni, 2020; Tyler, 2021; Jewitt & Leder Mackley, 2019). This approach to multimodal transcription, therefore, tries to challenge the language dominant view of communication while attending to embodied whole-​body sense-​making within the transcription (Jewitt & Leder Mackley, 2019). This allows the researcher to maintain a high level of integrity in data presentation, and to emphasize the participants’ voices and their agency (Tyler, 2021). Various studies have employed multimodal transcription to explore how meaning is created by means of the actions and the body alongside spoken language in different contexts (such as shops, markets, films and classrooms). Taylor (2004) used multimodal transcription to illuminate the several modalities used in various types of media genres, such as films, soap operas and documentaries. Taylor’s multimodal transcription incorporated different features such as the time of the visual frame, the visual image, the kinesic action, and the soundtrack and the descriptions of how meaning was established in an audiovisual programme. Similarly, Pennycook’s (2017) study draws from the concepts of spatial repertoires and assemblages as analytical framework to capture the meaning-​making produced in the context of a shop. The multimodal analysis was used to transcribe the interactional translingual practices between the shop owner and the customer. The multimodal transcription encompasses various elements such as space, written signs, food labels, body actions and gestures. In this instance the “language is not seen as residing in someone’s head but rather as a distributed and dynamic resource, both embedded, enacted as well as extended and situated” (Pennycook, 2017: 277). Pennycook’s work on assemblages resonates with “nexus analysis” –​ an analytical approach proposed by Scollon and Scollon (2004). Nexus analysis is a multimodal approach (which can incorporate multilingual languaging) to studying a social action which goes beyond the individual human actors and the spatial dimension to include the historical trajectories of the discourse elements (Scollon & Scollon, 2004: viii). Another methodology which has influenced transcription is multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA) (Machin & Mayr, 2012). A study by Helland (2018) analyzes music videos of a hip hop genre by a Japanese rapper drawing from varieties of methodological approaches that combined various disciplines such as cultural and media studies, sociolinguistics of globalization, and multimodal studies. Helland analyzed how Mona’s hybridity and identity was expressed through the use of multilingualism and her eclectic musical styles. Interestingly, the MCDA transcription reveals the features of hybrid identity that embrace linguistic and cultural diversity while challenging the monolingual ideology of Japan. The combining of sociolinguistic and MCDA in transcription of music videos exposes “the ideological issues of nationalism, identity and ideology, commodification, authenticity and cultural appropriation in a range of popular culture texts” (Helland, 2018: 26). In the data presentation in the following section, we have drawn on the concept of transvisuals which include pictures of bodies in semiosis, arguing that this concept has more “affordances than linguistic transcripts for portraying whole-​body sense-​making” (Tyler, 2021: 2). Tyler, working with an artist, produced a comic strip from the raw video data and the multilingual verbal transcripts. Placing the English translation outside of the representation of actors’ words emphasizes the original isiXhosa words of the participants and ascribes voice and agency to these participants and their locus of enunciation. This translation method is an example of a decolonial approach to multilingual–​multimodal transcription which should attend to the technologies and aesthetics of translation with a critical lens. Tyler explains that the comic strip facilitated all modes that are salient for meaning-​making such as posture, gestures and facial expression to be represented simultaneously in the transcription. 115

Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set

Set (2021) draws from a perspective of multimodal and multilingual analysis to understand how each individual mode contributes collectively to science meaning-​making in Grade 4 Namibian bilingual contexts. In order to challenge mono-​modal orientations of transcripts (Goodwin, 2007), Set includes words being uttered, the use of intonation, the pace of talk, gaze or a nod, gestures, body position and all language signals that were used to communicate science meanings to the portions of a transcript. This was done primarily through creating still images from the video recordings, which in turn were embedded in the written transcripts. In Table 8.1 that follows later, action modes are presented verbally and graphically in a separate column with titles such as ‘speech’ and ‘gloss’ allocated to the verbal modes. These words were used to avoid reification of named languages.

Multimodality in southern multilingual classrooms Multimodality has been a growing concern of scholars of education and multilingual classroom discourse. Learning within a discipline is a complex activity which relies on the integration and enactment of different modes and languages, despite assessment of learning often being monomodal and monolingual. The COVID-​19 pandemic has brought about a proliferation of online and virtual learning with concomitant new modes of information presentation (Liu & Lin, 2021) in well-​resourced contexts. Furthermore, discipline-​specific knowledge is communicated in a burgeoning array of modes and media: digital applications, websites, videos, podcasts etc., but again these media require a level of infrastructure support and financial resourcing which is often not present in Southern schooling contexts. Therefore, the research we present here focuses on embodied and pen, paper, chalk and chalkboard modalities. Our research has focused on teaching and learning in multilingual science classrooms in South Africa and Namibia. The linguistic ecology of these classrooms has been described as highly circumscribed by the coloniality of language (Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021; Veronelli, 2015). Veronelli (2015) argues that the coloniality of language follows the racialization of colonized peoples resulting in the logic that colonized peoples’ languaging is comprehended through European language theory, and found wanting, and therefore that this languaging requires remediation by a colonial language. The coloniality of language sets up the language hierarchies in our research sites with English in both cases being more visible in the linguistic landscape and more valued than the indigenous African languages used in the daily lives of the teachers and students. Furthermore, it is a variety of English in which the written, verbal-​only mode is valued above oral, mixed or bodily modes. In this section we offer two examples of classroom interaction which is multi-​semiotic, including features of different named languages and different modes creating a rich meaning-​making performance to move conceptual understanding forward. At the same time, this multimodality is shaped and interpreted according to mode, register and language hierarchies. The first example is taken from a Grade 9 science classroom in Cape Town, South Africa, during a group work task. In a research questionnaire the students identified themselves as home language speakers of isiXhosa with a strong English component in their linguistic repertoire. The official language policy of the school is English medium instruction with the home language of the majority of students, isiXhosa, being taught as a subject. During the fieldwork period in the Grade 9 class, the students were occasionally heard admonishing each other to “speak English”. However, teachers and students alike employ isiXhosa and English orally (and occasionally other locally present languages) to varying degrees in processes of translanguaging/​code-​switching, depending on their own linguistic repertoires and their attitudes towards the inclusion of non-​sanctioned 116

Multilingualism and Multimodality

languages in learning. What is absent in traditional classroom spaces is the use of isiXhosa in reading and writing for learning. In the example, a group of four boys are working on a written activity from their monolingual English textbook in which they must transform models of chemical reactions into chemical equations. The problem from the textbook, along with the solution which the boys worked towards, is reproduced as Figure 8.1. A segment of the interaction is presented as a cartoon in Figure 8.2, with a gloss of the bilingual speech below.

Figure 8.1 Grade 9 chemical equation problem

Figure 8.2 Multimodal and multilingual meaning-​making in group work

117

Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set

Gloss of speech: Mbulelo: “Look, look!” Mthobeli: “Mh?” Mbulelo: “But look you see, then the hydrogen is a molecule that exists, they are two when they exist, so you don’t count them as four.” Mbulelo (all names are pseudonyms) as the central figure in this group seatwork episode engages in a rich whole-​body sense-​making performance. Mbulelo is clearly excited that he has discovered how to continue with the activity and pursues this interest by drawing the others into dialogue with him. He is insistent that Mthobeli ‘look’ and listen to him. He then embarks on a multimodal explanation using both his and Mthobeli’s textbook including symbolic and verbal science explanation, his body and his most familiar oral register to argue that they should not represent the four hydrogen (H) atoms together as 4H. Mbulelo draws two texts together through the use of gesture, indicating that one has bearing on the other. This flurry of gestural activity is in contrast to the static nature of all the boys’ bodies as they worked independently up to this point. Goldin-​Meadow (1999, in Roth, 2004) has shown physical gestures “used in conjunction with spoken utterances represent the leading edge of cognitive development” (Roth, 2004: 48), i.e. that gestures express understandings which cannot be expressed yet in spoken words. In the case of Mbulelo, his gestures and gaze connect the current activity with the notion of a diatomic element before he begins to express this in words to Mthobeli. His meaning-​making originates in the body. This is congruent with my previous findings in a bilingual mathematics setting where gestures prefigured the use of a mathematical word (Tyler, 2016). With his hands Mbulelo points emphatically to text in the two textbooks, establishing the authority of what he is about to explain by beginning with drawing attention to the written statements in the textbook using dietic gesture. In Figure 8.1, Mthobeli has his textbook open to a paragraph describing diatomic molecules. Mbulelo uses the affordance of movement that gesture offers to connect the ideas between the problem on the page in his textbook, to part of the solution on the page in Mthobeli’s textbook. All the while, Mbulelo synchronizes his gestures with a familiar oral register to persuade the other boys of his argument that the four white circles in the square should be rendered as 2H2 and not as 4H. The oral register has features of English and isiXhosa which occur in a pattern of translanguaging: technical features relating to the science content are usually Xhosalized versions of ‘English’ words (‘two’, ‘molecule’ and ‘hydrogen’) some having come to English from Latin or Greek; some conjunctions are also English; most features are recognizable as ‘isiXhosa’. The signs that he uses are recognized by all participants as belonging to a register for doing science learning in a peer group and the meaning-​making flow (Lin, Wu & Lemke, 2020) continues. The familiar register allows Mbulelo to engage in exploratory talk in order for all three boys to work towards conceptual understanding. In the second example, we illustrate the types of semiotic resources used and their consequences for mediating meaningful engagement and understanding of science ideas in a Grade 4 Namibian bilingual Oshiwambo/​English classroom (Set, 2021). The following episode will show how Mr. Shilumba included, in addition to his oral and written modes, rich multimodality such as a visual representation of the textbook image, a modified drawing on the board as well as the use of gestures. Data analysis focuses on the classroom discourse relating to the conceptually demanding science unit on the nervous system and respiratory system. The interpretation of Mr. Shilumba’s discourse is based on the premise that “how knowledge is represented, as well as the mode and media chosen, is a critical aspect of knowledge construction, making the form of representation integral to meaning and learning” (Jewitt, 2008: 241). This means that the manner in which science ideas 118

Multilingualism and Multimodality

are conveyed to the learners can influence the extent to which the knowledge is being constructed in the course of learning. Mr. Shilumba wanted to convey science information to his learners in the manner that would give them a clear idea of how the respiratory system works (interview, date: 28-​6-​2018). In Table 8.1, Mr. Shilumba created a visual space for his learners to participate in the meaning-​ making process by employing a range of modes such as verbal explanations, visual images from the textbook, drawing on the board, writing, gestures, and physical movement engaging learners in experimenting with holding their breath. This means that Mr. Shilumba introduced new scientific concepts and processes through combining various modes. For instance, in turn 1, Mr. Shilumba expands on his verbal explanations through using visual representations of the textbook image of Table 8.1  Turn Actor/​ action

Speech

1

Okwali hatu popi kutya We said the respiratory system deals with breathing. orespiratory system ohai longo nokufuda There are parts that are involved in the respiratory system. Okay let me show you something here

Mr. S Showing the diagram of respiratory system from the textbook; only the teacher has a textbook

Gloss and Images

Figure 8.3 The textbook diagram of the respiratory system 2

Ss: Learners making noise and trying to move toward the teacher because they can’t see the image

3

Mr. S: Pointing on the image in the textbook

Can you see these parts here?

4

Ss: shouting and most of the learners seated at the back are not looking at the image

Yes/​No!

(Continued)

119

Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set Table 8.1  (Continued) Turn Actor/​ action

Speech

5

Okay, let me draw a clear drawing on the chalkboard

Mr. S: Moving to the board to draw the structure of respiratory system

Gloss and Images

Figure 8.4 Chalkboard drawing of the respiratory system 6

Ss: Making excessive noise while the teacher is drawing

7

Mr. S Pointing to the drawing with the ruler while explaining

8

Ss: Looking straight at the teacher while he is explaining

9

Mr. S: Pointing to the picture while explaining

Opena oitukulwa There are parts that are involved in the ya involvinga respiratory system. morespiratory system Okay if you look at this drawing here, we have the nose here, we have the mouth here and we have the lungs here. These are all parts involved in the respiratory system.

Otwa ti ngee hatu We said when we are inhaling, we breathe in inhaling, ohatu fuda oxygen that goes through the nose or the oOxygen tai piti mouth and it passes here and goes straight to komayule ile kokanya, the lungs and when we exhale, we breathe out tayee nde apa ndee carbon dioxide and it will come from the lungs taii komapunga; passing through the nose and the mouth . ngee hatu exhaling, ohatu fudamo ocarbondioxide taidi komapunga tai pitile komayulu ile kokanee

120

Multilingualism and Multimodality Table 8.1  (Continued) Turn Actor/​ action

Speech

10

Let me tell you something, during the process of respiration, we breathe in this oxygen like this, and we breathe out carbon dioxide like this And then the air comes through the nose And then the air goes to our lungs and again it comes from our lungs and goes out through Figure 8.5  Gesture of inhaling and exhaling our nose and we supply it to the plants. That is the respiratory system we are talking about in class.

Mr. S: Using the gestures of inhaling and exhaling

Pointing to his nose Using gesture to point to his lungs

Gloss and Images

Figure 8.6  Gesture pointing to the nose

Figure 8.7  Gesture of pointing to the lungs

121

Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set

the respiratory system. He began his verbal explanation by showing his learners the diagram in the textbook. In this case, the teacher’s body language and his actions of opening the textbook and pointing to the image (Figure 8.3) is an indication that the structure of the respiratory system is particularly important. The fact that the textbook diagram was not visible to all learners because they do not own textbooks created a lot of chaos in the classroom. Learners were trying to move forward and at the same time they were pushing one another and making a lot of noise (field notes, lesson 6, 11-​06-​2018). Mr. Shilumba proceeds to draw a modified structure of the respiratory system on the board, labelling the organs that form part of the respiratory system (see Figure 8.4). Then, Mr. Shilumba uses verbal expressions to describe the drawing, simultaneously pointing at the drawing with a ruler to direct his learners’ attention to the drawing (turns 7 and 8). The drawing on the board indeed attracted learners’ attention, as most of them gazed at the drawing whilst listening attentively (field notes, lesson 6, 11-​06-​2018). Mr. Shilumba goes on to deploy multiple gestures to help his learners visualize what he is describing to them. In turn 10, the verbal explanation of the breathing process was further exemplified and emphasized using non-​verbal and visual representations and gestures (see Figure 8.5) to enable his learners to construct the scientific meaning of respiration. The images in Figures 8.5 to 8.7 illustrate the use of deictic gestures to reinforce the scientific idea of the processes within the respiratory system. The image in Figure 8.5 shows Mr. Shilumba employing hand movements to represent the processes of inhaling and exhaling. Whilst performing this gesture, Mr. Shilumba starts moving both his hands in an outward and downward motion while simultaneously saying; “we breathe in this oxygen like this, and we breathe out carbon dioxide like this”. This gesture acts as an organizational resource to emphasize the process of the respiratory system. At times, he gazes at the learners, while turning his body toward them during these gestures. Again, Mr. Shilumba makes a quick sequence of the breathing gestures for the act of seeing what happened during the process of respiration. While performing an action gesture, learners looked straight at him and listened attentively (field notes data, lesson 6; 11-​06-​2018). There is a remarkable switching back and forth between everyday register and the science register, as well as switching between English language and Oshiwambo, whilst also using longer phrases in both languages, as we can see in Table 8.1 above. In this occurrence, Mr. Shilumba uses multimodality abundantly when he emphasizes the key ideas, first with rising intonation in Oshiwambo and then translating the same utterance in English, to provide learners access to science meaning (see turn 1, 7 & 9). Interestingly here, Mr. Shilumba utilizes non-​standard words by attaching Oshiwambo prefixes to the already existing English scientific words as: o-​oxygen, ocarbondioxide and orespiratory. These terms are heteroglossic in nature, as they consist of lexical items drawn from different languages. The translanguaging strategies enacted here reflect a teacher’s intent to support scientific learning through embracing all language resources as legitimate for teaching and learning. The use of rich multimodality shows how multiple semiotic resources are working together “as an assemblage, without the possibility of separating them” (Canagarajah, 2018: 39) because language in itself is not enough to facilitate the construction of science meaning. Here again, the repetition of the rapid gestures of inhaling and exhaling coordinated with verbal expressions, supported learners’ appropriation of the science meanings that were being conveyed to them. The findings of this study revealed how the affordances of multiple linguistic resources and modes have positive effects for emergent bilingual learners to gain nuanced understanding of the scientific knowledge, regardless of their limited proficiency in English. In these two Southern classrooms multilingual multimodal discourse is the norm. The students (­example 1) and the teacher (­example 2) design trans-​semiotic meanings according to their interest (New London Group, 1996; Kress et al., 2014). Different modes and language features 122

Multilingualism and Multimodality

merge in a rich whole-​body sense-​making performance (Lin, 2019) which makes the learning of science possible. Limiting or excluding the use of any of these resources would hamper this process. Therefore, restrictive English-​only language policies in Southern schooling militate against epistemic access, frustrating social justice through education and perpetuating coloniality. The potential of these multilingual multimodal practices is yet to be fully realized while they are still invisible to or rejected by policymakers. The methods of transcription and analysis reviewed above, developed in Southern contexts, challenge the imposition of monolingualism in education by revealing a full multilingual-​multimodal sense-​making performance which enables access to learning for the post-​colonial majority. Against this background, we propose that teachers should have autonomy to exercise their agencies to establish more deliberate spaces for heteroglossic and multimodal practices in classroom discourse. This is necessary to curb the ongoing monolingual bias in post-​colonial African schooling in which linguistically diverse learners are positioned as deficient while the semiotic resources, language variety, culture, and spontaneous knowledge that learners bring to schools is ignored.

Summary and directions for future research This chapter has reviewed the state of the joint study of multilingualism and multimodality in applied and sociolinguistic research in the early part of the 21st century. We traced the theoretical developments that have occurred within the field of multilingualism to more seriously incorporate the study of other meaning-​making modes in interaction. In this vein we have noted the increase in studies of multimodality within multilingual interactions called for by Kusters et al. (2017). Taking a view from the South, we have presented theoretical and methodological innovations which have disrupted the binarism of Northern epistemologies. These innovations have been driven in particular by complexity and decolonial perspectives on communication and sign-​making. These studies have also generated concepts which facilitate the analysis of space (spatial repertoires) and the body (whole-​body sense-​making) as key components of the full semiotic repertoire. In this way a view from the South has enabled a renewed focus on the embodied aspects of meaning-​making and methods of analysis. We have outlined methodological innovations which have evolved to provide scholars with the tools to analyze and present findings with a focus on multilingual multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA). As we referenced in our introduction, Liu and Lin (2021) have asserted that the semiotic landscape is becoming increasingly multimodal. Therefore, the purview of applied and sociolinguistics is likely to take in an ever-​broader set of semiotic resources for meaning-​making in the future. Theoretical influences from post-​humanism and new materiality have already begun to cast physical objects, space and affect as important parts of the semiotic landscape to be considered in analysis. The methodological innovations reviewed in the chapter allow the analyst to overcome the binarism of mind/​body, emotions/​rationality, and person/​material present in the Western epistemology of the self. With this in mind, Blommaert’s call to consider complexity as a frame for contemporary semiotics, rather than multiplicity or plurality (Blommaert, 2013: 613) is a useful hermeneutic. Complexity always incorporates criticality as the power differential between actors, language varieties and modes shapes and is shaped by a particular space. An ongoing challenge in transcribing multilingual-​multimodal data is how to represent complexity and entanglement of modes and language features but still be able to tease these apart in analysis. Trends in multilingual-​multimodal research suggest an increasing inclusion of materia as part of the semiotic and spatial repertoire. Internet-​based video and audio-​conferencing using tools such as Zoom, Google Meet and Microsoft Teams have experienced a surge in users since the beginning 123

Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set

of the COVID-​19 pandemic and will no doubt garner the interest of scholars. An acknowledgement of the digital divide between rich and poor, however, will guide researchers towards a critical stance in relation to these tools and the new hegemonies which they engender. For ethical multimodal scholarship, human actors’ semiotic diversity needs to be valued and aligned with a social justice orientation (Liu & Lin, 2021), including a decolonial orientation (Menezes de Souza, 2021). Multimodal critical discourse analysis will prove a useful tool for this investigation. Research is necessary which pays attention to online and offline communication in education, business and social settings with an eye on the fully embodied human experience.

Related topics Chapter 3 (De)colonial multilingual/​multimodal practices: Resisting and re-​existing voices from Latin America; Chapter 6 Materialities and ontologies: Thinking multilingualism through language materiality, post-​humanism and new materiality; Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​ semiotizing; Chapter 22 Multilingualism and hip hop.

Further reading Böck, M. & Pachler, N. Eds. 2013. Multimodality and Social Semiosis: Communication, Meaning-​Making, and Learning in the Work of Gunther Kress. London & New York: Routledge. (This edited book reflects on key theories and methods of Gunther Kress applied to multimodality in literacy and pedagogy.) Lauwo, M.S. 2021. Translanguaging, multimodality and authorship: cultivating creativity and critical literacies through multilingual education in Tanzania. In Multilingual Learning and Language Supportive Pedagogies in Sub-​Saharan Africa. 228–​247. London & New York: Routledge. (This book chapter discusses the combination of translanguaging and multimodal pedagogy for fostering critical literacy in a community library programme in Tanzania.) Moore, E., Bradley, J. & Simpson, J. Eds. 2021. Translanguaging as Transformation: The Collaborative Construction of New Linguistic Realities. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. (This edited book explores how translanguaging can be understood as going beyond the linguistic and the multimodal.) Zhu, H., Li, W. & Jankowicz-​Pytel, D. 2020. Translanguaging and embodied teaching and learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23(1): 65–​80. (The authors explore how embodied repertoires are central to interaction and pedagogy in a multilingual Karate club in London.)

References Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. 2017. Translanguaging and the body. International Journal of Multilingualism. 14(3): 250–​268. Block, D. 2014. Moving beyond “lingualism”: multilingual embodiment and multimodality in SLA. In S. May, Ed. The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. Routledge. Blommaert, J. 2013. Complexity, accent and conviviality: concluding comments. Applied Linguistics. 34(5): 613–​622. Blommaert, J. 2016. From mobility to complexity in sociolinguistic theory and method. In N. Coupland, Ed. Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. 242–​259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canagarajah, S. 2018. Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics. 39(1): 31–​54. García, O. & Li, W. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Geertz, C. 1973. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. New York: Basic Books.

124

Multilingualism and Multimodality Goldin-​Meadow, S. 2018. The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 3(11): 419–​429. Goodwin, C. 2007. Environmentally coupled gestures. In: S.D. Duncan, J. Cassell & E.T. Levy, Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. 195–​213. John Benjamins. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold. He, P., Lai, H. & Lin, A. 2016. Translanguaging in a multimodal mathematics presentation. In C. Mazak & K. Carroll (Eds.), Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Helland, K.I. 2018. Mona AKA Sad Girl: a multilingual multimodal critical discourse analysis of music videos of a Japanese Chicana rap artist. Discourse, Context & Media, 23: 25–​40. Iedema, R. 2003. Multimodality, resemiotization: extending the analysis of discourse as multi-​semiotic practice. Visual Communication. 2(1):29–​57. Jewitt, C. 2008. Multimodal discourses across the curriculum. In M. Martin-​Jones, A. De Mejia & N.H. Hornberger, Eds. Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Vol. 3. Language and education (2nd ed.). 357–​367. New York, NY: Springer. Jewitt, C. & Leder Mackley, K. 2019. Methodological dialogues across multimodality and sensory ethnography: digital touch communication. Qualitative Research, 19(1): 90–​110. Kress, G. 2003. Literacy in the New Media Age. London & New York: Routledge. Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London & New York: Routledge. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. & Tsatsarelis, C. 2014. Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. (2nd ed.) London & New York: Continuum. Kusters, A., Spotti, M., Swanwick, R. & Tapio, E. 2017. Beyond languages, beyond modalities: transforming the study of semiotic repertoires. International Journal of Multilingualism. 14(3): 219–​232. Lin, A.M. 2019. Theories of trans/​languaging and trans-​semiotizing: implications for content-​based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(1): 5–​16. Lin, A.M.Y. 2015. Egalitarian bi/​multilingualism and trans-​semiotizing in a global world. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun & O. García, Eds., Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education. 19–​37. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-​Blackwell. Lin, A.M.Y., Wu, Y. & Lemke, J.L. 2020. ‘It takes a village to research a village’: conversations between Angel Lin and Jay Lemke on contemporary issues in translanguaging. In S.M.C. Lau & S. Van Viegen, Eds. Critical Plurilingual Pedagogies: Struggling toward Equity rather than Equality. 47–​74. New York: Springer. Li, Wei. 2011. Moment analysis and translanguaging space: discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics. 43: 1222–​1235. Li, Wei. 2017. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics. 39 (1): 9–​30. Liu, J.E. & Lin, A.M. 2021. (Re) conceptualizing “language” in CLIL: multimodality, translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing in CLIL. AILA Review. 34(2): 240–​261. Lytra, V. 2012. Multilingualism and multimodality. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. 533–​549. London & New York: Routledge. Machin, D. & Mayr, A. 2012. How to do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction. Sage. Mason, J. & Davies, K. 2009. Coming to our senses? A critical approach to sensory methodology, Qualitative Research. 9 (5): 587–​603. Mondada, L. 2007. Commentary: transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse studies. 9(6): 809–​821. Mondada, L. 2019. Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145: 47–​62. Menezes de Souza, L.M.T 2019. Decolonial pedagogies, multilingualism and literacies. Multilingual Margins. 6 (1): 9–​13. Menezes de Souza, L.M.T. 2021. Foreword. In Z. Bock & C. Stroud, Eds. Language and Decoloniality in Higher Education: Reclaiming Voices from the South. 6–​19. London: Bloomsbury. Mignolo, W. 2009. Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and de-​colonial freedom. Theory, Culture and Society. 26(7–​6): 1–​23. Ndhlovu, F. & Makalela, L. 2021. Decolonising Multilingualism in Africa: Recentering Silenced Voices from the Global South. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

125

Robyn Tyler and Beatha Set New London Group. 1996. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review. 66(1): 60–​92. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o 1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. London: James Currey. Pennycook, A. 2017. Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism. 14(3): 269–​282. Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. 2020. Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from the Global South. London & New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. & Otsuji, E. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the City. London & New York: Routledge. Roth, W.M. 2004. Gestures: the leading edge in literacy development. In E.W. Saul, Ed. Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice. 48–​67. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. 2003. Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London & New York: Routledge. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. 2004. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London & New York: Routledge. Set, B. 2021. Using Semiotic Resources to Teach and Assess Scientific Concepts in a Bilingual Namibian Primary School: A Social Cultural Discourse Analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Cape Town. Taylor, C. 2004. Multimodal text analysis and subtitling. In Perspectives on Multimodality, Eija Ventola, Cassily Charles & Martin Kaltenbacher, Eds. 153–​172. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tyler, R. 2016. Discourse-​shifting practices of a teacher and learning facilitator in a bilingual mathematics classroom. Per Linguam. 32(3): 13–​27. Tyler, R. 2021. Transcribing whole-​body sense-​making by non-​dominant students in multilingual classrooms. Classroom Discourse, 1–​17. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​19463​014.2021.1896​563. Veronelli, G.A. 2015. The coloniality of language: race, expressivity, power, and the darker side of modernity. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s & Gender Studies, 13. Wu, Y. & Lin, A.M. 2019. Translanguaging and trans-​semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: whole-​body sense-​making in the flow of knowledge co-​making. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​4): 252–​273. Zhu, H., Li, W. & Jankowicz-​Pytel, D. 2020. Translanguaging and embodied teaching and learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 23(1): 65–​80.

126

9 INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION RIGHTS Stephen May

Introduction We were ghost peoples, hidden, like our languages and cultures, by the concept of the nation-​state. James Youngblood Henderson, 2008: 36 Indigenous peoples in the world today have been estimated to number at least 370 million in some 90 countries, amounting to about 5% of the world’s population (United Nations, 2009). The most recent estimates suggest that the total number of Indigenous peoples might even be as much as 476 million globally (International Labour Organization, 2020). Within the anthropological, sociological and political science literatures, Indigenous peoples refer to aboriginal groups who are sociopolitically non-​dominant and who are not, or are only partially, integrated into the nation-​ state system. They include such groups as Māori, Sámi, Australian Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, Native Americans, Hawaiians and Inuit, among many others. These groups are associated historically with a nonindustrial mode of production and a stateless political system (Minority Rights Group, 1997). Crucially, they have also been historically associated with particular territories prior to their sedimentation into modern nation-​states, the latter formed most often by the processes of colonization, confederation, or conquest, or some combination of the three (Kymlicka, 1989; May, 2012a), and almost always at the specific expense of Indigenous peoples (see below). Like all broad groupings, Indigenous peoples exhibit a range of significant inter-​ and intragroup differences. This caveat of heterogeneity notwithstanding, a useful legal definition of Indigenousness is outlined in the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention 169, formulated in 1989: a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations; b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as Indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-11

127

Stephen May

belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. (Art 1.1; my emphasis) Lest objectivist definitions be accorded too much weight, however, Article 1.2 of Convention 169 adds the rider that “self-​identification as Indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply”. Suffice it to say at this point, that self-​identification, along with the qualification in Art.1.1 “irrespective of their legal status”, are both central to any discussion of Indigenousness, since not all nation-​states are willing to recognize that Indigenous groups exist in their territories, let alone recognize them as Indigenous peoples. Indeed, governments in Malaysia, India, Myanmar (Burma) and Bangladesh, among others, have at various times claimed that everyone in their territory is Indigenous and that no one is thus entitled to any special or differential treatment (de Varennes, 1996). This specifically deprives Indigenous peoples of any sociohistorical and sociopolitical recognition, or any related socio-​economic recompense for the (inevitably negative) impacts of colonization upon them over time.

Indigenous peoples and colonization Over the last few centuries, the primary sociohistorical and sociopolitical conditions experienced by Indigenous peoples are in relation to colonization. Steeped in European exceptionalism, endemic racism, and the homogenizing imperatives of modern nation-​state formation (see May, 2012a, 2016, 2021), the processes of European colonization have led inevitably to Indigenous peoples’ political disenfranchisement, misappropriation of land, population and health decline, educational disadvantage, socio-​economic marginalization and/​or alienation in their own historical territories (Tully, 1995). As a result, they have been undermined economically, culturally and politically, with ongoing, often disturbing, consequences for their individual and collective life chances (United Nations, 2009). At the same time, Indigenous peoples have been viewed extremely pejoratively in relation to modernization –​ i.e. as ‘primitive’ or premodern. Consequently, they have been subjected in many cases to forced assimilation, on the misplaced assumption that this was the only viable option for their social and cultural survival and/​or ‘advancement’. The shocking case of the ‘stolen generations’ in Australia illustrates the extremes of such a position all too starkly. For 60 years, from 1910 to 1970, the Australian authorities enforced a systematic policy of ‘resettlement’ which saw up to a third of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children forcibly removed from their families and adopted out to White families or, more often, simply fostered or institutionalized. In the process, original family records were deliberately destroyed because, it was thought, any life was better than a traditional aboriginal one (see Smith, 2009; Tatz, 2011). Thus, Indigenous peoples have not had access, in many instances, to even the most basic rights ostensibly attributable to all citizens in the modern nation-​state. Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, for example, were only granted full citizenship rights in Australia in 1967 –​some 200 years after the advent of European colonization. Indeed, it was only at this time that they were granted the distinction of being human in Australian law, having previously been classified under the Flora and Fauna Act. Where Indigenous peoples have had access to citizenship rights, they have, more often than not, been treated solely as a disadvantaged ethnic minority group rather than on the basis of their indigeneity (Kymlicka, 1989). This results in Indigenous peoples’ claims

128

Indigenous Language and Education Rights

being levelled to those of all other ‘supplicant’ ethnic groups, beholden to the largesse (or, more often, the lack thereof) of their respective nation-​states. Given this historical background of colonization, and the ongoing reticence of many nation-​ states to recognize its legacy, Indigenous groups have become increasingly disaffected with their treatment by national majorities and have sought the right to greater self-​determination within nation-​states. Where nation-​states have ignored, or derided their claims, Indigenous peoples have turned instead to supranational organizations, and international law, with surprisingly successful results (see e.g. Xanthaki, 2007; Stavenhagen & Charters, 2009). Key points of focus in international legal debates about Indigenous self-​determination are the imperatives of Indigenous language rights, revitalization and, relatedly, the provision of Indigenous language education. These imperatives emerge from the effects of colonization on Indigenous language retention, and related colonial processes, which actively undermined and/​or proscribed the ongoing use of Indigenous languages. For example, early colonial/​Indigenous language contact zones saw the development of a complex milieu of multilingual practices, including the use of multilingual interpreters, lingua francas and trade languages, pidgins and Creoles (Patrick, 2012; Coronel-​Molina & McCarty, 2016a). Indeed, these early contact zones are strikingly similar to the current advocacy of superdiversity in the sociolinguistic literature and its related preoccupation with predominantly urban and migrant language contexts (May, 2014a), a point to which I will return in the conclusion. However, over time, Indigenous languages were inevitably increasingly marginalized in these colonial contexts and excluded from key language domains, such as education, with resulting Indigenous language shift and loss over time. As the Gikuyu scholar, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (2009), observes, these processes amounted to “conscious acts of [Indigenous] language liquidation” (p. 17). Consequently, while Indigenous peoples continue to speak about two-​thirds of the world’s approximately 7,000 languages, almost all of those Indigenous languages are now currently endangered,1 while many have already become extinct (see, e.g. Harrison, 2007; Fill & Penz, 2017; Eberhard et al. 2019 for useful overviews). Before turning specifically to debates on Indigenous language rights, revitalization and education, however, it is important to first situate these debates within developments in international law on minority language rights more broadly.

The case for minority language rights in international law Much of the post-​Second World War era has been largely antipathetic to the notion of language rights for linguistic minorities. This is because the prevailing emphasis in international law, most clearly encapsulated by the (1948) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), has been on a view of human rights as primarily, even exclusively, individual rights. What follows from this is a view of rights that addresses the person only as a political being with rights and duties attached to their status as citizens. Such a position does not countenance private identity, including a person’s communal membership, as something warranting similar recognition. On this basis, personal autonomy –​based on the political rights attributable to citizenship –​always takes precedence over personal (and collective) identity and the widely differing ways of life that constitute the latter. In effect, personal and political participation in liberal democracies, as it has come to be constructed post-​Second World War, ends up denying group difference and posits all persons as interchangeable from a moral and political point of view (Young, 2000).

129

Stephen May

This poses immediate difficulties for the advocacy of language rights because the right to the maintenance of a minority language (including Indigenous languages) within any given context presupposes that the particular language in question constitutes a collective or communally shared good of a particular linguistic community (Thornberry, 1991; de Varennes, 1996; de Varennes & Kuzborska, 2017). Or, put more simply, arguments for maintaining a language necessarily require a wider language community with which to interact in the first instance. An additional challenge is that language rights are often linked directly with the (unnecessary) promotion of ethnic particularism at the perceived expense of wider social and political cohesion. The prominent sociolinguist Joshua Fishman ably summarizes this view: Unlike ‘human rights’ which strike Western and Westernized intellectuals as fostering wider participation in general societal benefits and interactions, ‘language rights’ still are widely interpreted as ‘regressive’ since they would, most probably, prolong the existence of ethnolinguistic differences. The value of such differences and the right to value such differences have not yet generally been recognised by the modern Western sense of justice. 1991: 72 Even so, there is a nascent consensus within international law on the validity of minority language and education rights. This is predicated on the basis that the protection of minority languages does fall within generalist principles of human rights (May, 2011; cf. Kymlicka, 2001, 2007). Following from this there is a growing acceptance of differentiated linguistic and educational provision for minority groups within some national contexts. These developments, which I will discuss in more detail shortly, can first be usefully referenced by a distinction that another prominent sociolinguist, Heinz Kloss (1971, 1977), has made between what he terms tolerance-​oriented rights and promotion-​oriented rights (see also Macías, 1979).2 Tolerance-​oriented rights ensure the right to preserve one’s language in the private, non-​ governmental sphere of national life. These rights may be narrowly or broadly defined. They include: the right of individuals to use their first language at home and in public; freedom of assembly and organization; the right to establish private cultural, economic and social institutions wherein the first language may be used; and the right to foster one’s first language in private schools. The key principle of such rights is that the State does “not interfere with efforts on the parts of the minority to make use of [their language] in the private domain” (Kloss, 1977: 2). In contrast, promotion-​oriented rights regulate the extent to which minority language rights are recognized within the public domain, or civic realm of the nation-​state. As such, they involve “public authorities [in] trying to promote a minority [language] by having it used in public institutions –​ legislative, administrative and educational, including the public schools” (Kloss, 1977: 2). Again, such language rights may be narrowly or widely applied. At their narrowest, promotion-​oriented rights might simply involve the publishing of public documents in minority languages. At their broadest, promotion-​oriented rights could involve recognition of a minority language in all formal domains within the nation-​state, thus allowing the minority language group “to care for its internal affairs through its own public organs, which amounts to the [state] allowing self government for the minority group” (1977: 24). The latter position would also necessarily require the provision of state-​funded minority language education as of right. It is this notion of promotion-​oriented language rights that most concerns us here since it impinges directly on the issue of the provision of minority (including Indigenous) language education. And there are increasing examples in international law that support this position, albeit with

130

Indigenous Language and Education Rights

the proviso that individual nation-​states may still choose to ignore such laws or apply them in only limited ways. One of the most significant of these developments is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic or Religious Minorities, adopted in December 1992. This UN Declaration recognizes that the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities actually contributes to the political and social stability of the states in which they live (Preamble). Consequently, the Declaration asserts: Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities … have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination. Article 2.1; my emphases In addition, and significantly, Article 2.1 recognizes that minority languages may be spoken in the public as well as the private domain, without fear of discrimination –​a clear, promotion-​oriented language right. That said, the 1992 UN Declaration remains a recommendation and not a binding covenant –​in the end, it is up to nation-​states to decide if they wish to comply with its precepts. In a similar vein, the actual article which deals with minority language education (Article 4.3) qualifies the more general positive intent of Article 2.1 considerably: “States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue” (see Skutnabb-​Kangas, 2000; Skutnabb-​Kangas & May, 2017 for further discussion).

Indigenous language (and education) rights in international law A similar pattern of increasing legal recognition, albeit with significant caveats and/​or opt outs by individual nation-​states, is also clearly apparent in more specific debates about Indigenous language and education rights. In particular, over the last 40 or so years, we have seen a significant shift in thinking in international law on the status of, and rights attributable to, Indigenous peoples (Xanthaki, 2007). This includes, centrally, a growing consensus in international law around the notion of Indigenous self-​determination, or autonomy, which can usefully be described as: [a]‌space within which Indigenous peoples can freely determine their forms of development, [including] the preservation of their cultures, languages, customs and traditions, in a manner that reinforces their identity and characteristics, in the context and framework of the States in which Indigenous peoples live. Cited in Barsh, 1996: 797 The culmination of this principle of Indigenous self-​determination is reflected in the ratification in 2007 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Articles 3 and 4 outline the principle clearly:

131

Stephen May

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-​determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (Art. 3) Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-​determination, have the right to autonomy or self-​government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions. (Art. 4) More significantly for our purposes, UNDRIP also highlights as a central concern of Indigenous self-​determination issues of language and education. In this respect, Articles 14 and 15 of the UNDRIP are most pertinent: Article 14 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. 2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination. 3. States shall, in conjunction with Indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for Indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language. Article 15 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations, which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information. 2. States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among Indigenous peoples and all other segments of society. (my emphases) These UNDRIP Articles specifically endorse promotion-​oriented language and education rights for Indigenous peoples –​ a significant milestone development in international law. However, they remain non-​binding, with no guarantee of these rights. For instance, as Skutnabb-​Kangas & May (2017: 132–​133) observe, “there is nothing in these articles about the state having to allocate [appropriate] resources” for such rights. More broadly, the historical evolution of UNDRIP highlights the potential affordances of, and the still significant constraints on, the expansion of Indigenous language and education rights in international law. UNDRIP was formulated over a 25-​year period. This included the development over more than ten years of the (1993) Draft Declaration by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), in turn a part of the United Nation’s Sub-​Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The merits of the Draft Declaration were subsequently debated by UN member states for nearly 15 years, with many raising substantive 132

Indigenous Language and Education Rights

and repeated objections to its promotion of greater self-​determination for Indigenous peoples (Xanthaki, 2007; May, 2012a). Despite these objections, UNDRIP retained its strong assertion of Indigenous rights, including the specific promotion-​oriented language and education rights of Articles 14 and 15, and was finally adopted in 2007 with an overwhelming majority of states’ support (143 in favour). That said, there were 11 abstentions and, more significantly, four states –​ Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States –​ that still opposed its adoption. While these four states eventually endorsed UNDRIP –​ with the US the last to do so in December 2010 –​ the difficulties in gaining consensus, even on a non-​binding UN declaration, highlight the ongoing challenges facing the recognition of promotion-​oriented language and education rights for Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous language (and education) rights in national contexts UNDRIP, in conjunction with increasing Indigenous advocacy and agitation within individual nation-​states, usefully described by Tassinari and Cohn (2009) as “indigenous protagonism”, has, nonetheless, provided a clear platform of support for individual nation-​states that recognize and/​or promote autonomously administered Indigenous language education initiatives. This, in turn, often forms part of a broader political realignment within these various nation-​states that acknowledges the legitimacy of Indigenous rights therein (May, 2012a). Examples of significant advances in Indigenous rights and representation at the level of the nation-​state are thus increasingly numerous, but so too are setbacks and/​or subsequent periods of retrenchment. In Brazil, for example, the adoption in 1988 of a new Constituição (constitution) recognized for the first time ‘povos indígenas no Brasil’ (the Indigenous peoples of Brazil), of whom there are over 400,000. Article 231 specifically endorses Indigenous social organization, customs, languages, beliefs and traditions, along with the right of native title to their lands (Brasil, 1996; see also Hornberger, 1997). But despite the significance of this constitutional development, subsequent progress towards actualizing Indigenous rights in Brazil has been variable, to say the least, and significantly further eroded under the presidency of the extreme right-​wing populist president, Bolsonaro. Norway provides us with a somewhat more hopeful example. In 1988, Norway revised its constitution in order specifically to grant greater autonomy for the Indigenous Sámi population. This was particularly significant, since the constitutional amendment replaced over a century of stringent ‘Norwegianization’ (read: assimilationist) policy toward Sámi, their languages, and their culture. As the amendment to the Norwegian Constitution stated: “It is incumbent on the governmental authorities to take the necessary steps to enable the Sámi population to safeguard and develop their language, their culture and their social life” (cited in Magga, 1996: 76). The effects of this amendment are most apparent in the regional area of Finnmark, in the northernmost part of Norway, where the largest percentage of the Sámi peoples live. The formal recognition accorded to Sámi led to the subsequent establishment of a Sámi Parliament in Finnmark in 1989, while the Sámi Language Act, passed in 1992, recognized Northern Sámi as its official regional language. The Sámi Language Act saw the formal promotion of the language within the Sámi Parliament, the courts of law, and all levels of education (Huss, 1999). In addition, a separate Sámi curriculum was introduced in Finnmark in 1997, and in 2000 the Sámi Parliament took responsibility for some aspects of the Sámi school system, previously controlled by the central Norwegian Government (Todal, 2003). Both these latter developments, along with the passing of the 2005 Finnmark Act, have further entrenched regional autonomy and Indigenous control for Sámi in the area (Semb, 2005), particularly with respect to education. 133

Stephen May

The precedent of regional autonomy for Indigenous peoples set by Finnmark has also been evident in Canada. For example, in 1999 the new Arctic province of Nunavut was established, the first formal subdivision of territory in Canada for 50 years. Its establishment was the end result of a 20-​year negotiation process with the 22,000 Inuit of the region (out of a total regional population of 25,000). The provincial administration is Inuit-​led, and the local Inuit language, Inuktitut, is co-​official with English and French in the region, as well as being the first working language of the provincial government (Légaré, 2002). Comparable developments can be observed in South America, which is home to between 30 and 40 million Indigenous language speakers and as many as 700 Indigenous languages (Coronel-​Molina & McCarty, 2016b; López & Sichra, 2017). In Peru, for example, despite the colonial and post-​colonial dominance of Spanish, the last 50 years have seen significant advances in the institutional (promotion-​oriented language) recognition of the Indigenous languages Quechua and (to a lesser extent) Aymara (Hornberger & King, 1999; Rousseau & Dargent, 2019). According to the 2017 census, Quechua is the first language of 14% of the Peruvian population, with four and a half million speakers. And yet, from the late 17th century to the 1970s, Quechua had no official recognition or state support. It was first recognized as an official language in Peru in 1975 and this was supported by related educational reforms providing a framework for bilingual education in Quechua and Spanish. The latter did not become more widely established until the 1990s, however, when the 1993 Constitution (Art. 48) specifically allowed for the official recognition of Quechua and Aymara, alongside Spanish, in those regions where their speakers predominated. These developments were further enhanced by the 2007 Law 29735, which entrenched the rights of Indigenous first language speakers in Peru with respect to accessing public services in their languages and/​or via interpreters, as well as providing Indigenous language education as a language right (see Hornberger & King, 1999; Rousseau & Dargent, 2019 for further discussion). Ecuador followed Peru’s lead in the 1980s, and Bolivia in the 1990s, with the development of what has since come to be termed a formal policy of intercultural bilingual intercultural education (IBE). This approach specifically endorses a maintenance bilingual education model, while emphasizing the notion of ‘normalization’ of Indigenous languages as part of language education policies in these contexts (López & Sichra, 2017). López and Sichra outline that, as part of these developments in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia, as well as in Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico, community-​based, grassroots Indigenous organizations have also since become directly involved in the design and implementation of IBE programmes. In Ecuador, the national administration of IBE came under Indigenous control in 1988, while in Colombia, a constitutional reform in 1991 granted Indigenous peoples the right to design their own educational models.

Translating Indigenous language policy into educational practice These examples of Indigenous language education policy highlight in their genesis the combination of a ‘top down’ approach, instigated by nation-​states, alongside ‘bottom up’, or grass roots Indigenous movements. The latter have often catalyzed states in the first instance and, subsequently, assumed a key role in the development and administration of Indigenous language education initiatives. Moreover, while still in many cases small-​scale, and while still facing considerable odds, these initiatives are beginning to have a positive effect on the specific educational futures of Indigenous students and, more broadly, the retention of Indigenous language and cultures (see, e.g. Hornberger, 2008; McCarty 2011; McCarty et al., 2019). In the process, the normalization and 134

Indigenous Language and Education Rights

valorization of European languages and cultures, and their representation within education, are being actively critiqued and contested. In particular, Indigenous language education proponents (see, e.g. Hinton, Huss & Roche, 2018; Smith, 2012) argue that the long historical dominance of European norms and values in schooling has nothing to do with their greater intrinsic value or use, but rather with the exercise and legitimation of unequal power relations which privilege such languages and cultural practices over all others, Indigenous ones in particular. But success in language education policy is one thing, its translation into effective pedagogy and practice quite another. Thus, some Indigenous language education programmes have at times struggled to meet their wider language revitalization aims, predominantly as the result of adopting pedagogical approaches that do not facilitate the effective acquisition of bilingualism and biliteracy. Even when they have adopted effective additive bilingual approaches, most notably, via immersion models, this has not necessarily been sustained effectively over time. Two brief examples will suffice here. Returning to South America, King (2000) studied two Ecuadorian Indigenous bilingual programmes in Quichua (a variant of Quechua). While both programmes exhibited local Indigenous community control and employed Indigenous teachers, this did not necessarily translate into substantial or effective use of Quichua in the schools. Indeed, Quichua was largely used only for symbolic and organizational purposes (greetings; teacher instruction etc.), while rote learning, blackboard copying and dictation constituted the primary means of language pedagogy elsewhere in the classroom. Neither of these pedagogical practices promoted the use of Quichua as a medium of instruction in schools. Another example is provided by the Rough Rock Demonstration School. Established in 1966 on the Navajo reservation in Arizona, Rough Rock was the first Native American school programme in the US to establish Indigenous community control and to teach in an Indigenous language, adopting broadly an additive bilingual approach, at least initially. Among other initiatives, it also developed a publishing centre for Navajo curricula, offered initial literacy instruction in Navajo, and provided summer camps for students, teachers and elders to share in research, storytelling, dramas and art projects on local themes (McCarty, 2002; May, 2013; McCarty, 2022). However, in the 2000s, the Navajo language focus of the Rough Rock programme became significantly attenuated –​with a move away from its foundational additive bilingual aims to ones increasingly focused on (monolingual) English literacy acquisition. Despite Rough Rock’s groundbreaking role, then, for a time it seemed that the establishment of Navajo as an ongoing medium of instruction was at risk. More recent developments, however, have seen a return at Rough Rock to a primary focus on Navajo immersion education (Roessel, 2011). These difficulties in establishing and/​or sustaining effective Indigenous language immersion pedagogies are exacerbated by a number of key factors. One is a lack of funding. Rough Rock, for example, flourished in the early years on the basis of federal American funding acquired from anti-​ poverty measures. When this funding atrophied, so too did the school’s programme and related effectiveness (McCarty, 2002). Two other challenges facing Indigenous language education programmes worldwide are a lack of qualified bilingual teachers and a related lack of resources, particularly in relation to literacy development in Indigenous languages. In combination, they often severely limit the pedagogical effectiveness of Indigenous language education programmes. King and Benson (2004) comment specifically on the lack of qualified bilingual teachers in relation to Ecuadorian and Bolivian Indigenous language education programmes, for example. While both Ecuador and Bolivia have established intensive, accelerated programmes to train Indigenous bilingual teachers, they observe that neither country has yet succeeded in cultivating a critical mass of such teachers (see also López & Sichra, 2017). 135

Stephen May

Even when teaching personnel and resources are ostensibly not such a major challenge, the subsequent effectiveness of pedagogy is not necessarily guaranteed. For example, Hamel (2017) observes of Mexican Indigenous language education programmes that, in 2011, 55,000 teachers instructed over 1.25 million elementary school students (50% of the total school population) who spoke one of the 68 Indigenous languages of Mexico. These programmes were supported by over 2.5 million primers written in these Indigenous languages. And yet, Hamel concludes, “most observers would agree that the indigenous school system [in Mexico] does not on the whole contribute to maintaining and fostering indigenous languages” (p. 399). This is principally because most such schools attempt to teach Spanish literacy from 1st grade instead of developing Indigenous language literacy first. Consequently, “they attempt to teach literacy in Spanish from first grade onto students who are at best incipient bilinguals, instead of developing cognitively demanding higher-​order discourses such as literacy in their [Indigenous language]” (p. 400). These ongoing challenges facing the successful enactment of Indigenous promotion language and education rights within national policies, alongside the development of effective bilingual/​ immersion pedagogies, can be more fully illustrated, by way of conclusion, via my own country, Aotearoa New Zealand, and the successful development, over the last 40 years, of Indigenous Māori immersion language education programmes.

Indigenous language and education in Aotearoa New Zealand: the quest for tino rangatiratanga (self-​determination)3 Aotearoa New Zealand is a post-​colonial English-​language dominant country, with over 80% of its five million population classing themselves as English speakers (Statistics New Zealand, 2018). The current dominance of English can be traced back directly to the historical colonization of Aotearoa New Zealand by the British in the late 18th century, following the voyages of Captain James Cook. Prior to European contact and subsequent colonization, Aotearoa New Zealand had been the homeland of the Indigenous Māori people for at least 500, perhaps as many as 1,000, years (King 2003). As with the bi/​multilingualism of many other early colonial/​ Indigenous contexts (see above), both te reo Māori (the Māori language) and English were initially widely spoken, with te reo Māori both the dominant language of trade and lingua franca through the 18th century and into the early decades of the 19th century. Likewise, the colonial relationship between Māori and Pākehā (European New Zealanders) initially appeared promising –​ most notably evident in the country’s foundational colonial document, the Treaty of Waitangi, signed on 6 February 1840 between the British Crown and Māori chiefs. A surprisingly progressive document for its time, the Treaty specifically attempted to establish the rights and responsibilities of both parties as a mutual framework by which colonization could proceed. In so doing, the Treaty also (supposedly) guaranteed Māori the ongoing possession of their lands, their homes, and all their treasured possessions (taonga), both material and cultural –​ including, crucially, te reo Māori. However, as with most colonial settler contexts, the ruthless quest for land and resources by Pākehā settlers, saw the Treaty quickly ignored. Meanwhile, Māori increasingly faced the usual deleterious effects of colonization, including language shift and loss. Education played a pivotal role with regard to the latter, with te reo Māori banned from New Zealand schools in the 1850s, a policy and practice that was to remain for over a century. This process of educational exclusion, and the monolingual English language instruction in New Zealand schools that subsequently dominated, contributed to the marginalization of te reo Māori within the educational domain and, over the course of the 20th century, its subsequent decline. The rapid urbanization of Māori since 136

Indigenous Language and Education Rights

the Second World War –​which saw Māori move from being a 90% rural population to 80% urban in less than 20 years –​has also been a key contributory factor to this language decline. While the Māori language had long been excluded from the realms of the school, it had still been nurtured in largely rural Māori communities. Urbanization was to change all that. Thus, in 1930, a survey of Māori children estimated that 96.6% spoke only Māori at home. By 1960, only 26% spoke Māori. By 1979 the Māori language had retreated to the point where language death was predicted (Benton, 1989). It is this context of rapid language loss that framed the subsequent advocacy, establishment and development of Māori language education, particularly from the early 1980s onward.

Māori language education As a result of the dire prediction of potential language death for te reo Māori, a flax-​roots (grassroots) movement among Māori emerged in the early 1980s advocating for the establishment of Māori-​medium preschools, known as kōhanga reo (language nests). Kōhanga involved fluent Māori speakers, usually grandparents, who taught Māori language and culture to children and assisted parents to learn the Māori language alongside their children. Importantly, this was an exercise of Māori tino rangatiratanga, a principle comparable to Indigenous self-​determination, as discussed earlier in relation to developments in international law. It was a Māori initiative that was initially controlled and funded by Māori without state influence. The growth of kōhanga reo was rapid. After the first kōhanga was established in 1982, more than 400 opened in the next six years. This led to a pipeline effect for Māori-​medium education, with kura kaupapa Māori elementary schools emerging from 1985, the growth of partial and total immersion programmes and, more recently, wharekura (secondary schools) and wānanga (tertiary education providers). Today, students are able to study through the medium of Māori from preschool to tertiary education, thus spearheading what Paulston (1993: 281) has described as “language reversal”, a process by which “one of the languages of a state begins to move back into more prominent use” (see Hill & May, 2011 for an extended discussion).

Māori-​medium education pedagogy and practice The first Māori bilingual elementary school programmes were set up either as whole school programmes (kura kaupapa Māori), completely independent of the New Zealand Ministry of Education, or within the existing education legislation as rumaki (Māori immersion and bilingual programmes) within mainstream English-​medium schools. This was to change with the passing of the Education Act (1989) when kura kaupapa Māori were given formal status under the principles of the Te Aho Matua document and were provided full funding in the same way as other New Zealand schools. Today, all Māori bilingual/​immersion programmes are state-​funded, free forms of education open to all New Zealand students. They are divided into five levels according to the quantity of target language instruction. Level 1 maintenance programmes (81–​100% Māori immersion) include kura kaupapa Māori, kura-​a-​iwi (tribal schools), and high-​level Māori immersion programmes in mainstream primary (elementary) schools. These programmes share many characteristics; kura kaupapa base their learning programmes on the principles of Te Aho Matua and are supported by the Māori organization Te Rūnanga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa. Kura-​a-​iwi (literally meaning ‘school of tribes’), as the name suggests, are special character schools that align their programmes to a particular Māori iwi or tribe. Immersion programmes are units within English-​medium primary schools where students are taught predominantly through 137

Stephen May

the Māori language. Given the history of Māori language shift and loss, almost all students in these programmes are now first language speakers of English. Since 2013, the New Zealand Ministry of Education has altered the titles used to describe Māori language education programmes (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2016). Whereas prior to 2013, all bilingual schools were termed Māori-​medium, today this title is limited to Level 1 programmes (over 80% instruction in Māori) and Level 2 programmes (51–​80%). The remaining Levels (3–​5)4 are now referred to as Māori language in English-​medium programmes. Programmes with over 50% Māori language instruction (Māori medium) are expected to lead to high levels of Māori language fluency and those below the 50% threshold act more as cultural immersion programmes rather than bilingual programmes per se. This distinction also accords with the international literature on bilingual education indicating that a 50% minimum threshold in the target language is necessary for effective bilingual instruction (May et al., 2004; May, 2017a). Of the Māori preschool population, 20% were enrolled in Level 1 early childhood programmes in 2013. At the elementary and secondary school levels, 40% of Māori students were in some form of Māori-​bilingual education. However, most were enrolled in Levels 4 and 5 programmes that provide only minimal Māori language exposure. Students enrolled in Level 1 programmes, the most effective form of Māori immersion education, comprised only 7% of the overall Māori student population.

Recent developments and challenges in Māori-​medium education The latest Māori-​medium curriculum document, Te Marautanga o Aotearoa (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2017), is currently being implemented in Level 1 programmes. Unlike the first Māori-​medium documents that appeared in the 1990s, it is not a translation of the mainstream (English-​medium) curriculum documents, having been written in conjunction with a group of Māori educators. The number of teaching resources has also improved considerably in recent years. There is now a wide range of children’s graded readers, teacher curriculum resources, dictionaries, and websites dedicated to bilingual Māori students.5 There are also positive signs that Māori-​medium education is raising school achievement levels for Māori, who have traditionally fared poorly in English-​medium education (Murray, 2007). This aligns with the findings of international research into effective bilingual education (see e.g. May & Dam, 2014; May, 2017a). That said, the Māori-​bilingual sector faces an ongoing challenge in maintaining a pool of highly fluent Māori speaking teaching staff –​a key challenge internationally for Indigenous language education programmes (see above).

Wider Māori language revitalization policy Despite the ongoing challenges that they face, these Māori-​medium education initiatives have been a cornerstone of the Māori language revitalization movement in Aotearoa New Zealand over the last four decades. However, in more recent years, attention has shifted away from education to iwi (tribal) and whānau (family) initiatives as a means of fostering greater intergenerational family transmission. Part of this shift has been predicated on a growing acknowledgement of the limits of relying on education alone as the basis for language revitalization. In this respect, while Māori-​medium education has been demonstrably successful in slowing Māori language loss, it still only includes a small minority of Māori students overall, the majority of whom remain in English-​medium education contexts in Aotearoa New Zealand. 138

Indigenous Language and Education Rights

At the present time then, the priorities underpinning future Māori language revitalization issues remain in flux. For example, while there is obviously considerable merit in turning to a focus on iwi/​whānau contexts as important language domains, there is also a danger that the ongoing significance of education as a key language revitalization domain in the New Zealand context, along with all that it has accomplished, will be undermined (Albury, 2016; De Bres, 2015). In terms of pedagogical practices, Māori-​medium education is based on traditional bilingual education pedagogies, which emphasize separation of languages of instruction. This stands in sharp contrast to the increasing advocacy in recent times of translanguaging, and the related interspersion of language varieties, in bilingual/​immersion education contexts internationally (García & Li, 2014; Otheguy, et al., 2018). Translanguaging continues to be treated cautiously in Māori-​ medium education, however, as it is within other Indigenous language education programmes (May, 2022). The principal and ongoing concern for Indigenous Māori-​medium education about translanguaging practices is that it allows for the potential (further) encroachment of English into the classroom/​school environment, given its dominance in the wider society and the English first language backgrounds of the students. In this respect, decisions made in Māori-​medium education are primarily sociopolitical/​sociolinguistic rather than (solely) pedagogical, emphasizing the need to maintain (some) linguistic autonomy for Indigenous languages in the classroom.

Conclusion There is a tendency in the current critical sociolinguistic and applied linguistic literature focused on sociolinguistic superdiversity, the multilingual turn and translanguaging to valorize the dynamic, complex and fluid individual bi/​multilingual linguistic repertoires of urban migrants. This urban language dynamism is then often contrasted with the apparent stasis of Indigenous language contexts, along with a related dismissal of Indigenous language rights (see, e.g. Makoni, 2012; Wee, 2010, 2018). I have described this elsewhere (May, 2012b, 2014b, 2018) as a metro-​centric, or metro-​normative approach to the analysis of (Indigenous) languages and education, while also critiquing both its inherent ahistoricity and (western) ethnocentrism (May, 2022). Complex bi/​multilingualism has long preceded contemporary urban contexts, as exemplified in Indigenous colonial language contact zones, discussed earlier. Likewise, the current focus on individual multilingual repertoires, while a welcome counterpoint to the monolingual biases that still underpin so much language education (May, 2014a, 2019), also tends to over-​emphasize the potential of individual linguistic agency and delimit wider analyses of the effects of ongoing linguistic hierarchies and related inequalities (May, 2022). With respect to Indigenous language education rights and educational practices, it also fails crucially to recognize the recursive influence of the public recognition of minority languages on individual language use. That is, if particular (Indigenous) language varieties are, via promotion-​oriented language rights, increasingly recognized and used in public language domains –​ including, centrally, education –​ this, in turn, will inevitably reshape (often negative, internalized) perceptions concerning the status and use of the language varieties in question and thus contribute, over time, to their revitalization. Failing to recognize the importance of promotion-​oriented language rights in this regard, results, ironically, in critical sociolinguistic accounts endorsing a post-​hoc validation of existing (settler colonial) patterns of linguistic inequality for Indigenous language speakers in modern nation-​ states (May, 2014b, 2017b). Returning to James Youngblood Henderson’s poignant observation at the start of this chapter, Indigenous peoples in this supposedly critical sociolinguistic context still remain as “ghost peoples, hidden, like [their] languages and cultures, by the concept of the nation-​ state” (2008: 36). This is why the developments in Indigenous language and education rights at 139

Stephen May

national and supranational levels, along with the provision of Indigenous bilingual/​immersion education, remain so significant to the ongoing status, retention, and use of Indigenous languages in the world today.

Related topics Chapter 10 Linguistic citizenship; Chapter 13 Indigenous education and multilingualism; Chapter 14 Multilingualism and language/​s of learning and teaching in post-​colonial sub-​Saharan Africa.

Notes 1. Rare exceptions here include Guaraní in Paraguay, Greenlandic in Greenland and, possibly also, Quechua across South America (although its status and prospects vary significantly from country to country). 2. Macías distinguishes between two broadly comparable sets of rights: the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of language, and the right to use your language(s) in the activities of communal life (1979, pp. 88–​89). 3. The following discussion is a revised and updated version of some sections of May and Hill (2018). 4. Level 3 programmes comprise 31–​50% immersion, Level 4a up to 30% immersion, Level 4b more than three hours per week, and Level 5 less than three hours per week. See www.educ​atio​ncou​nts.govt.nz/​sta​ tist​ics/​6040. 5. See Te Kete Ipurangi (TKI) www.tki.org.nz/​.

Further reading May, S. 2012. Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language. 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge. May, S. 2015. The problem with English(es) and linguistic (in)justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. 18(2): 131–​148. Oakes, L. & Peled, Y. 2018. Normative Language Policy: Ethics, Politics, Principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skutnabb-​Kangas, T. & May, S. 2017. Linguistic human rights in education. In T. McCarty & S. May, Eds. Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.) New York: Springer. 125–​141. Van Parijs, P. 2011. Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

References Albury, N.J. 2016. Defining Māori language revitalisation: a project in folk linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 20(3): 287–​311. Barsh, R. 1996. Indigenous peoples and the UN Commission on Human Rights: a case of the immovable object and the irresistible force. Human Rights Quarterly 18: 782–​813. Benton, N. 1989. Education, language decline and language revitalisation: the case of Māori in New Zealand. Language and Education. 3: 65–​82. Brasil 1996. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (CF/​88). São Paulo: Editora Revista dos Tribunais. Coronel-​Molina, S. & McCarty, T. 2016a. Introduction. In S. Coronel-​Molina & T. McCarty, Eds. Indigenous Language Revitalization in the Americas. 1–​11. London & New York: Routledge. Coronel-​Molina, S. & McCarty, T. Eds. 2016b. Indigenous Language Revitalization in the Americas. London & New York: Routledge. De Bres, J. 2015. The hierarchy of minority languages in New Zealand. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 36(7): 677–​693.

140

Indigenous Language and Education Rights de Varennes, F. 1996. Language, Minorities and Human Rights. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. de Varennes, F. & Kuzborska, E. 2017. International law and language minority education. In T. McCarty & S. May, Eds. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 3rd ed.: Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. 143–​154. New York, Springer. Eberhard, D., Simons, G. & Fennig, C. Eds. 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (22nd ed.). Dallas, TX.: SIL International. Fills, A. & Penz, H. Eds. 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York: Routledge. Fishman, J. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. García, O. & Li, W. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hamel, E. 2017. Bilingual education for Indigenous peoples in Mexico. In O. García, A. Lin & S. May, Eds. Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). New York: Springer. 395–​406. Harrison, K. D. 2007. When Languages Die: The Extinction of the World’s Languages and the Erosion of Human Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. Henderson, J. 2008. Indigenous diplomacy and the Rights of Peoples: Achieving UN Recognition. Saskatoon, Canada: Purich Publishing. Hill, R. & May, S. 2011. Exploring biliteracy in Māori-​medium education: an ethnographic perspective. In T. McCarty, Ed. Ethnography in Language Policy. London & New York: Routledge. 161–​184. Hinton, L., Huss, L. & Roche, G. Eds. 2018. Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. New York: Routledge. Hornberger, N. 1997. Literacy, language maintenance, and linguistic human rights: three telling cases. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 127: 87–​103. Hornberger N. Ed. 2008. Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages? London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hornberger, N. & King, K. 1999. Authenticity and unification in Quechua language planning. In S. May, Ed. Indigenous Community-​Based Education. 160–​180. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Huss, L. 1999. Reversing Language Shift in the Far North: Linguistic Revitalization in Northern Scandinavia and Finland. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. International Labour Organization. 2020. Implementing the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169: Towards an Inclusive, Sustainable and Just Future. Genève: International Labour Organization. www.ilo.org/​glo​bal/​publi​cati​ons/​books/​WCMS​_​735​607/​lang-​-​en/​index.htm. King, K. 2000. Language Revitalization Processes and Prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. King, K. & Benson, C. 2004. Indigenous language education in Bolivia and Ecuador: contexts, changes and challenges. In J. Tollefson & A. Tsui, Eds. Medium of Instruction Policies. Which Agenda? Whose Agenda? Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 241–​262. King, M. 2003. The Penguin History of New Zealand. Auckland, NZ: Penguin. Kloss, H. 1971. The language rights of immigrant groups. International Migration Review 5, 250–​268. Kloss, H. 1977. The American Bilingual Tradition. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House. Kymlicka, W. 1989. Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Kymlicka, W. 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, Citizenship. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. 2007. Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Légaré, A. 2002. Nunavut: the construction of a regional collective identity in the Canadian Arctic. Wicazo Sa Review 17(2): 65–​89. López, L. & Sichra, E. 2017. Indigenous bilingual education in Latin America bilingual education among  Indigenous peoples in South America. In O. García, A. Lin & S. May, Eds. Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). New York: Springer. 381–​394 Macías, R. 1979. Language choice and human rights in the United States. In J. Alatis & G. Tucker, Eds. Language in Public Life: Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 86–​101.

141

Stephen May Magga, O. 1996. Sámi past and present and the Sámi picture of the world. In E. Helander, Ed. Awakened Voice: The Return of Sámi Knowledge. Kautokeino, Norway: Nordic Sámi Institute. 74–​80. Makoni, S. 2012. Language and human rights discourses: lessons from the African experience. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 7(1): 1–​20. May, S. 2011. Language rights: the “Cinderella” human right. Journal of Human Rights. 10(3): 265–​289. May, S. 2012a. Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge. May, S. 2012b. Contesting hegemonic and monolithic constructions of language rights ‘discourse’. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 7(1): 21–​27. May, S. 2013. Indigenous immersion education: international developments. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Education. 1(1): 34–​69. May S. Ed. 2014a. The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education. London & New York: Routledge. May, S. 2014b. Contesting metro-​normativity: exploring Indigenous language dynamism across the urban-​ rural divide. Journal of Language, Identity and Education. 13(4): 229–​235. May, S. 2016. Language, imperialism and the modern nation-​state system: implications for language rights. In O. García & N. Flores, Eds. [email protected] Oxford Handbook on Language and Society. New York: Oxford University Press. 35–​53. May, S. 2017a. Bilingual education: what the research tells us. In O. García, A. Lin & S. May, Eds. Bilingual/​Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. May, S. 2017b. National and ethnic minorities: language rights and recognition. In S. Canagarajah, Ed. Routledge Handbook of Migration and Language. 149–​167. New York: Routledge. May, S. 2018. Unanswered questions: addressing the inequalities of majoritarian language policies. In L. Lim, C. Stroud & L. Wee, Eds. The Multilingual Citizen: Towards a Politics of Language for Agency and Change. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 65–​74. May, S. 2019. Negotiating the multilingual turn in SLA. Modern Language Journal. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ modl.12531. May, S. 2021. Rethinking the principle of linguistic homogeneity in the age of superdiversity. In Y-​Y Tan & P. Mishra, Eds. Language, Nations, and Multilingualism: Questioning the Herderian Ideal. New York: Routledge. May, S. 2022. Afterword: the multilingual turn, superdiversity, and translanguaging: the rush from heterodoxy to orthodoxy. In J. MacSwan, Ed. Multilingual Perspectives on Translanguaging. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. May, S. & Dam, L. 2014. Bilingual education and bilingualism. Oxford Bibliographies. New York: Oxford University Press. www.oxfor​dbib​liog​raph​ies.com/​view/​docum​ent/​obo-​978019​9756​810/​obo-​978019​9756​ 810-​0109.xml. May, S. & Hill, R. 2018. Language revitalization in Aotearoa/​New Zealand. In L. Hinton, L. Huss & G. Roche, Eds. Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. New York: Routledge. May, S., Hill, R. & Tiakiwai, S. 2004. Bilingual/​ Immersion Education: Indicators of Good Practice. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. McCarty, T. 2002. A Place to be Navajo. London & New York: Routledge. McCarty, T. Ed. 2011. Ethnography in Language Policy. London & New York: Routledge. McCarty, T. 2022. Critical ethnographic monitoring and chronic raciolinguistic panic: problems, necessities, possibilities, and dreams. In S. May & B. Caldas, Eds. Critical Ethnography, Race/​Ism, Language, and Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McCarty, T., Nicholas, S. & Wigglesworth, G. Eds. 2019. A World of Indigenous Languages: Politics, Pedagogies, and Prospects for Language Reclamation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Minority Rights Group 1997. World Directory of Minorities (2nd ed.). London: Longman. Murray, S. 2007. Achievement at Māori Medium and Bilingual Schools. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. New Zealand Ministry of Education. 2016. Māori Language in Education. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Education. New Zealand Ministry of Education. 2017. Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media. https://​tmoa.tki.org.nz/​Te-​Mar​auta​nga-​o-​Aotea​roa.

142

Indigenous Language and Education Rights Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo. 2009. Translated by the author: my life in between languages. Translation Studies. 2(1): 17–​20. Otheguy, R., García, O. & Reid, W. 2018. A translanguaging view of the linguistic system of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics Review. 10(4): 625–​651. Patrick, D. 2012. Indigenous contexts. In M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A Creese, Eds. Routledge Handbook on Multilingualism. 29–​48. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Paulston, C. 1993. Language regenesis: a conceptual overview of language revival, revitalisation and reversal. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 14(4): 275–​286. Roessel, M. 2011. ‘Preserving the past to secure the future’: The Center for Indian Education –​ the next 50 years. Journal of American Indian Education. 50(2): 13–​23. Rousseau, S. & Dargent, E. 2019. The construction of Indigenous language rights in Peru: a language regime approach. Journal of Politics in Latin America. 11(2): 161–​180. Semb, A. 2005. Sami self-​determination in the making? Nations and Nationalism. 11(4): 531–​549. Skutnabb-​Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education –​Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Skutnabb-​Kangas, S. & May, S. 2017. Linguistic human rights in education. In T. McCarty & S. May, Eds. Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). New York: Springer. 125–​141. Smith, A. 2009. Indigenous Peoples and Boarding Schools: A Comparative Study. New York: Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Smith, L. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books. Statistics New Zealand 2018. Census. Wellington, NZ. Statistics New Zealand. www.stats.govt.nz/​top​ics/​cen​ sus#2018-​cen​sus. Stavenhagen, R. & Charters, C. Eds. 2009. Making the Declaration Work: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Copenhagen: IWGIA. Tassinari, A. & Cohn, C. 2009. ‘Opening to the other’: schooling among the Karipuna and Mebengokré-​ Xikrin of Brazil. Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 40(2), 150–​169. Tatz, C. 2011. The destruction of Aboriginal society in Australia. In S. Totten & R. Hitchcock, Eds. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers. 87–​116. Thornberry, P. 1991. International Law and the Rights of Minorities. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Todal, J. 2003. The Sámi school system in Norway and international cooperation. Comparative Education. 39(2): 185–​192. Tully, J. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. United Nations. 2009. State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. United Nations General Assembly. 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations General Assembly. United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities: Working Group on Indigenous Populations 1993. Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its 11th session. Geneva: United Nations. Wee, L. 2010. Language Without Rights. London: Oxford University Press. Wee, L. 2018. Essentialism and language rights. In L. Lim, C. Stroud & L. Wee, Eds. The Multilingual Citizen: Towards a Politics of Language for Agency and Change. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Xanthaki, A. 2007. Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Young, I.M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

143

10 LINGUISTIC CITIZENSHIP 1 Christopher Stroud

Introduction The notion of Linguistic Citizenship (LC) was coined at the turn of the millennium (Stroud, 2001; Stroud & Heugh, 2004) in southern Africa to draw attention to ‘grassroots’ engagements with language (specifically multilingualism) as a dynamic of transformation. Simultaneously, it implied a critical interrogation of a construct of multilingualism that grounded mother tongue educational policies and practices for minority language-​speaking populations/​speakers in a construal of multilingualism born out of the massive projects of colonial extraction of peoples and resources (cf. Harries, 2007; Makoni & Pennycook 2007; Stroud, 2007; Deumert, Storch & Shepherd, 2020). Multilingual engagements during coloniality were framed by the violence of the colonial language project that racialized linguistic distinctions in terms as those who had access to languages with grammars (the colonial masters) and those ‘simple communicators’ (colonial subjects) “using simple communication” only able to convey “infantile and primitive meaning” (Veronelli, 2015:118). Thus, the colonized were seen as always “less than human communicatively” (2015: 118), making impossible any true dialogue between colonizer and colonized. The ‘coloniality of language’ (Veronelli, 2015), that is, the specific linguistic instantiation of the more general phenomenon of ‘coloniality’ emerging out of multilingual meetings engendered a key ideological tactic for managing the cleavage between a native subject and metropolitan citizen, a semiotic rationale for labour extraction and a highly efficient tool of governmentality. Thus, rather than a consequence of marginalization per se, lack of voice is one prime means by which the political manufacture and distribution of marginalized subjectivities are made operational, channeling voice into registers legible to dominant institutional logics –​ or casting them aside as noise-​making. By inhibiting voice and denying others to ‘appear’ on their own terms, it determines modes of community building by semiotic rejection and compartmentalization of difference –​ processes that contribute ultimately to a dehumanized world (Stroud, 2007). Linguistic Citizenship is an attempt to work through a blueprint for language for navigating living the complexities of a diverse and difficult world in conviviality (and convivial contest) with different Others (cf. Cooke et al., 2019b on ‘sociolinguistic citizenship’). It is a disruptive engagement with the ‘coloniality of language’ involving the expansion and retooling of available linguistic resources (cf. Rampton et al., 2018b, 2021). From a methodological and epistemic 144

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-12

Linguistic Citizenship

perspective, it sits comfortably with southern epistemology (Santos, 2016), a form of knowledge of a metaphorical South found in both the geopolitical or topographical south as well as in pockets in the geopolitical North. This is a space of complex lives lived in contrary conditions, where the neoliberal global order defines the terms of existence as continuing reproduction of global inequalities and universal ontologies. LC as part of Southern epistemologies, is then a way of knowing that emerges out, and on the back of, struggles against forms of exploitation and silencing, specifically those of the coloniality of language.

Linguistic citizenship Compounding ‘linguistic’ with ‘citizenship’ underscores that we are in this world in the close company of others with whom our foremost means of engagement is language. In its most common guise, citizenship presents as ‘nation-​state’ citizenship, the territorial mechanism through which rights to material, economic, judicial and other societal and individual values are differentially distributed across social representations (such as birthplace, ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality). The ‘double-​R axiom’ (Rights and Representations) as the foundation of modern polities (Papadopoulos, 2018: 55) is closely allied to a (neo)liberal politics, with roots in enlightenment and Modernity/​Coloniality. It is a citizenship based on relations of inclusion/​exclusion and kept alive through cruel mechanisms for sorting and discarding those whose colonial/​class inheritance is to be forever excluded. It is this sense of citizenship that frames the politics of Linguistic Human Rights (LHR), where the political representation of language and speakers in constitutional and other legal frameworks is a powerful determinant of what ‘rights’ they are able to access. (cf. Premsrirat & Bruthiaux, 2018; Flubacher & Busch, 2022 for discussions of LC in relation to LHR). However, while a notion of nation-​state citizenship may be the edifice on which much of the world is built, it does not exhaust the potential of citizenship for other meanings. Citizenship is also a constructive trope for thinking about (co)existence, offering registers for imagining different ways of a shared being-​in-​the-​world, involving care for the commons, including the dreams, hopes and aspirations of a better world, materially and otherwise, built collectively. Citizenship understood in this sense comprises a political locus for hope and carries a ‘utopian surplus’ (Anderson, 2008). It distils the understanding that recognition by a plurality of others is a precondition of being heard (Arendt, 1958), thereby laying the ground for the exercise of agency and the living of ethical lives. It is a sense of citizenship permitting new ontologies of self and others, living in socialities of otherness and difference that are populated by possibility and the engaged human means of its actualization. This is the sense of citizenship articulated in the idea of LC. Thinking language and citizenship as complexly entangled constructs is a generative undertaking in that it opens for a critical purview of how language has served to exclude and discriminate in restrictive forms of citizenship. But it also encourages consideration of the potential of language to create an –​ as yet untapped –​ participatory and agentive ‘fellowship’ of the human. Language is at the centre of citizenship; ontologically refashioned selves require refashioned languages, just as the refashioning of languages needs new speakers. LC is about how speakers address and recuperate the lost semiotics of historically marginalized linguistic agency and voices in societies that badly need to transform. It is about how speakers use, practise, perform and think with and through language(s) (more broadly, semiotic materials) as both target for change and simultaneous medium for transformation of self and others, crafting new, emergent subjectivities of (political) speaker-​ hood with the potential to create new constituencies. Acts of LC are the means whereby speakers attempt to bring languages into recognition on their own terms and in ways that ultimately serve to transform historical structures of inequity by (re)establishing audibility of different voices and 145

Christopher Stroud

agencies together with the material means that sustain them. Such acts often take place outside of formal structures and in close synergies with other acts/​movements seeking social, economic and political justice (Fraser, 1995; Stroud, 2001). Not surprisingly, given how much language-​ing has historically been used to silence voice (cf. Fanon, 2008; Veronelli, 2015, 2016), and the resulting ‘communicational impasse’ that cripples the possibility for true ‘decolonial dialogue’ (Veronelli, 2016), many acts of LC take place in modalities beyond what can be fully captured by liberal models of language and politics in institutionalized public spheres. Thus, beyond fixed and conventional linguistic structures, acts of LC also comprise practices and textualities that are effervescent, momentary and fleeting across non-​institutionalized and relational networks. The emphasis of LC on features of multilingual choices and uses of language on the margin opens the potential for understanding the rhetorical foundation of radically different types of speaker agency that go ‘against the grain’ (of a conventional politics of language). In such a way, LC attempts to accommodate the ‘perceived’ unintelligible or incommensurable in semiotic articulations of those most marginalized seeking voice and the authority to be heard. Studying acts of LC is about tracing the emergence of these forms of agency and voice at local points of production in a variety of semiotic forms and their affordances, as well as the insertion of meaning across chains of artefacts and spaces of circulation. Theorizing LC means understanding how new subjectivities and agencies co-​develop synergistically with new semiotic registers.

Linguistic citizenship thematized The bulk of work on LC subsequent to its inception has been on rethinking the dynamic role of language/​multilingualism in the reconstruction of post-​colonial citizenships (e.g. Rubagumya et al., 2011; Hames, 2017; Lim, Stroud & Wee, 2018; Cooke & Peutrell, 2019; Foote, 2020; Williams et al., 2022); in exploring the strategic uses of acts of LC in revitalization and maintenance of languages (Chiatoh, 2018; Fredericks, 2020; Dube & Wozniak, 2021; Foster, 2021; Nguyen, 2023; Gspandl, Korb, Heiling & Erling, 2023; and in creating empowering contexts for education (e.g Cooke & Petrel, 2019a; Rampton, Cooke & Holmes, 2018a, 2018b; Årman, 2021; Chimbutane, 2018a, b, c; Chimbutane, 2021; Awayed-​Bishara, 2021; Fallas-​Escobar, Henderson & Lindahl, 2022; Fallas-​Escobar & Herrera, 2022). In what follows, I give a brief presentation of each of the three areas of LC under the rubrics of ‘love’, ‘hope’ and ‘care’ (cf. Heugh et al., 2021). These are the biological fundamentals of Umberto Maturana’s homo sapiens amans –​‘loving human’ –​out of which language likely first emerged in contexts of convivial, hopeful and caring collaboration. The metaphors serve to remind us of the distinctly ‘human’ and affective nature of language out of which fundamental operations of formal linguistic structuring (such as recursivity, labelling, indexicality) emerged. A brief scoping of what this could mean for how we think about multilingualism concludes the chapter.

Love Articulations of voice and enactments of agency require ‘recognition’ by others (Arendt, 1958) on public arenas. LC aims to provide a framework for conceptualizing what it means to publicly appear and be affirmed through language, collectively and personally. However, this is not (necessarily) the affirmation accorded by institutions that deal with recognition in terms of the like-​same, such as LHR that sees the ‘remedy’ for inclusion and participation of historically marginalized voices into a more equitable and just social and political mainstream in the affirmation of (named) languages, and the sorting of speakers into liberal enlightenment grammars. LHR remedies often 146

Linguistic Citizenship

default to a selective recognition of voice in terms of top-​down and narrow criteria for what may be understood as language, and on terms decided institutionally to be applicable and common to all subordinated languages, that is like-​terms, with little regard to the specificities in needs and desires of different ‘communities’, and the historical conditions and trajectories of their subjugation. The political philosopher Wendy Brown captures this in terms of a general shortcoming of liberal remedies to difference: “the subject is … ideally emancipated through its anointing as an abstract person, a formally free and equal human being, and is practically re-​subordinated [my italics] through the idealist disavowal of the material constituents of personhood” (1995: 106). In all essentials, the material, embodied, fleshy speaker that languages stitch together is sanitized away in recognition of the like-​same, leaving language unmoored in the material realities, histories and aspirations of speakers (Fraser, 1995; Stroud, 2001). Rancière’s (1999) notion of ‘policing’ captures the essence of such remedies. ‘Policing’ refers to a politics of the unremarkable everyday, business as usual, that reproduces social and political structures in an orderly fashion. By attending to only certain voices packaged in specific formats, the overarching structures and ideologies of inequity remain in place and status quo bolstered. What is required are remedies through which speakers and languages are recognized on their own terms and in ways that ultimately serve to transform historical structures of inequity by (re) establishing audibility of different voices and agencies. The recognition sought through acts of LC, recognition in difference, is therefore an affirmation of the un-​like, and acts of LC are fundamentally about the various linguistic/​semiotic practices for building communities of plural others in collective processes of becoming-​with, the dynamic interchange with others in ongoing and shifting construals of the self and its joint memberships that define our humanity. LC is about letting others ‘appear’ in ways they wish to be recognized, rather than as identities and roles determined by institutional fiat, a process akin to what Michael Hardt (2011) has referred to as “love as a genre of politics”. Love is a mode of unselfish recognition of the Other as an autonomous agent, distinct from the self of the loving ego, although ‘in co-​existence with Self’, what Maturana and Varela (1980) call “the radical acceptance of the other”, through “letting appear”. ‘Letting appear’ is a precondition for being heard and enacting agency (Arendt, 1958) on public arenas, and characterizes relationships of shared and caring engagement. LC, with its emphasis on (collective) acknowledgment of autonomous voices often disregarded in public discourse, is an important modality for realizing a loving politics. Acts of LC take place along different scales, individual and collective, and across different time envelopes (cf. Williams & Stroud, 2015 for chronotopical approaches of LC). The following vignette illustrates mundane, everyday, acts of LC in a South African context that are used by young speakers to ‘break out’ of the normative and multilingual orders of named languages and concomitant (racial) identities in order to ‘appear’ otherwise in new structures of ‘togetherness’.

Vignette 1. Building a community of non-​mastery2 The data comes from a young woman in a South African youth choir that profiles itself by performing songs composed in multiple South African languages, and juxtaposing elements of different languages spoken by choir members to showcase the post-​apartheid ‘rainbow nation’. During rehearsals, the multilingual ethos is replaced by English only, which the choirmaster justifies by it being the only language that everybody in the choir shares. However, contrary to expectation, choir members did not feel comfortable with publicly transgressing against the integrity of languages by mixing and melding them in front of an audience of respected elders. Rather, they express the sense that displays of languages historically ‘looked down upon’ should be venerably 147

Christopher Stroud

packaged in language mastery, and their speakers shown due respect in a proud showcasing of ‘correct’ ways of speaking. They also found the imposition by fiat of English as the lingua franca of rehearsals violated their sense of how they wanted to appear to each other. They were thus caught in a despairing ‘gridlock of normativity’ that, on the one hand, tied them down in allegiance to normed language (not least affectively), and on the other, incited them to escape a shackling normativity in order to appear otherwise. In the following narrative, we read an account of how they begin to dismantle the prevailing view of a multilingual and multiracial ‘rainbow nation’ (South Africa) and its language political order (equal official status for 11 languages with English as ‘link language’) by literally ‘stepping outside’ of language. Sethu gives the following account of how they began to undermine the imposition of using English in rehearsals. there’s a friend of mine who was in the choir … so I would greet her in Afrikaans every time I see her and she would greet me in isiXhosa from then on. After that we realised we hate this rule of just English, we speak primarily English and whatever, but now you forcing me to do this; it was, it was weird uhm. From then on certain people would, would, we started teaching each other, so I asked her to help polish up my Afrikaans because I felt like it was lacking. I wasn’t speaking it enough anymore and I didn’t have the high school incentive of getting good marks or whatever uhm … And she wanted to learn more Xhosa so that she can communicate with other co-​workers better at work and whatever and we started basically a trend to a certain degree where, if I greet you, I will greet you in Afrikaans or whatever language and you greet me in isiZulu or Setswana or whatever. And to this day that happens where now we’ve started greeting each other and teaching each other in every rehearsal at least one word that’s not a swearword, because you know how people teach each other swear words. Sethu’s account describes how the choir members spontaneously began to engage each other in each other’s ‘languages’ (and other languages that they did not speak ‘natively’), producing fragments (words) of each language in performances of joint, co-​operative language learning. The spontaneous community emerging out of the exchanges is one marked by a lack of linguistic common ground, and the use of forms of language initially not shared, forms that do not form the ‘coalitions of sameness’ or ‘semantic transparency’ (Veronelli, 2016: 414) familiar to native speakers of a language. It is the lack of common ground that provides a semiotic location for the new sensibilities of the young choir members. Venturing into a community of fragments, the speakers enter into a space of ambiguity and polyphony (and even noise in the sense of phonos as opposed to logos (cf. Rancière, 1999) where meanings need to be negotiated and scaffolded out of utterances that at first glance might seem to lack familiar meaning. In like manner to language learners or speakers generally who do not share languages, they remove themselves from the comfort of habituated silos of mastered languages into a fragile space of linguistic vulnerability and other-​ness, relying on the goodwill of their interlocutors and skills of serenpendipity –​“accepting the other on his/​her terms, and being open to unexpectedness” (Khubchandani, 1983: 88) –​ to make sense. This alternative, caring relationship on terms beyond the local sociopolitics of race and its linguistic indexicalities, is a plural and collective accomplishment of highly intimate acts to create public spaces of engagement and social bonding. In ­vignette 1, community is created and citizenship enacted through bits and pieces of language (Appadurai, 2018, on migrant populations; Menezes De Souza, (nd), on Latin American quilombo communities), or in the spaces between languages (cf. Bock et al., 2021 for Afrikaans–​English). 148

Linguistic Citizenship

At the opposite end of the scale, whole registers of language, or languages in their entiret,y may be refigured in pursuit of new collectivities, such as radical re-​imaginations of language and selves in conjunction with moments of social and political upheaval (Fanon, [1952] 2008; Mpendukana & Stroud, 2023; also Deumert, 2020; Williams & Stroud, 2015) or national independence from colonial subjugation (cf. Stroud, 1999 for an account of revolutionary reworking of Mozambican Portuguese). Powerful acts of LC also find articulation across a variety of scaled, semiotic practices such as multi-​modal and material embodiments in semiotic landscapes and virtual spaces (cf. Nyugen, 2023, for such an account of Vietnamese diaspora; Cooke et al., 2019a, for the notion of diasporic local), dance or other creative/​imaginative genres (cf. Williams & Stroud, 2015; Mpendukana & Stroud, 2019, 2023; Williams, 2021).

Hope It is through language and its acts of LC that homo narrans (human as storyteller) imagines new futures and hopes for a better world (Wynter, 2003). Acts of LC articulate the potentials for living otherwise and give substance to the ‘utopian surplus’ (Anderson, 2008) the dreams, and collective aspirations, and the awareness of past and present ‘realities’, pregnant with possible novel ways of living in shared futures, that is inherent in the notion of citizenship generally. For many communities whose futures were never self-​determined, but the sole prerogative of those who wield the power of institutions (be it colonial or post-​colonial) (Bourdieu, 1991), the desire for repatriated futures has taken some form of language activism in revitalization programmes, language maintenance or mother tongue education. Many such activities risk defaulting to top-​down, expert practices with little resonance among the speakers themselves. Indiginization is one instance of a strategy that risks appropriation by expert linguists with little popular anchorage in the community at large. Indiginization seeks to return a language to a more authentic condition through the expansion of registers with more homegrown options, but runs the risk of falling short of articulating speakers’ creativity, agency and value systems (cf. Nyamjoh, 2012 for a more general critique along these lines). Likewise, scripting of language activism in terms of tropes of modernization/​ intellectualization risks overlooking the dynamism, adaptability and innovation in how speakers use their languages on an everyday basis in all works of life (for a further critique along these lines in an LC framing, cf. Ansaldo & Lim, 2018). Linguistic Citizenship encapsulates a different set of assumptions and approaches to language activism, namely one where speakers themselves exercise control over their language, deciding what languages are, and what they might mean, and where language issues are discursively tied to a range of social issues –​policy issues and questions of equity. Stroud, 2001: 353 Indigenization and modernization as activist strategies need to enter into dialogue with the life of today’s speakers of the language so as to avoid becoming merely emblematic tokens. An example of bringing the past to bear on present and future community concerns with real material consequences and popular engagement is a study by Burnett et al. (2022). The study explores how acts of LC frame ways in which Khoisan activists interweave history with contemporary language politics and environmental activism in, what the authors call, a “politics of reminding”. These acts of LC articulate a powerful critique of the so-​called rainbow nation’s institutionalized politics of forgetting, as well as “anthropological accounts that consider indigenous activist invocations 149

Christopher Stroud

of history as mainly therapeutic” (p. 1) (cf. also Tupas, 2021, on remembering as a decolonizing project in the Philippines, and Snaphorst, 2019, on the importance of rock art as a contemporary narrative of Bushman resistance in a ‘citizen’ perspective; Daniels et al., 2021 discusses a programme of Cree revitalization in Canada enlisting active participation of ancestors/​spirits of the land). The following vignette illustrates how speakers of Kaaps, a stigmatized variety of Afrikaans spoken in the Western Cape Province of South Africa (cf. Stroud, 2015, 2018; Alim et al., 2021), re-​imagine what it means to reclaim and speak Afrikaans. Afrikaans is a sanitized and literally ‘whitewashed’ language (with creole pedigree), engineered during apartheid to be one of the two official languages (with English) of colonial–​apartheid South Africa. Kaaps is a heterogeneous variety of Afrikaans built from Khoe and San languages, Portuguese, Bazaar Malay, settler Dutch and English. As with Burnett et al.’s (2022) study, the language activism comprises a chronotopical structure with the history and present condition of Afrikaans/​Afrikaaps articulated across a variety of interlinked performance genres: a HipHopera, (Afri)kaaps, (staged 2011), accompanied by a documentary was made concurrently on the production of the opera with commentary and interviews with actors and consultant linguists. The documentary captures the rich alternative celebration of the invention of Afrikaans and its emergence out of Kaaps. Ostensibly a celebration of Kaaps, the activist genres through which Afrikaaps is presented should also be read as a syncretic and inclusive project to de-​racialize and reclaim Afrikaans by Kaaps’ speakers reclaiming ownership, redefining its future and writing its creole and multiracial past. An important part of the HipHopera activism was about bringing the documentary into classrooms and communities to actively involve younger speakers of Kaaps in reflection and commentary on the variety, and their own status as speakers. The hip hopera stage performance opens with a verse by Monix, one of the cast.

Vignette 2. Afrikaaps as Afrikaans 1. Ek is ’n number met ’n storie ou pel [I’m a number with a story old pal] 2. Van hoe my mense hulle feelings en geheime vertel [About how people talk about their feelings and secrets] 3. Ek was gebore daar in Europe met ’n ander taal [I was born there in Europé with a different language] 4. Maar innie Kaap was ek gekap met ’n creole style [But in Cape Town I was produced with a creole style] 5. Ek is ook baie gesing met ’n ghoema sang [I’ve also been sung a lot with a ghoema song] 6. Ek vat jou hand Zanzibar en Dar es Salaam [I take your hand from Zanzibar to Dar es Salaam’] 7. Dutch Sailor Boy 8. Wat sing jy daar? [What are you singing?] 9. Sal jy mind as ek vir jou ’n klein vragie vra [Do you mind if I ask you a question] 10. Sing jou song gou weer, en dan ’n nogger keer [Sing your song again, and then again] 11. Nou kan ek mos al my broese dai song leer [Now I can teach all my brothers that song] 12. Oor ’n uur of twee sal ons dai number ken ‘Over an hour or two we’ll know that song] 13. Met ’n smile in gons hom now and then [We’ll sing that song now and then with a smile] Monix’s thematization offers a multivocal account of Afrikaaps that not only challenges the taken-​ for-​granted trope of Afrikaans as a ‘European’ language, but also (albeit indirectly) interrupts ideas of language as something that is abstract and disembodied. Importantly, it reinserts Afrikaans into 150

Linguistic Citizenship

its enracialized body by tracing the origins of Afrikaans in migration and creole entanglements, with roots stretching from Zanzibar and Dar es Salaam, and important milestones celebrated in the traditional slave music. Monix’s words invite a rethinking of the relationships of power underlying practices and understandings of language(s) –​ such as who may decide what a language is, or which speakers count as legitimate, a central aspect of LC. The performance lifts forward heteroglossia and polyphonia, evident in the variety of tropes and genres through which knowledge of Afrikaaps is reclaimed, where no single group of speakers can lay claim to ownership or authenticity of the language. In so doing, it simultaneously lays bare the historical and contemporary practices of invisibilization and social and racial disengagement that still go into the making of Standard Afrikaans and encourages imaginations of a better world of racial entanglement, mutual susceptibility and an alternative ethics of encounter. School learners on viewing the performance were euphoric with a newfound pride in Kaaps, that they felt articulated a ‘feeling of something better’, expressing a ‘rare spark or glimmer of hopefulness’, the moment ‘when everyday life is pulled into contact with the emergence of the not-​yet’, to use Ernst Bloch’s terminology, that is when a glimpse of Kaaps as Afrikaans opens vistas of possibility not previously perceived. This is an example of a utopia in respect of language (cf. Anderson, 2008; Bloch, 1986; Oostendorp, 2022 on LC and dystopia) that functions as an affordance to point toward how languages and speakers might appear ‘otherwise’ in a better way of living. This ‘better way’ is foreshadowed in the present (and past) ways of using Kaaps/​Afrikaans but is yet unrealized.

Care An important aspect of citizenship in articulating new and better futures involves care for others, selves and the world in which we live, that is, curation of the ‘commons’, the material and immaterial resources in the world that ‘belong’ to all of humanity, that cannot be appropriated for profit, and that are essential ‘to name and struggle for a particular future and way of life’ (Dardot & Laval 2019). Care is the ethical compass by means of which our dreams and aspirations inform our actions and engagements. Education has an important role to play in developing and nurturing caring for others. Giroux (1985: xvii) notes that for Freire education is that terrain where power and politics are given a fundamental expression, since it is where meaning, desire, language and values engage and respond to the deeper beliefs about the very nature of what it means to be human, to dream, and to name and struggle for a particular future and way of life. Multilingual education has a crucial role to play in care-ful education given the urgency of engaging with different others in our lived situation of (post)colonial precarity. It can offer a critical space for developing a joint care for ‘the commons’, by bringing into meeting different ways of engaging with the world and different systems of thought and ethical stance through practices of, what the Argentinian philosopher Lugones (2006), has called world travelling. There is an expansive body of knowledge in southern theories and southern epistemologies that can make a significant contribution to the commons (Heugh et al., 2021; Heugh & Stroud, 2019; Menezes De Souza, 2017 on indigenous South American worldviews and their implications). The specific challenge for multilingual education is to curate these knowledges, to do justice to southern epistemes, and expand the political imaginary of the common(s) beyond the universalist claims of singular science to also include decolonial thought through praxes of southern multilingualisms (Heugh et al., 2021). 151

Christopher Stroud

LC with its emphasis on plurality of voice has a contribution to make in respect of wider epistemic engagements. As with questions of language policy and language activism, issues of multilingualism in education have historically been dominated by models of linguistic coloniality and its (neo)liberal off-​shoots. In Modernity/​Coloniality, not only were indigenous languages carved out in the image of the colonial language, but forms of expression for what content could be entertained, in what permissible genres and registers were also narrowly selected to conform to structures and belief systems of metropolitan languages and their speakers. The use of translation to make indigenous knowledges ‘sensible’ to missionary linguists laid the foundation for a Western monovocality and monomodality of voice. These practices produced hermeutic epistemic injustice, that is dominant, often northern, interpretative frames that obscure ‘significant aspects of [individuals’] social experiences from collective understanding’ (Fricker, 2007: 154). A multilingual education informed by LC would aid the return of other ways of knowing by going beyond the monovocality of singular appropriations of knowledges, and recognizing the plurality of voice and authorship in becoming-​with. Krog (2021) provides an example of a LC approach to un-​selfing of translation that allows the original language to subvert a dominant and monologic voice, and thereby avoid a narrow focus on target language cultural appropriateness. This is a practice of translation that highlights differences and that –​instead of silencing the other by presuming a univocality of meaning –​ allows competing voices and lack of common ground to emerge through juxtaposition (cf. Menezes De Souza, 2017; Heugh, 2020 on ‘transknowledging’; Phyak et al., 2021; Bock, 2021; Williams, 2021; Kerfoot & Bello-​Nonjengele, 2022 for other instances of LC in epistemic justice). A second form of epistemic injustice, testimonial epistemic injustice, ‘a wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as a knower’ (Fricker, 2007: 1, 5), is tightly linked to how speakers of non-​metropolitan languages were seen as non-​communicators and as lesser knowers, where indigenous languages were classed as archaic, primitive and tribal, that is, located in the past, seen in need of intellectualization (modelled on registers of metropolitan languages) in order to be worthy of academic use in some undetermined future (cf. Stroud & Guissemo, 2018; Stroud & Kerfoot, 2021, for a critique; Kerfoot, 2017, on ‘orders of visibility’). As with indigenization, intellectualization perpetuates a continuing exclusion of certain voices from participation in the knowledge project. One attempt to counter the monovocality of potentially multilingual classrooms and to foster a wider inclusion of voice is that of translanguaging practices that seek to empower and give voice to marginalized learners through use of their full linguistic repertoires. Jaspers (2018) has suggested that the strong, almost universalist, claims of translanguaging need to be tempered, while others point to the necessity of contextualizing its applicability to specific polities (cf. Charalambous et al., 2016, on conflict polities and limitations of translanguaging). In practice, translanguaging often promotes knowledge access predominantly in official school languages thereby inadvertently reinforcing power relations between languages and speakers (Kerfoot & Bello-​Nonjengele, 2022; also critiques by Heugh, 2020; Stroud & Kerfoot, 2021) thereby helping to perpetuate patterns of coloniality. Awayed-​Bishara, Netz and Milani (2022) suggest that “for translanguaging to become a decolonial epistemological event (in English–​Arabic/​Arabic–​Hebrew translanguaging), it must first highlight the importance of struggle and enable a plurality of alternative and competing voices to emerge” (p. 18). LC offers a framing of translanguaging that goes in such a direction; it explicitly underscores the contingent and local specifics of polities and recognizes how conceptions of (minority) languages are concomitant with historical structures of hegemony and counter-​hegemonic struggle (cf. Menezes De Souza, 2019). In other words, LC with its attention

152

Linguistic Citizenship

to context-​specificity benefits our understanding of translanguaging as a decolonial pedagogy and offers a way out of the impasse of vertical universalism, mediating ‘between translanguaging as a tool for political voice and translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy’ (Awayed-​Bishara et al., 2022). Rampton et al. (2022) make a powerful argument for lifting forward the local contexts of LC, and for exploring “ways of actually institutionalizing LC as a normative idea in language education and initial and continuing teacher training” (p. 11). The following vignette suggests some of the ways subjugated knowledge may be carried by multilingual practices as care, with potential to be inserted into classroom contexts. These are practices articulated by voices that are possibly most subjugated as knowers, namely young multilingual children in a rural school in Mozambique.

Vignette 3. Multilingualism in subjugated knowlelges A puppet theatre project is being introduced as part of an advocacy programme for bilingual schooling in the Gaza province of Mozambique (cf. Chimbutane, 2020, 2021; Cumbane, 2020; Kerfoot, 2020; Machalele, 2020). In this programme, children are encouraged to play various schooling roles (teachers, learners and caretakers) around a narrative kernel on multilingualism. In preparation for the performance of the puppet show, the grade 3 learners were encouraged to debate in pairs the pros and cons of learning in mother tongues. These rehearsals were neither scripted nor prepared beforehand, and learners themselves decided what arguments they would put forward. Interestingly, rather than attending only to mother tongues, learners (generally) lifted forward a focus on multilingual practices in a modality of ‘unmarked multilingualism’ (Kerfoot & Bello-​Nonjengele, 2022) offering arguments for the educational use of local languages and Portuguese as well as languages spoken further afield, such as isiZulu. A further important thematic was how the children framed multilingualism in contexts of community care, suggesting how practising multiple languages was about respect for others, and emphasising how shifting between languages (translanguaging and translation) allowed reciprocal and dialogical knowledge exchange across generations, and between the local community and public and institutionalised spaces. They pointed out how important it was to be able to voice (subjugated) knowledges (of animal medication) in bilingual modes (vets learning ‘traditional, local knowledge, and parents learning latest veterinary findings). This was a key feature of translanguaging, as learners suggested how different modalities (texts, prescriptions) synergised processes of transknowledging (Heugh, 2020). The children noted how such processes could create a meshwork of dialogical relationships among different stakeholders, showing solidarity and open-​mindedness, and contributing to an ethical epistemic order where all voices are attended to and respectfully engaged (Project fieldnotes redacted). These acts of LC introduce a shift in epistemological authority in deciding what local languages are, what they may mean, and how they can be used in learning and materials production. The children’s examples point to how careful attention to ‘radically different conceptions of language and writing and their relationships to knowledge’ (Menezes De Souza, 2017:192–​93) can inform reconstituting multilingual education. These practices, whereby vulnerable speakers themselves exercise control over their languages and insert alternative voices into processes and structures that otherwise alienate, suggests how multilingually mediated subjugated knowledges excluded from educational policy and curricula may empower. Attended to institutionally, the type of

153

Christopher Stroud

multilingual scenarios the children are play-​acting could work to change or shift –​however minimally –​the rules of engagement, gradually shifting classroom practice away from formal/​official command structures to the agencies of local stakeholders. The multilingual epistemological and dialogical space of care that the learners imagine in their play-​acting could just as well find a space in formalized structure of the classroom permitting the identity of others as knowers to find spaces to thrive (cf. Kerfoot & Bello-​Nonjengele, 2022). Currently, however, institutional constraints do not allow community ‘funds of knowledge’ (Cumbane, 2020) or the more socially constructive and participative multilingual classroom interactions (Machalele, 2020) to fully impact official educational structures. Sadly, children find themselves ‘un-​learning’ in classrooms the multilinguality which they are so aware of when allowed to imagine –​ which they were here –​ the potentiality of their repertoires. Work is underway to find ways of institutionalizing these knowledges and practices (Chimbutane, 2018a, b, c) in the hope that with each input there could be a slow build-​ up of a confederacy of singular actions and events across different scales –​ from the everyday practices of classroom interaction, to the higher order lobbying of NGOs with officials from the Ministry. Over time, this has the potential to contribute to building a momentum that will ultimately lead to a turbulent tip and the introduction of a new language educational regime (Stroud, 2015, 2016).

Multilingualism through the lens of linguistic citizenship In the beginning of history, multilingual encounters were likely the cradle of language. Maturana notes how humans began when language began, and that language emerges when a cycle of coordination is coupled with a consensual flow of living (Maturana & Varela, 1980). Contact and convivial relationships slowly built language as mobile populations engaged with each other, and sought to communicate and coordinate their activities through reciprocal interactions, mutually borrowing and adapting linguistic novelties over time (Evans, 2017). However, Homo sapiens arrogans adapted multilingualism into a refined and complex machinery, a language-​political technology through which racialized bodies, are governed in ways that position speakers differentially in regard to political agency and voice and in hierarchies of linguistic and epistemic value. Given the perniciousness of its colonial legacies, it is not surprising that multilingualism is saturated with ‘deficiency’ constructs, such as (double) semilingualism (Stroud, 2004). In other words, multilingualism constructs encounters across difference in terms of colonial social logics that, in common with other forms of neoliberal governance, comprise a regulatory mechanism for allowing cultures a space within liberalism without rupturing its core frameworks (Povinelli, 2011). From a political perspective, LC moves the focus of social, linguistic and cognitive justice away from policymakers to language actors themselves at different scales, thereby offering a space of empowerment to subordinated communities. It is an invitation to listen beyond and within that which is conventionally classified as ‘noise’ and attending to those forms of language through which also speakers who have been made not to count, who find themselves on the margins of society, find voice and gain agency. Its focus on the bivalency of linguistic recognition and material (re)distribution is a catalyst for social transformation from below so that ‘taking hold of language’ goes hand in hand with the transforming of sociopolitical structures and institutions. It suggests ways of engaging language beyond structure alone, in alternative registers of dreams, aspirations, hopes, futures, utopias, vulnerabilities and care, thereby helping to shift the linguistic centre of gravity away from a constraining colonial construct of language towards one that affirms more empowering modalities of interaction and engagement. The recognition sought through acts of LC, recognition in difference, is an affirmation of the un-​like, and acts of LC are fundamentally 154

Linguistic Citizenship

about the various linguistic/​semiotic practices for building communities of plural others in collective processes of becoming-​with, the dynamic interchange with others in ongoing and shifting construals of the self and its joint memberships that define our humanity. In these ways, LC is a site for rethinking multilingualism in terms of a more ethical engagement with others. Acts of LC are the semiotic tools for a (re)crafting of multilingual space by repopulating it, un-​selfing it, and multiplying its potentialities in the process of creating a more crowded, fleshy and noisy world (cf. Wee, 2022 on disorderly multilingualism). Within such a framework, multilingualism thus emerges as a label for the semiotic space where our worlds are made complicated and chaotic, requiring a mode of understanding through engagements with semiotic complexity in careful and respectful conversation with different others. This meeting place of emerging conversations is a space of equivocation, partial understanding and learning (cf. Maturana & Varela, 1980; Menezes De Souza, 2017). In this sense, multilingualism is a sensorium through which we can experience, interpret and orientate to the multiple semiotic environments we inhabit. It provides a way of experiencing the world through difference and vulnerability, and as a medium for change –​ becoming-​with –​of selves and others in new modes of co-​existence.

Related topics Chapter 1 Lessons for decolonization from pre-​colonial translingualism; Chapter 2 Looking at multilingualisms from the Global South; Chapter 9 Indigenous language and education rights.

Notes 1 I would like to thank Feliciano Chimbutane, Sylvester Cuambe and Domingos Machalele, University of Eduardo Mondlane; Marcelyn Oostendorp, Stellenbosch University; and Quentin Williams and Zannie Bock, University of the Western Cape for helpful and insightful readings of an earlier version of this chapter. The writing has been supported by Swedish Science Council (VR) grant, ‘Educational pathways in Multilingual Citizenship: The case of Mozambique’. 2 Thanks to Keisha Jansen for allowing me to use this example.

Further reading Gspandl, J. Korb, C. Heiling, A. & Erling, E.J. Eds. 2023. The Power of Voice in Transforming Multilingual Societies, Bristol: Multilingual Matters Lim, L., Stroud, C. & Wee, L. Eds. 2018. The Multilingual Citizen: Towards a Politics of Language for Agency and Change. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Williams, Q., Deumert. & Milani, T. Eds. 2022. Struggles for Multilingualism and Linguistic Citizenship. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

References Alim, H.S., Williams, Q.E, Haupt, A. & Jansen, E. 2021. “Kom Khoi San, kry trug jou land”: disrupting white settler colonial logics of language, race, and land with Afrikaaps. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 31 (2): 194–​217. Anderson, B. 2008. Affective urbanism and the event of hope. Space and Culture. 11(2): 142–​159 Ansaldo, B. & Lim, Lisa. 2018 Citizenship theory and fieldwork practice in Sri Lanka Malay communities. In The Multilingual Citizen: Towards Politics of Language for Agency and Change. L. Lim, C. Stroud & L. Wee, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Appadurai, A. 2018. The risks of dialogue. Working paper No. 5 Mercila Working Paper Series. Arendt, H. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

155

Christopher Stroud Årman, H. 2021. Political Corrections: Language Action and Regimentation Among High School Youth. PhD. Stockholm University. Awayed-​Bishara, M. 2021. Linguistic citizenship in the EFL classroom: granting the local a voice through English. TESOL Quarterly. 55(3):745–​765 Awayed-​Bishara, M., Netz, Milani, T. 2022. Translanguaging in a context of colonized education: the case of EFL classrooms for Arabic speakers in Israel. Applied Linguistic. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​lin/​ amac​020. Bloch, E. 1986. The Principle of Hope. Oxford: Blackwell. Bock, Z. & Stroud, C. Eds. 2021. Language and Decoloniality in Higher Education: Reclaiming Voices from the South. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, W. 1995. States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Burnett, S. Ahmed, N. Matthews, T-​D Oliephant, J. & Walsh, A.M. 2022. A politics of reminding: Khoisan resurgence and environmental justice in South Africa’s Sarah Bartman district. Critical Discourse Studies. DOI: 10.1080/​17405904.2022.2092165. Charalambous, P., Charalambous, C. & Zembylas, M. 2016. Troubling translanguaging: language ideologies, superdiversity and interethnic conflict. In Sociolinguistics in a Languagised World. Special issue of Applied Linguistic Review. 7/​3. J. Jaspers & L. Madsen, Eds. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​appli​ rev-​2016-​0014. Chiatoh, B. 2018. Affirming linguistic rights, fostering linguistic citizenship: a Cameeroonian perspective. In The Multilingual Citizen: Towards Politics of Language for Agency and Change. L. Lim, C. Stroud & L. Wee, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 75–​97. Chimbutane, F. 2017. Language policies and the role of development agencies in post-​colonial Mozambique. Current Issues in Language Planning. 18(4): 356–​370. DOI: 0.1080/​14664208.2017.1331495. http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​14664​208.2017.133​149. Chimbutane, F. 2018a. Education and citizenship in Mozambique: colonial and postcolonial perspectives. In The Multilingual Citizen: Towards a Politics of Language for Agency and Change. L. Lim, C. Stroud & L. Wee, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 98–​119. Chimbutane, F. 2018b. Language and citizenship in postcolonial Mozambqiue. Journal of Social Science Education. 17(4): 8–​25. Chimbutane, F. 2018c. Micro-​language planning and agency in the context of bilingual education provision in Mozambique. In Agency in Language Policy and Planning. J. Bouchard & G.P. Glasgow, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 77–​99. Chimbutane, F. 2020. Grassroots participation and agency in bilingual education processes in Mozambique. Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery. 7(1): 2–​10. Chimbutane, F. 2021. Bilingual education and multilingualism in Mozambique: a decolonial critique of policies, discourses and practices. In A Sociolinguistics of the South. K. Heugh, C. Stroud, K. Taylor-​Leech, & P.I. de Costa, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 138–​154. Chimbutane, F. 2022. Língua, educação e sociedade em Moçambique: assimilação, uniformização e aceno à unidade na diversidade. Modern Languages Open. 15(1): 1–​14. https://​doi.org/​10.3828/​mlo. v0i0.374. Cooke, M., Bryers, D. & Winstanley, B. 2019b. ‘Our Languages’: Towards Sociolinguistic Citizenship in ESOL. M. Cooke & R. Peutrell, Eds. Cooke, M. & Peutrell, R. Eds. 2019a. Brokering Britain, Educating Citizens: Exploring ESOL and Citizenship. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cooke, M. & Peutrell, R. 2019c. Brokering Britain, educating citizens: an introduction. In Brokering Britain, Educating Citizens: Exploring ESOL and Citizenship. M. Cooke & R. Peutrell, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 1–​24. Cumbane, S. 2020. Educação bilingue em Moçambique e o empoderamento comunitário. Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery. 7(1): 11–​29. Daniels, B. Sterzuk, A., Turner, P. Cook, W.R., Thunder, D. & Morin, R. 2021. ē-ka-pimohteyāhk nīkānehk ōte nīkān: nēhiyawēwin (Cree language) revitalization and indigenous knowledge (re)generation. In A Sociolinguistics of the South. K. Heugh, C. Stroud, K. Taylor-​Leech & P.I. de Costa Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 199–​213. Dardot, P. & Laval, C. 2019. Common: On Revolution in the 21st Century. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

156

Linguistic Citizenship Deumert, A. Storch, A. & Shepherd, N. Eds. 2020. Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledges and Epistemes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dube, N. & Wozniak, J. 2021. Language regulation in post-​indepence Zimbabwe (1981–​2015) and Kalanga linguistic citizenship. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 39(2): 113–​128. Evans, N. 2017. Did language evolve in multilingual settings. Biology and Philosophy, 32: 905–​933. Fallas-​Escobar, C. Henderson, K. & Lindahl, K. 2022. “I look Mexican, so they assume I speak Spanish”: Latinx teacher candidates’ experiences with raciolinguistic profiling. The Modern Language Journal. Fallas-​Escobar, C. & Herrera, J.P. 2022. Examining raciolinguistic struggles in instituional settings: a duoethnography. Linguistics and Education, 67. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ged.2022.101​012. Fanon, F. [1952] 2008. Black Skins, White Masks. New York: Groove Press. Flubacher, M-​A & Busch, B. 2022. Language advocacy in times of securitization and neoliberalization: the Network LanguageRights. Language Policy. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​993-​022-​09617-​4. Foote, E. 2020. Sign Languages and Linguistic Citizenship: A Critical Ethnographic Study of the Yangon Deaf Community. London & New York: Routledge: Foster, D. 2021. Language of Instruction in Rural Tanzania: A Critical Analysis of Parents’ Discursive Practices and Valued Linguistic Capabilities. PhD thesis. Bristol: University of Bristol. Fraser, N. 1995. From redistribution to recognition: dilemmas of justice in a post-​socialist age. New Left Review. 1 (212): 68–​93. Fredericks, N. 2020. Voices of linguistic participation in language maintenance and revitalisation: case of the Nama Dialect of Khoekhoegowab. JULACE: Journal of the University of Namibia Language Centre. 5(1): 48–​57. Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. New York: Oxford University Press. García, O. & Li, W.. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Pivot. Giroux, H. 1985. Introduction. In The Politics of Education: Culture, Power and Liberation. P. Freire, Ed. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey. Gsplandl, J. Korb, C. Heiling, A. & Erling, E.J. Eds. 2023. The Power of Voice in Transforming Multilingual Societies, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hames, J. 2017. “A river is not a boundary”: interplay of national and linguistic citizenship in Pulaar lannguage activism. Canadian Journal of African Studies. 51(1): 103–​123. Hardt, M. 2011. For love or money. Cultural Anthopology. 26: 4 (676–​682). Harries, P. 2007 Butterflies and Barbarians: Swiss Missionaries and Systems of Knowledge in South-​East Africa. Athens: Ohio University Press. Heugh, K. 2020. Southern multilingualisms, translanguaging and transknowledging in inclusive and ssustainable education. In Proceedings of the 12th International Language and Education Conference, 27–​29, Dakar November. P. Harding & H. Coleman, Eds. London & Dakar: British Council. Heugh, K. & Stroud, C. 2019. Multilingualism in South African education: a southern perspective. In English in Multilingual South Africa: The Linguistics of Contact and Change. R. Hickey, Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 216–​238. Heugh, K., Stroud, C., Taylor-​Leech, K. & de Costa, P. Eds. 2021. A Sociolinguistics of the South. Routledge Critical Studies in Multilingualism. London & New York: Routledge. Jaspers, J. 2018. The transformative limits of translanguaging, Language & Communication. 58: 1–​10. Kerfoot, C. 2020. Making absences present: language policy from below. Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery. 7(1): 69–​76. Kerfoot, C. & Bello-​Nonjengele, B.O. 2022. Towards epistemic justice: transforming relations of knowing in multilingual classrooms. Applied Linguistics. Kerfoot, C. & Hyltenstam, K. Eds. 2017. Entangled Discourses: South–​North Orders of Visibility. Routledge Critical Studies in Multilingualism. London & New York: Routledge. Khubchandani, L. 1983. Plural Languages, Plural Cultures: Communcation, Identity and Sociopolitical Change in Contemporary India. East-​West Center: University of Hawaii Press. Krog, A. 2021. Indigenous texts, rich points and pluriversal sources of knowledge: Siswana-​sibomvana. In Reclaiming Voice: Languages and Decoloniality in Higher Education. Z. Bock & C. Stroud, Eds. London & New York: Bloomsbury Press. 47–​66. Lim, L., Stroud, C. & Wee, L. Eds. 2018. The Multilingual Citizen: Towards a Politics of Language for Agency and Change. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

157

Christopher Stroud Lugones, M. 2006. On complex communication. Hypatia. 21 (3): 75–​85. Machalele, D. 2020. A educação bilingue e o construtivismo sócio-​cultural em contexto de ensino-​ aprendizagem em L1: Um estudo de caso das EPCs de Museveni, Tandara e Maxavelene. Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery. 7(1): 30–​47. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. Eds. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.G. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Dordrecht: Reidel. Menezes De Souza, L.M.T. 2017. Epistemic diversity, lazy reason and ethical translation in post-​colonial contexts: the case of indigenous educational policy in Brazil. In Entangled Discourses: South–​North Orders of Visibility. C. Kerfoot & K. Hyltenstam, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 189–​208. Menezes De Souza, L.M.T. 2019. Glocal languages, coloniality and globalization from below. In Glocal Languages and Critical Intercultural Awareness: The South Answers Back. M. Guilherme & L.M.Menezes de Souza, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 17–​41. Mpendukana, S. & Stroud, C. 2019. Of monkeys, shacks and loos: changing times, changing places. In Making Sense of People and Place in Linguistic Landscapes. A. Peck, C. Stroud & Q. Williams, Eds. London: Bloomsbury. 183–​200. Mpendukana, S. & Stroud, C. 2023. Thoughts on ‘love’ in decolonial (socio)linguistics. In From Southern Theory to Decolonizing Sociolinguistics. A. Deumert & S. Makoni, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Nguyen, K. 2023. Forming linguistic citizenship through philanthropy on Facebook pages of the Vietnamese diaspora in the UK. In The Power of Voice in Transforming Multilingual Societies. J. Gsplandl, C. Korb, A. Heiling & E.J. Erling, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 64–​81. Nyamnjoh, F. B. 2012. “Potted plants in greenhouses”: a critical reflection on the resilience of colonial education in Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies. 47 (2): 129–​154. Oostendorp, M. 2022. Linguistic citizenship and non-​citizens: of utopias and dystopias. In Struggles for Multilingualism and Linguistic Citizenship. Q. Williams, A. Deumert & T. Milani, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 102–​120. Papadopoulos, D. 2018. Experimental Practice: Technoscience, Alterontologies and More-​than-​Social Movements. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Phyak, P., Rawal, H. & de Costa, P. 2021. Dialogue as decolonial effort: Nepali youth transforming multilingual ideologies and reclaiming linguistic citizenship. In K. Heugh, et al., Eds. Povinelli, E. 2018. Economies of Abandonment: Social Belonging and Endurance in Late Liberalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Premsrirat, S. & Bruthiaux, P. 2018. Language rights and Thainess: community-​based bilingual education is the key. In The Multilingual Citizen: Towards a Politics of Language for Agency and Change. L. Lim. C. Stroud & L. Wee, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 150–​173. Rampton, B., Cook, M. & Holmes, S. 2018a. Promoting linguistic citizenship: issue, problems and possibilities. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies. 233. Rampton, B., Cooke, M. & Holmes, S. 2018b. Sociolinguistic citizenship. Journal of Social Science Education. 17(4): 68–​83. Rampton, B. & Cooke, M. 2021. Collaboration between universities and third sector organisations in language education. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies. 281. Rampton, B., Cooke, M. & Holmes, S. 2022. Linguistic citizenship and questions of transformation and marginality. In Struggles for Multilingualism and Linguistic Citizenship. Bristol: Channel View Publications. 59–​80. Rancière, J. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rubagumya, C., Afitska, O., Clegg, J. & Kiliku, P. 2011. A three-​tier citizenship: can the state in Tanzania guarantee linguistic human rights? International Journal of Educational Development. 31(1): 78–​85. Santos, B.D.S. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Boulder, CO.: Paradigm Publishers. Santos, B.D.S. 2016. Epistemologies of the South and the future. From the European South: A Transdisciplinary Journal of Post-​Colonial Humanities. (1): 17–​29. Snaphorst, L. 2019. Owning the body, embodying the owner: complexity of discourses of rights, citizenship and heritage of Southern African Bushmen. Critical Arts. 33(4–​5): 104–​121. Stroud, C. 1999. Portuguese as ideology and politics in Mozambique: semiotic (re)constructions of a postcolony. In Language Ideological Debates. J. Blommaert, Ed. 343–​380. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

158

Linguistic Citizenship Stroud, C. 2001. African mother-​tongue programs and the politics of language: linguistic citizenship versus linguistic human rights. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 22 (4): 339–​355. Stroud, C. 2004. Rinkeby Swedish and Semilingualism in language ideological debates. A Bourdieuan perspective. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 22(2): 196–​214. Stroud, C. 2007. Bilingualism: colonialism and post-​colonialism. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach. M. Heller, Ed. 25–​49. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Stroud, C. 2015. Linguistic citizenship as Utopia. Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery. 2(2): 22–​39. Stroud, C. 2016. Turbulent linguistic landscapes and the semiotics of citizenship. In Negotiating and Contesting Identities in Linguistic Landscapes. Robert Blackwood, Elizabeth Lanza & Hirut Woldemariam, Eds. 25–​49. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 1–​14. Stroud, C & Guissemo, M. 2018. Linguistic messianism. Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery. 2(2):6–​19 Stroud, C. & Heugh, K. 2004. Linguistic human rights and linguistic citizenship In Language Rights and Language Survival: A Sociolinguistic Exploration. D. Patrick & J, Freeland, Eds. 191–​218. Manchester: St Jerome. Stroud, C. & Kerfoot, C. 2021. Decolonizing higher education: multilingualism, linguistic citizenship and epistemic justice. In Language and Decoloniality in Higher Education: Reclaiming Voices from the South. Z. Bock & C. Stroud, Eds. London: Bloomsbury. Tupas, R. 2022. Remembering as a Decolonial Project in Language Policy. In K. Heugh, C. Stroud, K. Taylor-​Leech & P.I. De Costa, Eds. Veronelli, G. 2015. The coloniality of language: race, expressivity, power and the darker side of modernity. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies. 13: 108–​341. Veronelli, G. 2016. A coalitional approach to theorizing decolonial communication. Hypatia. 31(2): 404–​20. Wee, L. 2022. The myth of orderly multilingualism. In Struggles for Multilingualism and Linguistic Citizenship. Q. Williams, A. Deumert & T. Milani. Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Williams, Q. 2021. Linguistic citizenship as decoloniality: teaching hip hop culture at an historically Black university. In Language and Decoloniality in Higher Education: Reclaiming Voices from the South. Z. Bock, & C. Stroud, Eds. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 85–​110. Williams, Q., Deumert, A. & Milani, T. Eds. 2022. Struggles for Multilingualism and Linguistic Citizenship. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Williams, Q. & Stroud, C. 2013. Multilingualism in transformative spaces: contact and conviviality. Language Policy.12: 289–​311. Williams, Q. & Stroud, C. 2015. Linguistic citizenship: language and politics in postnational modernities. Journal of Language and Politics. 14(3): 406–​431. Wynter, S. 2003. Unsettling the coloniality of being/​power/​truth/​freedom: toward the human after man, its overrepresentation –​ an argument. CR: The New Centennial Review. 3 (3): 257–​337. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

159

11 MULTILINGUAL LITERACIES Doris S. Warriner, Anjanette Griego and Agra Rajapakse

Introduction Although multilingualism is a centuries-​old phenomenon, the value of multilingualism and multilingual literacies in social, educational and workplace contexts continues to attract great interest in scholarly and public conversations worldwide (e.g. Hornberger, 2009; Blommaert, 2016; Duchéne, 2020; Kelly-​Holmes, 2019). Researchers have examined the processes by which the transnational movement of people and ideas contributes to language contact and change, influences the relative prestige and power of local languages and literacies, or impacts the interactional dynamics and educational opportunities of multilingual peoples. Researchers have also explored how literacy in and through two or more languages might influence the locally specific ways that multilingual peoples might live, work and learn together. A substantial body of research has been conducted on the literacy practices of emergent, partial and fluent bilinguals from a range of linguistic, cultural and national backgrounds –​ and on the relationship between transnational processes, social practices and the social identities of multilingual learners themselves. This chapter explores how theoretical and methodological advances have informed the investigation of social practices and situated processes among bi/​multilingual individuals and communities worldwide –​ and illuminates how multilingual literacies help to shape an increasingly interconnected world. The work highlighted here views literacy as a situated social practice where languages (and linguistic competencies) are more related than distinct. It views orality and literacy as related points on a continuum rather than polar opposites, defines context interactionally as well as situationally, and considers questions of discourse, ideology and power in the analysis of contemporary linguistic ecologies. This chapter aims to historicize and contextualize recent developments in the field of multilingual literacies, provide an overview of foundational theories and key developments, synthesize recent work and indicate promising directions for future research. Drawing on exemplary work in applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, educational anthropology and linguistic anthropology, this chapter will be of interest to educational researchers, policymakers and practitioners (teachers and administrators) who are committed to providing more opportunity (educational, social, economic) for bi/​multilingual individuals. Over the past few decades, research conducted on bi/​multilingual literacies has provided nuanced accounts of the non-​linear dimensions of literacy development, including how 160

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-13

Multilingual Literacies

multiple literacies interact, and the socially situated ways in which bi/​multiliteracy might facilitate language learning, language teaching, cognitive processing and academic achievement. Until recently, research on multilingualism that was conducted in contexts outside the Global North was not recognized or valued by Northern research. However, the field has recently increased attention to contexts in the Global South (where multilingualism has thrived as the norm of communication for centuries) and this shift has expanded our understanding of multilingualism and multilingual literacies (Canagarajah, 2013).

Early developments in the field Prior to the early 1980s, the term ‘literacy’ typically referred to the cognitive skills involved in decoding symbols, words and texts. Influenced by this view of literacy, research on reading focused on individual cognitive processes and sound-​symbol relationships (phonics). Literacy was also conceived as a linear, step-​by-​step, school-​based process. Very little attention was given to questions of social context, audience/​rhetorical situation, power or ideology. A social practice perspective on literacy (at times also described as a social-​historical-​ ideological approach to literacy) can be traced back to the contributions of Brian Street and the insights he offered out of the anthropological field work he conducted in Iran during the early 1980s. Eventually labelled ‘New Literacy Studies’, this strand of scholarship contributed to an explosion of research on the relationship between decoding processes, the social contexts of literacy learning and the role of ideology, power and history on both. According to Street (1984), the literacy practices he observed and documented while staying in an Iranian village were shaped by a wide range of religious, economic and educational factors. He argued that what counts as literacy in any community/​social group is located in and influenced by historical, institutional, political, ideological forces –​ and he argued against viewing literacy as simply a neutral set of cognitive skills that are acquired by learners in a predictable fashion. Together with Gee (1990), Collins and Cook-​Gumperz (2006), Heath (1983), and Scribner and Cole (1981), Street (1984, 1995) urged literacy researchers to identify and interrogate assumptions about what ‘counts’ as literacy, for whom, and in what contexts –​and the consequences of such assessments. Influenced by what is now called a ‘social practice perspective on literacy’, sociolinguists and applied linguists have come to understand literacy/​literacies and multilingual literacy/​literacies to be social practices that are situated in specific local contexts but also influenced by a range of social, cultural, political, institutional, ideological and interactional factors. According to Hornberger (1990), bi/​multiliteracy can be defined as “any and all instances in which communication occurs in two (or more) languages in or around writing” (213). Drawing on this perspective, Edelsky (1986) and Hornberger (1990) examined the reading and writing practices of bilingual or multilingual students living in the American Southwest and Peru. Hornberger (1990), for instance, found that the active promotion of a minority language such as Quechua in classrooms in Peru served as a critical mechanism by which community members might strengthen the language’s value and prestige in other community domains –​ and this was true even when the ideologies of language held by teachers, students and parents initially seemed resistant to change. Edelsky (1986) too interrogated myths about language proficiency, biliteracy and bilingual education through first-​hand participant observation in elementary school classrooms and demonstrated the positive educational consequences of actively fostering biliteracy among students in first-​, second-​ and third-​grade classrooms. To try to capture the various complexities of bi/​multilingual practices, Hornberger (2003) developed the continua of biliteracy framework. According 161

Doris S. Warriner, Anjanette Griego and Agra Rajapakse

to Hornberger, the model could be used to identify a range of individual-​level, institutional-​level and societal-​level phenomena that influence literacy practices of bi/​multilingual speakers across a range of contexts.

Key issues of theory and method Over the past few decades, literacy studies researchers have also drawn on (and examined) theories of language socialization, ecology-​of-​language perspectives, the funds of knowledge approach, theories of transnationalism and (more recently) the construct translanguaging. This section provides a brief overview of key contributions made in each of these areas of scholarship in order to distil some of the ways prior work has influenced the empirical study of multilingual literacies. Although coming out of distinct disciplinary perspectives, contributions from these various strands of inquiry all value learners’ efforts to read and write in more than one language and question ideologies of language that devalue minoritized languages, literacies and their speakers.

Language and literacy socialization Research on language socialization work examined the processes by which bilinguals (emergent, partial and fluent) learned to read and write in two languages. Through rich ethnographic detail, Schieffelin and Gilmore (1986) demonstrated how language learning and identity construction go hand in hand, as well as the social processes that influence how speakers learn to be a member of a group in and through using the language of that group (see also Ada, 1988; Au, 1993; Hudelson, 1994; and Jiménez et al., 1995). Researchers understood that although first language learning/​literacy and second language learning/​literacy were distinct processes, there was also a relationship between them and this relationship had a significant influence on the educational experiences of emergent, partial, or fluent bilinguals. The volume edited by Martin-​Jones and Jones (2000) showcases research on the influence of multilingualism on literacy, as well as the influence of literacy on multilingualism. The collection included chapters that laid definitional or conceptual groundwork (e.g. Bartlett, 2008; Barton, 2000; Martin-​Jones & Jones, 2000; Street, 2000), as well as reports of ethnographic work on multilingualism in urban communities in Britain. For instance, Gregory and Williams (2000) described ‘unofficial’ literacies in the lives of two East London communities; Blackledge (2000) explored issues of power in the socially constructed notion of literacy and illiteracy by focusing on the experiences of Bangladeshi women in Birmingham, and Ran (2000) examined the experiences of Chinese children in Britain learning to read and write at home. By examining the locally situated nature of language and literacy practices in relation to questions about global processes (e.g. immigration, transnationalism, globalization), this work highlights the value of theorizing the language-​literacy-​culture-​power intersections from an ethnographic perspective.

Ecology of language perspectives Drawing on ecological perspectives, language and literacy scholars have explored how processes of language learning and use may be influenced by larger social and ideological forces. For instance, scholars have explored how the language used as the medium of instruction might promote language learning and literacy development in ways that foster bilingualism, biliteracy and/​ 162

Multilingual Literacies

or ethnolinguistic nationalism (de la Piedra, 2006). Hornberger (2003) has described multilingual language policies from an ecology of language perspective with a focus on the roles of voice and biliteracy in indigenous language revitalization efforts in Quechua, Guarani and Maori contexts (Hornberger, 2006). Proposing ten ‘certainties’ about multilingual education policy, she provides an overview of ethnographic work that she conducted with Indigenous teachers and learners across multiple continents over the past three decades (Hornberger, 2009). Arguing that “multilingual education is in its essence an instance of biliteracy” (2009: 198), Hornberger highlighted the value of systematically investigating the relationship between literacy, Indigenous language use and ethnolinguistic vitality. With similar observations about the value of research on language revitalization efforts in North America (primarily the US), Reyhner (2013) observes that it is important “to see indigenous language revitalization as a basic human right” and argues that, more than ever before, “we need citizens who are multilingual and who can cross boundaries and overcome ethnocentrism” (79). Building on but going beyond this earlier work, a special issue of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language (vol. 195) illuminated the sociolinguistic and subjective aspects of Welsh in Wales and its diaspora, with attention to factors contributing to the relative strength and ethnolinguistic vitality of Welsh. Martin-​Jones et al. (2009: 39), for instance, describe “how the young people’s language choices and literacy practices were shaped by the nature of the land-​based enterprises they were involved in.” In addition, contributors to a special issue of the Journal of Language, Identity and Education reported on ethnographic work in communities undergoing rapid language shift (Lee, 2009; McCarty & Wyman, 2009; McCarty, 2009; Messing, 2009; Nicholas, 2009). The context is North America, where language shift to the dominant/​colonizing language is widespread and accelerating, and this special issue highlights key contributions from research on Indigenous youth and bilingualism, with numerous implications for understanding the survival and vitality of Indigenous languages and communities worldwide. Calling their work “explicitly praxis-​oriented”, the contributors to this volume provide a useful “three-​pronged look at contemporary Indigenous youth language practices, communicative repertoires, and language attitudes and ideologies” (McCarty & Wyman,2009: 279; see also Lee, 2009; Messing, 2009).

Recognizing existing resources and/​or funds of knowledge In addition, literacy studies research has systematically examined how teachers and teacher educators might recognize and build on the capacities of their students while creating curricular innovations and implementing pedagogical practices that improve the educational achievement and biliteracy development of many bi/​multilingual students (e.g. Gonzalez et al (2005); Reyes, 2006; Reyes & Azuara, 2008; Martin-​Jones & Saxena, 2003; Martínez-​Roldán, 2006; Mercado, 2003; Dworin, 2003; Jiménez et al., 1995, 1996; Valdés, 2004). García et al. (2006), for instance, argue that we should reimagine bilingualism and biliteracy as critical components of multilingual schools in an age of “glocalization”. Other relevant scholarship explores issues such as the creative construction of identity through multiliteracies pedagogy, problems with monolingual assessment (Escamilla, 2006), multilingualism and Indigenous education in Latin America (López, 2006) and questions of class in relation to mother tongue education in India (Mohanty, 2006). Such contributions demonstrate the complicated dimensions of the language and literacy brokering/​ translation work conducted by immigrant youth –​ portraying such youth as capable, resourceful, achieving and contributing members of classrooms and communities (e.g. Orellana et al., 2003; Orellana & Reynolds, 2008; Sánchez, 2007). 163

Doris S. Warriner, Anjanette Griego and Agra Rajapakse

Transnationalism and literacy Research on multilingualism and multiliteracies has also illuminated how researchers understand and represent various processes and challenges related to the transnational movement of people, goods, ideas and practices (e.g. Bartlett, 2007; Rubenstein-​Avila, 2007; Sánchez, 2007; Warriner, 2007, 2009). For instance, Rubenstein Avila (2007: 571) explored “how living in a transnational space affects immigrant students’ literacy practices and their values, perspectives, beliefs, and actions in relation to literacy”, and Bartlett (2007: 215) described how one transnational student from the Dominican Republic living in New York City “drew upon the locally defined model of school success to position herself –​and be positioned –​as a successful student through bilingual literacy practices”. Drawing on insights from semiotics, the anthropology of space and place, sociology, sociology of language and cultural studies, literacy scholars have examined the local manifestations of global processes, how literacy and identity trajectories might be traced across time and space, and how multiple literacies –​ and identities –​ could be created, narrated and transformed by individual actors living in particular contexts. In the introduction to a special issue of Linguistics and Education on ‘Transnational Literacies: Immigration, Language Learning and Identity’, Warriner (2007) wrote: By examining the literacy practices of different immigrant learners across contexts of home, school and community through a transnational lens, the authors make visible the specific ways that literacy practices, as one type of ‘situated cultural practice’, influence and mediate situated learning, social identity formation and transformation, and historically structured processes. 213 The systematic investigation of multilingual literacies has also illuminated the complex relationships, tensions and contradictions that exist in the spaces between locally situated practices and historical influences (Warriner 2004, 2007, 2009). One influential dimension of this scholarship has explored the relationship between transnational movement and migrants’ use of digital technologies and digital literacies (e.g. Black, 2007, 2009; Jacquemet, 2005; Lam, 2000, 2006, 2009, Lam & Rosario-​Ramos, 2009; Lee, 2007; McGinnis et al., 2007; Yi, 2009). Areas of focus include the “literacy practices used by immigrant youth to create transnational social and information networks” (Lam & Rosario-​Ramos, 2009) and/​or the “development of multiliteracies in the context of transnational migration and new media of communication” (Lam, 2009) and/​or the social identities that are often negotiated through participation in online processes (Yi, 2009). In addition, some of this scholarship has examined the specific ways that English-​language learners design digital futures and identities through participation in online fan fiction (Black, 2007), how new media and technologies might influence modes of communication and writing (Black, 2009) and which practices are used for instant messaging (IM) (Lee, 2007). All this work has enhanced our understanding of multilingual literacies by illuminating the various ways that transnationalism and globalization might be investigated through the lens (empirical and theoretical) of digital literacy practices. Finally, it raises questions about certain definitions and methodological approaches used to examine such practices. Jacquemet (2005: 257), for instance, recommends rethinking how we theorize and investigate “multilingual talk (most of the times exercised by deterritorialized speakers)”. And Kelly-​Holmes (2019) has recently argued that developments in technology have brought about a system which provides customized language services and this has adversely impacted whether and how society values the 164

Multilingual Literacies

language resources and proficiencies of actual multilinguals. She notes that, while users believe that advances in technology increase the choices they have, ideologies of monolingualism and assumptions about the relationship between geographic location and language preference operate in ways that restrict the choices available to them (Kelly-​Holmes, 2019: 31).

Translanguaging and translingualism Over the past couple of decades, research on multiliteracies has drawn on such perspectives (language socialization, funds of knowledge, ecology of language, translanguaging, critical perspectives on ‘language’ and ‘languaging’) to examine teaching and learning processes in classrooms with multilingual learners, to reconceptualize the literacies of minoritized youth and to expand how we theorize and research multilingual literacy practices and pedagogies. Among applied linguists and sociolinguists, there has been some debate over how useful it is to view and describe ‘language’ and ‘languages’ as distinct, separate, bounded entities that are often associated with the promotion of a nation/​national identity. With a focus on the “meaning-​making potential of the fluid semiotic practices of multilinguals” (Baker, 2003: 554), scholars have looked closely at the complexities of “mobility, mixing, political dynamics and historical embedding” (Blommaert, 2016: 243). Referring to Cen Williams’s (1994, in Baker, 2003) term ‘translanguaging’ (‘trawsiethu’ in Welsh), Baker translated the term into English and then used it to theorize the bilingual identity of the Welsh. Since then, many have found the term ‘translanguaging’ to be a useful way to try to capture the complexity of language use and literacy practices –​as the notion of translanguaging normalizes bilingual practices and identities and doesn’t require domain-​ based, diglossic functional separation (which many sociolinguists had previously argued was the best way to maintain bilingualism). “While someone may be recognized in society as a speaker of a particular language, each individual uses what amounts to his or her own language, which differs in ways big and small from those who speak that same named language” (García & Kleyn, 2016: 10). Translanguaging is now commonly used to describe the practice of using more than one ‘language’ at a time, and many have since argued that “translanguaging clarifies the notion that multilinguals act with a unitary semiotic repertoire” (García & Kleifgen, 2019: 555). Such theoretical advances have challenged traditional understandings of bilingualism that emerged out of “a monoglossic ideology” (Baker, 2003: 556); and debates about the value of translanguaging have gradually changed expectations regarding what language(s) could or should be used in the classroom (García & Kleyn, 2016: 11; Krause & Prinsloo, 2016). In related work, for the past couple of decades, Makoni and Pennycook have focused their (and our) attention on critical questions about how ‘language’ is defined, operationalized, investigated and theorized. They have examined “the invention and naming of specific languages” and question “the broader processes and contexts of linguistic construction” –​including the colonial and nationalist ideologies that influence literacy programmes all over the world (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007: 1). Describing the endeavour as “a project not only of critique but of reconstruction”, they ask researchers of multilingualism and multiliteracy to “move beyond notions of linguistic territorialization in which language is linked to a geographical space” (3). As García (2007) notes, the notion of languaging (as opposed to language) helps to “decenter epistemological knowledge” (xi) as well as romantic or nostalgic attachments to multilingualism, pluralism, and the notion of linguistic human rights (xiv). In the first edition of this handbook, Makoni and Pennycook (2012) expanded on these claims and arguments and observed that “assumptions about the existence of languages and, ipso facto, multilingualism, are so deeply embedded in predominant paradigms of language studies that they are rarely questioned” (439). They urged linguists, sociolinguists 165

Doris S. Warriner, Anjanette Griego and Agra Rajapakse

and applied linguists “to overcome the monolingual blinkers of Anglo-​or Eurocentric thought, to encourage both the understanding of and the practices of multilingualism” (ibid.).

New research directions There are a number of ways in which recent scholarship on multilingual literacies has been influenced by the insights of earlier work. For instance, the interest in translanguaging and its potential for equalizing the educational playing field by valuing the language and literacy resources of all students “to provide safe spaces in classrooms and schools for students to practice translanguaging” (Canagarajah, 2011: 415). More recent contributions to scholarship on translanguaging pedagogy and translingualism explore the strategies teachers might use in the composition classroom (e.g. Watson, 2021) and suggest ways to facilitate student agency by valuing the use of multiple languages and literacies while learning content (e.g. Horner & Alvarez, 2019). One of the lasting pedagogical implications of earlier theoretical advancements has been that composition assignments in composition courses in American universities are now designed with more attention to “the politics of meaning making for writing students who are constantly composing, thinking, and living their daily lives in translation” (Bou Ayash, 2013: 101; see also Bou Ayash, 2019). Drawing on the notion of heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1981), Kiramba (2017a) examined the writing practices of fourth-​graders attending a multilingual rural school in Kenya to understand what linguistic resources the multilingual students brought to the classroom in relation to the texts assigned to them and their written work. Showing that translanguaging is “not a practice of deficiency” but rather “a complex linguistic and rhetorical competence” (127), her scholarship reveals practices, voices, and identities previously viewed as obstacles to learning. Through a multiliteracies perspective, Kiramba (2017b) analyses the multilingual and multimodal practices of students that often go unnoticed when dominant cultural norms (including English-​only educational language policies) are in effect. This work helps create “a space for learners to dialogue with the global views of literacy but also provide[s]‌ a space where local and global literacies can negotiate in a way that recognizes and influences academic outcomes and knowledge construction” (276). Juffermans (2015) examined languaging and literacy in multilingual Gambia in order “to contribute to a new, post-​colonial generation of descriptions of language in society in Africa and to deconstruct (some of) the constructs made in the colonial enterprise” (4). Extending the contributions and insights of Canagarajah (2013), Krause (2021) critiques the widespread belief that a goal of schooling is to teach students how to use standard languages (‘nomolanguages’) and shows how this curtails practices that promote multilingual literacies. Her ethnographic study in a South African township –​which builds on but goes beyond Canagarajah’s (2015) research on students’ ability to respond to “different scales and audiences” (16) –​“attempt[s]‌ to take linguistic heterogeneity seriously and to put it in relation to the demand for nomolanguages in schooling” (17). This research demonstrates how researchers might draw on new theories and perspectives to “dive into the intricacies of classroom languaging that are often overlooked” (20). As Seltzer et al. (2016) observe, “translanguaging is a tool they (students) can use to bring their whole selves into the classroom, enabling them to learn –​both academically and socioemotionally –​ in a way they deserve” (158). At the same time, a remaining challenge for practitioners is that the expectation to use standard languages for writing for educational purposes is still dominant in many contexts. Even though scholars of composition are beginning to interrogate the assumptions behind such expectations (e.g. Griego, 2022; Li, 2018; Seltzer & de la Rios, 2021), it remains true that learners enrolled in schools and universities are still expected to use the standard version 166

Multilingual Literacies

of the dominant language (e.g. English in the US) in their academic writing. As Prinsloo and Krause (2019) observe, there remains a great deal of “pressure to appropriate standard languaging practices” (168) in most academic contexts. Commenting on recent developments in the South African context, Prinsloo (2021) observes that students’ multilingual language practices (or what Deumert & Mabandla (2018) call “multilingual urban vernaculars”) are still devalued by/​ in institutions of schooling because literacy myths intertwined with standard language ideologies continue to be robust and far-​reaching: Literacy education in schools widely draws on this standard language ideology and, in addition, widely rests on the belief in the superiority, in various respects, of written languages (in such standardized form) over spoken languages, accompanied by the widely held view that some forms or uses of language are more ‘context-​dependent’ or ‘objective’ than others. Prinsloo, 2021: 4 Focused on an after-​school community-​based arts-​education programme, Arango and Link (2021) reflect on the process of developing, implementing and evaluating the transformative potential of what they call a “translanguaging praxis”. Working with a group of Mexican and Mexican American boys living in the US “to co-​construct a bilingual counter-​story that challenged and reframed dehumanizing narratives about who they are, can, and should be” (81), their analysis demonstrates the power of “critical, creative, and humorous use of forms and features in both Spanish and English” (81–​82). Reporting on research conducted in another informal learning context, Valdez and Park (2021) reflect on their long-​term collaboration with teachers of adult refugee-​background learners of English “to design and deliver lessons informed by translanguaging pedagogy” and the work they have done to “reimagine” students’ and teachers’ traditional power roles. By analyzing the power of translanguaging as “a form of culturally sustaining pedagogy” and positioning adult learners of English as “co-​learners and co-​teachers”, Valdez and Park (2021) show the value of not only recognizing but “validating” the linguistic resources that adult learners bring with them. They argue that their efforts to recognize translanguaging practices and implement culturally sustaining pedagogy “transform the traditional classroom practices that continuously silence and stigmatise students of colour” (344). Marino and Dolan (2021) also describe the value of adopting a co-​learning and co-​building stance as teachers in an English for Adults programme in Uganda –​viewing this as a type of translanguaging pedagogy. In recent years, sociolinguists and applied linguists have examined multilingual practices/​literacies in post-​colonial contexts and showed that, because they are inextricably linked with the sociopolitical and economic factors related to colonial rule, languages and/​or languaging cannot be studied in isolation. In Southeast Asia, for instance, although multilingualism has functioned as an organic part of society since pre-​colonial times, the imposition of western power structures during colonization changed the nature of multilingualism as it was practised before colonial rule. Naqvi (2015), for instance, explores literacy practices in Pakistan through a post-​colonial lens, asking questions such as ‘What does literacy mean in a post-​colonial context? and how might we engage with new generations to offer them more sustainable and socially just lives and futures?’ –​and recommends critical literacy as a way to change the ways that culture is perceived (49). Although post-​colonial nations may adopt language policies with the view of rejecting English and breaking free of colonial rule, the prestige still attributed to English (due to its historical association with power) contributes to a continuation of its elevated status even in a post-​ colonial language ecology. In Sri Lanka, for instance, English continues to enjoy a prestigious status in society although it was demoted from official language status soon after independence/​ 167

Doris S. Warriner, Anjanette Griego and Agra Rajapakse

1948 (Rajapakse, 2022). Dumanig et al. (2012) have also examined how English plays a dominant role within the language ecologies of Malaysia and the Philippines, despite the fact that Malay and Filipino were established as national and/​or official language/​s in 1968 and 1987 respectively (108). In many cases, language policies attempting to promote multilingualism in post-​colonial contexts cannot escape the political ideologies inherited from their colonial past. For example, in an examination of mother-​tongue-​based multilingual education in the Southeast Asian region, Tupas (2015) claims that although many see this effort as a rhetorical strategy to promote a “cultural and pedagogical resource”, the various languages are not equally valued in practice (115). Instead, different languages are valued differently and “some languages are invested with much more symbolic and cultural capital than others” (ibid.). Another challenge is the disconnect between theory and practice. While there are clearly many benefits and advantages of languaging and translanguaging (for learners, teachers and society), we tend to agree with those who question blind endorsements of multilingualism and/​ or translanguaging pedagogies without taking into account the particulars of the local ideological context. Allard (2017) shows that, even when teachers implement translanguaging practices in pedagogically sound ways, such practices cannot always change whether and to what extent bi/​ multilingualism is valued more generally and the kinds of language ideologies circulating broadly (including monoglossic language ideologies). As MacSwan (2022) and the contributors to this edited volume (e.g. May 2022; Nicholas & McCarty, 2022) point out, theories of translanguaging and critiques of the concept of ‘language’ are not always aligned with efforts to promote or support multilingualism, language preservation, or language revitalization in schools and communities. Like monolingualism, even policies and pedagogies promoting multilingualism can function as a “site for the production of social differences” (Duchêne, 2020: 93). Duchêne (2020) questions uncritical celebratory stances towards multilingualism, worries about “what constitutes desirable multilingual competence, a desirable multilingual speaker, and desirable or less desirable languages”, and points out that such assessments “are dependent on history, context, and the market within the capitalistic, patriarchal, and colonial logic in which we operate” (93). In addition, it is important to recognize and attend to applied linguistic and sociolinguistic research conducted on language and literacy practices and policies in the Global South (e.g. Abdelhay et al., 2014; Juffermans, 2015; Kiramba, 2017a, 2017b; Krause, 2021; Krause & Prinsloo, 2016). The Global South is a phrase used to describe “the people, places, and ideas that have been left out of the grand narrative of modernity” (Pennycook & Makoni, 2020: 1). This term, the Global South, can also be used to reference people or practices that have been marginalized or excluded in the Global North –​e.g. the undocumented, the unemployed, and other minoritized groups (2). To adopt the ‘Global South framework’ therefore is to question how research has been conducted –​ and to ask questions such as ‘Who is doing it, with what assumptions, for whom, with whom, and for what purposes?’ (Pennycook & Makoni 2020, 3). And this ties back to questions about what counts as research and in what language? How is knowledge valued in certain contexts? (see also Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). Similarly, Ndhlovu & Makalela (2021) –​who have examined multilingual Englishes among African denizens living in Australia –​ argue for “reframe[ing] theories of multilingualism in ways that speak to people’s everyday experiences of living with multiple language resources” (122).

Concluding comments The fields of applied linguistics and literacy studies continue to wrestle with the various theoretical and methodological challenges that arise when researching multilingual literacies. It is important 168

Multilingual Literacies

that literacy studies scholarship in general and multilingual literacies research in particular continue to interrogate what counts as literacy, under what circumstances, and how we should conceptualize the relationship between literacy, social identities, mobilities, and opportunities for change (social, economic, political). Drawing on a variety of disciplinary perspectives and methodological approaches, and rejecting deficit views of multilingualism and multiliteracy, recent scholarship has contributed important insights and raised timely questions about the social, educational, and economic benefits and advantages of multilingual literacy practices. Although the study of multilingual literacies began decades ago, it remains an exciting and active area of study with far-​reaching implications for the study of languages, literacies, educational policies, and theories of literacy, multilingualism, second language learning and second language writing. The study of multilingual literacies, in all its complicated and contradictory manifestations, remains an exciting and promising area of research, and many years of fruitful discovery lie ahead.

Related topics Chapter 4 Raciolinguistic ideologies; Chapter 6 Materialities and ontologies; Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing; Chapter 8 Multilingualism and multimodality; Chapter 12 Digital multilingualism.

Further reading García, O. & Kleifgen, J. 2019. Translanguaging and literacies. Reading Research Quarterly. 55(4): 553–​571. Juffermans, K. 2015. Local Languaging, Literacy and Multilingualism in a West African Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kiramba, L. 2017. Translanguaging in the writing of emergent multilinguals. International Multilingual Research Journal. 11(2): 115–​130. Martin-​Jones, M. & Jones, K. Eds. 2000. Multilingual Literacies. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

References Abdelhay, A., Afaha, Y.M. & Juffermans, K. 2014. African Literacy Ideologies, Scripts and Education. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ada, A.F. 1988. Experience: working with Spanish-​speaking parents to develop children’s reading and writing skills in the home through the use of children’s literature. In Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. T. Skutnabb-​Kangas & J. Cummins, Eds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Allard, E.C. 2017. Re-​examining teacher translanguaging: an ecological perspective. Bilingual Research Journal. 40(2): 116–​130. Arango, O. & Link, H. 2021. Finding answers within the story: the transformative potential of translanguaging praxis. In Extending Applied Linguistics for Social Impact: Cross-​Disciplinarly Collaborations in Diverse Spaces of Public Inquiry. D.S. Warriner & E.R. Miller, Eds. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 81–​102. Au, K.H. 1993. Literacy Instruction in Multicultural Settings. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Baker, C. 2003. Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: language planning and the Welsh National Curriculum. In Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research and Practice in Multilingual Settings. N.H. Hornberger, Ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M.M. 2003. Discourse in the novel. In Discourse in the Novel. M. Holquist, Ed. Translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bartlett, L. 2008. Literacy’s verb: exploring what literacy is and what literacy does. International Journal of Educational Development. 28(6): 737–​753.

169

Doris S. Warriner, Anjanette Griego and Agra Rajapakse Bartlett, L. 2007. Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories. Linguistics and Education. 18(3–​4): 215–​231. Barton, D. 2000. Foreword. In Multilingual Literacies: Reading and Writing Different Worlds. M. Martin-​ Jones & K. Jones, Eds. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Black, R. 2007. Digital design: English language learners and reader reviews in online fiction. In A New Literacies Sampler. M. Knobel & C. Lankshear, Eds. New York: Peter Lang. Black, R. 2009. Online fan fiction, global identities, and imagination. Research in the Teaching of English. 43(4): 397–​425. Blackledge, A. 2000. Power relations and the social construction of ‘literacy’ and ‘illiteracy’: the experience of Bangladeshi women in Birmingham. In Multilingual Literacies. M. Martin-​Jones & K. Jones, Eds. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Blommaert, J. 2016. From mobility to complexity in sociolinguistic theory and method. In Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. N. Coupland, Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 242–​259. Bou Ayash, N. 2013. Hi-​ein, Hi ‫ يين‬Or ‫ يين‬Hi? Translingual practices from Lebanon and mainstream literacy education. In Literacy as Translingual Practice. S. Canagarajah Ed. London & New York: Routledge. 96–​103. Bou Ayash, N. 2019. Toward Translingual Realities in Composition: (Re)working Local Language Representations and Practices. Utah State University Press. Canagarajah, S. 2011. Codemeshing in academic writing: identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-​Blackwell. 95(3): 401–​417. Canagarajah, S. Ed. 2013. Writing as Translingual Practice in Academic Contexts. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis. Canagarajah, S. 2015. Negotiating mobile codes and literacies in the contact zone: another perspective on South African township schools. In Language, Literacy and Diversity: Moving Words. C. Stroud & M. Prinsloo, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 122–​128. Collins, J. & Cook-​Gumperz, J. 2006. Differential instruction in reading groups. The Social Construction of Literacy (2nd ed.). Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 138–​164. DOI: 10.1017/​CBO9780511617454.007. de La Piedra, T. 2006. Literacies and Quechua oral language: connecting sociocultural worlds and linguistic resources for biliteracy development. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 6(3): 383–​406. Deumert, A. & Mabandla, N. 2018. Beyond colonial linguistics: the dialectic of control and resistance in the standardization of isiXhosa. In Standardising Minority Languages Competing Ideologies of Authority and Authenticity in the Global Periphery. P. Lane, J. Costa & H. De Korne, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 200–​221. Duchêne, A. 2020. Multilingualism: an insufficient answer to sociolinguistic inequalities. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 26(3): 91–​97. Dumanig, F.P., David, M.K. & Symaco, L. 2012. Competing roles of the national language and English in Malaysia and the Philippines: planning, policy and use. Journal of International and Comparative Education. 1(2): 104–​115. https://​doi.org/​10.14425/​00.45.77. Dworin, J.E. 2003. Insights into biliteracy development: toward a bidirectional theory of bilingual pedagogy. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education. 2: 171–​86. Edelsky, C. 1986. Writing in a Bilingual Program: Había Una Vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Escamilla, K. 2006. Semilingualism applied to the literacy behaviors of Spanish-​speaking emerging bilinguals: bi-​illiteracy or emerging biliteracy? Teachers College Record. New York, NY: Columbia University. 108(11): 2329–​2353. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-​9620.2006.00784.x. García, O. 2007. Foreword. In Disinventing and Reconstituting Language. S. Makoni & A. Pennycook. Eds. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. xi–​xv. García, O. & Kleifgen, J. 2019. Translanguaging and literacies. Reading Research Quarterly. 55(4): 553–​571. García, O. & Kleyn, T. 2016. A translanguaging education policy: disruptions and creating spaces of possibility. In Translanguaging with Multilingual Students: Learning from Classroom Moments. O. García & T. Kleyn, Eds. London and London & New York: Routledge. 181–​201. García, O., Skutnabb-​Kangas, T. & Torres-​Guzmán, M.E. Eds. 2006. Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Globalization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gee, J.P. 1990. Social Linguistics and Literacies. New York: Falmer Press.

170

Multilingual Literacies González, N., Moll, L., Floyd Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendón, P., Gonzales, R. & Amanti C. 2005. Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households. In Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households and Classroom. N. González, L.C. Moll & C. Amanti, Eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gregory, E. & Williams, A. 2000. Work or play? Unofficial literacies in the lives of two East London communities. In Multilingual Literacies. M. Martin-​Jones & K. Jones, Eds. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Griego, A. 2022. Let’s Talk About It: Interrogating Theories of Language and Race During First Year Composition Teacher Training. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Heath, S.B. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. Hornberger, N.H. 1990. Creating successful learning contexts for bilingual literacy. Teachers College Record. New York, NY: Columbia University. 92: 212–​229. Hornberger, N.H. 2003. Introduction. In Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings. N.H. Hornberger, Ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hornberger, N.H. 2006. Voice and biliteracy in Indigenous language revitalization: contentious educational practices in Quechua, Guarani, and Maori contexts. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education. 5(4): 277–​292. Hornberger, N.H. 2009. Multilingual education policy and practice: ten certainties (grounded in Indigenous experience). Language Teaching. 42(2): 197–​211. Horner, B. & Alvarez, S.P. 2019 Defining translinguality. Literacy in Composition Studies. 7(2): 1–​30. Hudelson, S. 1994. Literacy development of second language children. In Educating Second Language Children. F. Genesee, Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jacquemet, M. 2005. Transidiomatic practices: language and power in an age of globalization. Language and Communication. 25: 257–​277. Jiménez, R.T., García, G.E. & Pearson, P.D. 1995. Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: case studies in bilingual/​monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal. 32(1): 67–​97. Jiménez, R.T., García, G.E. & Pearson, P.D. 1996. The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/​o students who are successful English readers: opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly. 31: 90–​112. Juffermans, K. 2015. Local Languaging, Literacy and Multilingualism in a West African Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2019. Multilingualism and technology: a review of developments in digital communication from monolingualism to idiolingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 39: 24–​39. Kiramba, L. 2017a. Translanguaging in the writing of emergent multilinguals. International Multilingual Research Journal. 11(2): 115–​130. Kiramba, L. 2017b. Multilingual literacies: invisible representation of literacy in a rural classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 61(3): 267–​277. Krause, L.S. 2021. Relanguaging Language from a South African Township School. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Krause, L.S. & Prinsloo, M. 2016. Translanguaging in a township primary school: policy and practice. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 34(4): 347–​357. DOI: 10.2989/​ 16073614.2016.1261039. Lam, W.S.E. 2000. Literacy and the design of the self: a case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly. 34: 457–​482. Lam, W.S.E. 2006. Re-​envisioning language, literacy, and the immigrant subject in new mediascapes. Pedagogies: An International Journal. 1(3): 171–​195. Lam, W.S.E. 2009. Multiliteracies on instant messaging in negotiating local, translocal, and transnational affiliations: a case of an adolescent immigrant. Reading Research Quarterly. 44(4). Lam, W.S.E. & Rosario-​Ramos, E. 2009. Multilingual literacies in transnational digitally-​mediated contexts: an exploratory study of immigrant teens in the U.S. Language and Education. 23(2): 171–​1 90. Lee, Carmen K.M. 2007. Affordances and text-​making practices in online instant messaging. Written Communication. 24(3): 223–​249. Lee, T.S. 2009. Language, identity, and power: Navajo and pueblo young adults’ perspectives and experiences with competing language ideologies. Journal of Language, Identity and Education. 8(4): 307–​320.

171

Doris S. Warriner, Anjanette Griego and Agra Rajapakse Li, Wei. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics. 39(1): 9–​30. https://​ doi.org/​10.1093/​app​lin/​amx​039. López, L.E. 2006. Cultural diversity, multilingualism and indigenous education in Latin America. In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Glocalization. O. García, T. Skutnabb-​Kangas & M. Torres-​Guzmán, Eds. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 23861. MacSwan, J. Ed. 2022. A Multilingual Perspective on Translanguaging. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. Eds. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2012. Disinventing multilingualism: from monological multilingualism to multilingual francas. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. Marino, J. & Dolan, C. 2021. Speaking rights: translanguaging and integration in a language course for adult refugees in Uganda. In Refugee Education across the Lifespan: Mapping Experiences of Language Learning and Use. D.S. Warriner, Ed. Springer. 429–​447. Martin-​Jones, M., Hughes, B. & Williams, A. 2009. Bilingual literacy in and on working lives on the land: Case studies of young Welsh speakers in North Wales. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 195(1): 39–​62. Martin-​Jones, M. & Jones, K. Eds. 2000. Multilingual Literacies. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Martin-​Jones, M. & Saxena, M. 2003. Bilingual resources and ‘funds of knowledge’ for teaching and learning in multi-​ethnic classrooms in Britain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 6(3–​4): 267–​82. Martínez-​Roldán, C.M. 2006. Linguistic borderlands: Latino students’ transactions with narrative texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 6(3): 293–​322. May, S. 2022. Afterword: the multilingual turn, superdiversity and translanguaging –​ the rush from heterodoxy to orthodoxy. In A Multilingual Perspective on Translanguaging. J. MacSwan, Ed. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. McCarty, T.L. 2009. The impact of high-​stakes accountability policies on Native American learners: evidence from research. Teaching Education. 20(1): 7–​29. McCarty, T.L. & Wyman, L. 2009. Introduction: Indigenous youth and bilingualism: theory, research, praxis. Journal of Language, Identity and Education. 8(4): 279–​90. McGinnis, T., Goodstein-​Stolzenberg, A. & Costa Saliani, E. 2007. ‘indnpride’: online spaces of transnational youth as sites of creative and sophisticated literacy and identity work. Linguistics and Education. 18(3–​ 4): 283–​304. Mercado, C. 2003. Biliteracy development among Latino youth in New York City communities: an unexploited potential. In The Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings. N.H. Hornberger, Ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Messing, J. 2009. ‘I didn’t know you knew Mexicano!’ Shifting ideologies, identities, and ambivalence among youth in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Journal of Language, Identity and Education. 8(4): 350–​364. Mignolo, W. & Walsh, C. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Mohanty, A.K. 2006. Multilingualism of the unequals and predicaments of education in India: mother tongue or other tongue? In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Globalization, O. García, T. Skutnabb-​Kangas & M.E. Torres-​Guzmán, Eds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Naqvi, R. 2015. Post-​colonial approaches to literacy: understanding the ‘other’. The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies. J. Rowsell & K. Pahl, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 49–​61. Ndhlovu, F. & Makalela, L. 2021. Decolonising Multilingualism in Africa: Recentering Silenced Voices from the Global South. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nicholas, S.E. 2009. ‘I live Hopi; I just don’t speak it’: the critical intersection of language, culture, and identity in the contemporary lives of Hopi youth. Journal of Language, Identity and Education. 8(4): 321–​334. Nicholas, S.E. & McCarty, T.L. 2022. “To ‘think in a different way’ –​ a relational paradigm for Indigenous language rights,” In A Multilingual Perspective on Translanguaging. J. MacSwan, Ed. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Orellana, M.F. & Reynolds, J.F. 2008. Cultural modeling: leveraging bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading Research Quarterly. 43(1): 48–​65.

172

Multilingual Literacies Orellana, M.F., Reynolds, J., Dorner, L. & Meza, M. 2003. In other words: translating or para-​phrasing as a family literacy practice in immigrant households. Reading Research Quarterly. 38(1): 12–​34. Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. 2020. Innovations and Challenges from Applied Linguistics in the Global South. New York and London: Routledge. Prinsloo, M. 2021. Seeing like a state: literacy and language standards in schools. Linguistics and Education, 64. Prinsloo, M. & Krause, L. S. 2019. Translanguaging, place and complexity. Language and Education. 33(2), 159–​173. Rajapakse, Agra. 2022. A Language Ideology-​based Exploration of Ethnicity, Nationhood, and Power in Sri Lanka. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Arizona State University. Ran, A. 2000. Learning to read and write at home: the experience of Chinese families in Britain. In Multilingual Literacies: Reading and Writing Different Worlds. M. Martin-​Jones & K. Jones, Eds. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Reyes, I. 2006. Exploring connections between emergent biliteracy and bilingualism. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 6(3): 267–​292. Reyes, I. & Azuara, P. 2008. Emergent biliteracy in Young Mexican immigrant children. Reading Research Quarterly. 43(4): 374–​398. Reyhner, J. 2013. Confronting the wounds of colonialism through words. In Literacy as Translingual Practice: Between Communities and Classrooms. S. Canagarajah, Ed. New York: Taylor & Francis. https://​doi.org/​10.4324/​978020​3120​293. Rubenstein-​Avila, E. 2007. From the Dominican Republic to Drew High: what counts as literacy for Yanira Lara? Reading Research Quarterly. 42(4): 568–​589. Sánchez, P. 2007. Cultural authenticity and transnational Latina youth: constructing a meta-​narrative across borders. Linguistics and Education. 18(3–​4): 258–​282. Schieffelin, B. & Gilmore, P. 1986. The Acquisition of Literacy: Ethnographic Perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Scribner, S. & Cole, M. 1981. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Seltzer, K. & Collins, B. with Angeles, K.M. 2016. Navigating turbulent waters: translanguaging to support academic and socioemotional well-​being. In Translanguaging with Multilingual Students: Learning from Classroom Moments. O. García & T. Kleyn, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. https://​doi.org/​ 10.4324/​978131​5695​242. Seltzer, K. & de los Ríos, C. 2021. Understanding Translanguaging in American Literacy Classrooms Reframing Bi-​/​Multilingualism as the Norm. National Council of Teachers of English. Street, B. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. 1995. Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education. London & New York: Routledge. https://​doi.org/​10.4324/​978131​5844​282. Street, B. 2000. Literacy events and literacy practices: theory and practice in the New Literacy Studies. In Multilingual Literacies. M. Martin-​Jones & K. Jones, Eds. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tupas, R. 2015. Inequalities of multilingualism: challenges to mother tongue-​based multilingual education,. Language and Education. 29(2): 112–​124. DOI: 10.1080/​09500782.2014.977295. Valdés, G. 2004. Between support and marginalization: the development of academic language in linguistic minority children. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 7(2–​3): 102–​130. Valdez, V. & Park, K. 2021. Translanguaging as culturally sustaining pedagogy: transforming traditional practices in an ESOL classroom for older adults from refugee backgrounds. In Refugee Education across the Lifespan: Mapping Experiences of Language Learning and Use. D.S. Warriner, Ed. Springer. 327–​345. Warriner, D.S. 2004. Multiple literacies and identities: the experiences of two women refugees. Women’s Studies Quarterly. 32(1–​2): 179–​195. Warriner, D.S. 2007. Introduction: transnational literacies: immigration, language learning and identity. Linguistics and Education. 18(3–​4): 201–​214. Warriner, D.S. 2009. Transnational literacies: examining global flows through the lens of social practice. In The Future of Literacy Studies. M. Baynham & M. Prinsloo, Eds. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 160–​180.

173

Doris S. Warriner, Anjanette Griego and Agra Rajapakse Watson, M. 2021. Engaging (the politics of) language difference in the writing classroom: a multipronged translingual approach. In Plurilingual Pedagogies for Multilingual Writing Classrooms. New York & London: Routledge. 58–​74. Yi, Y. 2009. Adolescent literacy and identity construction among 1.5 generation students: from a transnational perspective. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication. 19(1): 100–​129.

174

12 DIGITAL MULTILINGUALISM Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana

Introduction The focus of this chapter is on multilingualism as an important facet of contemporary digital media practices. In many wealthy societies of the Global North, digital communication technologies and practices have largely become ubiquitous and commonplace. In these societies, often involving various communication media, these technologies are integral to people’s everyday lives, education, work and leisure time. Digital communication and interaction are part of the everyday fabric of sociality, to the extent that people’s lives are techno-​social in nature (Chayko, 2021). However, the availability of digital technologies and devices, as well as access to digital communication are not self-​evident everywhere in the world. According to recent surveys (e.g. GSMA, 2021), the global digital divide is still very much in existence, and it is particularly acute for women: in 32 countries of the Global South, compared to almost half of men, only a third of women were connected to the internet. The development of technologies and their accessibility also continue to be accompanied by monolingual ideologies, and, for many people accessing digital communication involves a language shift to a more powerful language (Gibson, 2015). In addition, although social media allow in principle anyone to have an online voice, these voices are often discursively diminished (Phyak, 2015), and there is little protection for linguistic minorities (Vessey, 2016). However, there are signs of change. The dominance of widely spoken languages, particularly of English, is gradually decreasing as the developers themselves are becoming more linguistically diversified (Kelly-​Holmes, 2019). Even when access to digital communication is limited or regulated, digital communication can have an important role in people’s lives and they can use it to connect and interact with each other (McCaffrey & Taha, 2019). It can also be enriched by local and global languages, images, emoticons, and narratives beyond people’s linguistic, socio-​ economic, cultural and local territories. These can be mobilized and recontextualized in creative ways by digital actors to index their individual and collective locatedness in global spaces. Online, they may also share their opinions about language, politics, religion, nation, or gender which they may not be able to do in offline spaces. The affordances provided by digital platforms and the fluidity and availability of possible linguistic and semiotic resources can even contribute to the lowering or breaking of the boundaries between the Global South and Global North, giving people much-​desired freedom and agency.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-14

175

Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana

Importantly, digital multilingualism also involves reflexive and critical identity work and is always embedded in societal and political struggles and debates, straddling the boundaries between online and offline. By recontextualizing and localizing the digitally circulating linguistic and multimodal resources for their communicative purposes, digital actors can (re)negotiate their identifications and positionality and help them to come to terms with the marginalization and oppression they experience in their lives as entangled with the nation, race, ethnicity, gender and class, for example. However, local and global linguistic and multimodal resources can also be mobilized to communicate and circulate styles and discourses of hate, xenophobia, monolingualism and monoculturalism, for example. Digital multilingualism can thus serve as a powerful means for the reproduction of violence, intolerance and injustice. In this chapter, we argue that to understand and explain the varied functions, meanings and effects of digital multilingualism, its study requires multi-​layered and nuanced analyses of the diverse linguistic, multi-​modal and cultural resources drawn on and taken up in digital practices, as well as of their social, cultural, historical, political and ideological associations. The chapter begins by defining digital multilingualism, paying attention to two influential approaches: those that see it as linguistic heterogeneity, and those that view it as multilingual practices. This is followed by a discussion of some key issues in the study of digital multilingualism –​ we will address the implications of digital multilingualism to identity work, normativity, moral panics and hate discourses, nationalist discourses, and its implications in terms of language learning and teaching. The chapter will end with a brief discussion of some future challenges for work in the study of digital multilingualism.

Defining digital multilingualism We use the term digital multilingualism here as an umbrella term to refer to the mobilization of multilingual resources in digital practices involving the creation, sharing and exchange of user-​ generated content and some form of social interaction between participants. Digital multilingualism is here seen as a continuum (Cutler & Røyneland, 2018), encompassing, at one end, a multilingual repertoire that makes it possible for people to engage in varied local and translocal digital activities and interactions, and at the other end, more or less limited sets of linguistically heterogeneous resources that can ultimately include mere snippets generally associated with named languages or varieties other than the main language (or variety) of a communicative event (Blommaert et al., 2005). Digital multilingualism can be an extension of digital actors’ multilingual lives outside the digital contexts, or their multilingual activities and interactions can be limited to digital spheres only (Leppänen & Peuronen, 2012). Importantly, multilingualism is part of the overall semiotic resources that digital communicators mobilize in their communication and interaction. For example, in mobile chat participants can make use of a broad, linguistic, textual and visual semiotic repertoire that allows them to flexibly and economically interact with each other (Tagg & Lyons, 2021). In many respects, digital multilingualism is not different in nature from many non-​digital types of multilingualism. In chat, for example, how participants utilize multilingual resources can resemble a face-​to-​face conversation. Via the use of a linguistically heterogeneous style, they can negotiate their alignment with, for example, their interactional partners, topics addressed, or aspects of the setting and situation (see e.g. Georgakopoulou, 2017). In other, more text-​based and monologic digital activities and genres, in turn, participants’ multilingual language uses can be similar to such genres as poetry (e.g. mediaeval macaronic poetry, Demo, 2021), fiction (Rossich, 2018), letter writing (Nurmi & Pahta, 2012) or performance arts (Bleichenbacher, 2008). What 176

Digital Multilingualism

makes digital multilingualism different from many of these other multilingual discourse practices is, however, its scale, extent and ordinariness –​for many, multilingualism is normal in their online communication. Despite recent criticisms of multilingualism as a concept –​most significantly, of how it implies a view of languages as named and nameable entities that do not resonate with how multilinguals experience and mobilize their language resources (Makoni & Pennycook, 2006), it remains a useful concept for our purposes. This is because it serves as a means for highlighting theorizations of and approaches to the burgeoning field of digital multilingualism that draw on a range of concepts with different ideological underpinnings, disciplinary allegiances and sociopolitical orientations. The study of digital multilingualism has been taken to fall into two broad, partly overlapping areas (Lee, 2016). Firstly, some approaches are mainly interested in screen-​based language uses. In these studies, their foci have ranged from the linguistic forms and their functions (as in internet pragmatics, see e.g. Herring et al., 2013), to discourse as in digital (multi-​modal) discourse studies (e.g. Thurlow & Mrozek, 2011; Jones, Hafner & Chik, 2015, Jones & Hafner, 2021). Secondly, other studies approach digital multilingualism as practices. In these studies, in focus can be digital practices only –​i.e. cultural and/​or sociolinguistic actions and activities online –​or practices that span the digital and physical spheres (as in discourse-​centred ethnography and multi-​sited digital ethnographic studies, see Androutsopoulos & Stæhr, 2018).

Digital multilingualism: linguistic heterogeneity and translinguality Digital multilingualism can involve the use of a linguistically heterogeneous style in which language materials are mobilized, shifting between and juxtaposing them in strategic ways to convey meaning. One approach to linguistic heterogeneity online has been the study of digital code-​ switching. Despite recent critiques of code-​switching (see e.g. Makoni & Pennycook, 2006) and related concepts such as ‘mixed language’, ‘language mixing’, ‘mixed vernacular’, and ‘code mixing’ as problematic in how they build up on the idea of bounded, identifiable and reified linguistic (or semiotic) codes, they have continued to serve as analytic concepts in the study of digital communication and interaction (see e.g. chapters in Sebba et al., 2012, and Cutler & Røyneland, 2018). In research on digital code-​switching, switches to and from, and mixing of linguistic materials are seen to originate from languages oriented to by speakers/​writers as ‘different’. Switches or linguistically heterogeneous choices have been shown to serve as contextualization cues with which language users highlight and make relevant possibilities for the interpretation of discourse. Studies have shown how code-​switching functions as part of the situational networks of meaning with which digital actors foreground particular meanings and possibilities for interpretation. For example, code-​switching can serve as a resource for enhancing intimacy, closeness, alignment and group solidarity (Pérez-​Sabater, 2021), and as a rhetorical strategy to create contrasts between languages (Hinrichs, 2018). Another popular perspective on digital multilingualism highlighting linguistic heterogeneity that has long historical roots is heteroglossia. It addresses multilingualism not only as a linguistic phenomenon but also as an ideological one: heteroglossia does not simply refer to the simultaneous use of chunks of different languages or registers. Instead, it highlights how, during their history of use, linguistic signs have attracted social and historical associations from more than one context and value system (Bakhtin, 1981; Bailey, 2012). In the study of digital heteroglossia, researchers have utilized the concept to show how it positions digital actors and their addressee(s) within a history of language use, social stratification and ideological relationships (Leppänen, 177

Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana

2012; Androutsopoulos, 2013; Deumert, 2014c; Sultana, 2014; Tagg, 2016). For example, in her study on digital practices by Christian extreme sports enthusiasts, Peuronen (2013) showed how their online language uses are deeply heteroglossic in how they evoke situational identities and social voices that index both their faith and their engagement in Anglo-​American youth culture. While heteroglossia focuses on voices and varied intentions and meanings conveyed in multilingual features, the related notion of transglossia draws attention to the mixing and meshing of multilingual features along with other modes, genres, and stylization in transglossic practices. The main premise of the transglossic framework is that an analysis of multilingual features only, as associated with specific references to languages, may not unravel the complex meaning-​making processes of transglossic practices (Sultana et al., 2015; Sultana, 2015). In its analysis, specific attention is paid to the contextual (physical location), pretextual (historical trajectories of multilingual and other semiotic resources), subtextual (ideologies mobilized by the multilingual and other semiotic resources), and intertextual references (meanings that occur across multilingual and other semiotic resources). Transglossia also underlines the importance of people’s life trajectories and the way these bring varied meanings to multilingual and other semiotic features. Hence, also post-​ textual reference is seen as an important force shaping communication. Transglossic analysis can be illustrated with the following comment (see Figure 12.1) from a Facebook page of a Bangladesh-​based research participant, Katrina. She shared a photo on Facebook, and it was immediately commented on by her friend who noted that her top is too short.

Figure 12.1 Digital multilingual practice as transglossia

178

Digital Multilingualism

SK

Astaqfirullah Nauzubillah nabe daaku pilij

Astaqfirullah (‘I ask Allah’s forgiveness’) Nauzubillah (‘We seek refuge in Allah’), PLEASE, show your bellybutton.

In this comment, a friend seemed to take up the voice of a Muslim religious preacher with two specific Arabic words such as ‘astagfirullah’ (‘I ask Allah forgiveness’) and ‘nauzubillah’ (‘We seek refuge in Allah’). They are a pretextual reference to the prevalent societal religious discourses: these two words are generally used by Muslim religious preachers to express their disapproval of the non-​Islamic lifestyle. The Arabic words subtextually also refer to the Islamic religious practice that does not allow exposure of women’s bodies in public spaces and to strangers. In addition, it intertextually refers to the religious scripture that strongly prescribes modest dressing for Muslim women. The stylized English (‘pilij’/​‘please’) and Bangla (‘nabe daaku’/​ ‘nabhee dekhao’) seem to indicate light-​hearted buffoonery. The mocking voice of SK and the contradictory request to Katrina to show the belly button with a stylized ‘pilij’(‘please’) seems to be SK’s way of ‘double-​voicing’ and distancing from the discourses about the Islamic modest norms of women’s dressing (cf. Sultana, 2022c). Thus, multilingual resources were enriched with newer meanings, as interlocutors used them for varied purposes and functions.

Digital multilingualism as practices For many, digital spaces have become a linguistic contact zone in which multilingual resources and repertoires from local and global contexts can turn out to be crucial capital for communication, making possible new forms of interaction and voices. In general, the creativity, hybridity and fluidity that are often typical of informal multilingual practices online constitute themselves a challenge to monolingual biases and ideologies in societies and societal institutions –​especially in the education system –​by fostering ‘translingual dispositions’ (Tupas, 2021) against, for example, linguistic inequality. Studies of digital multilingualism that have approached language use in the digital contact zone as practices typically view them as “ ‘assemblages’ of actions involving tools associated with digital technologies which have come to be recognized by specific groups as ways of attaining particular social goals, enacting specific social identities, and reproducing certain sets of social relationships” (Jones, Hafner & Chik, 2015: 3) that are simultaneously rooted in and voicing the local, as well as responding to and engaging with the global (Androutsopoulos, 2013). For example, in many social media practices engaging with popular culture as a globally shared frame of reference, such a translocal orientation is evident (Kytölä, 2016; Sultana & Dovchin, 2017). In such activities and interactions it is often crucial that the mobilization of multilingual resources serves as a way of authenticating (trans)cultural identities and connectedness online (Jonsson & Muhonen, 2014; Kytölä & Westinen, 2015). At the same time, approaching digital multilingualism as practices draws attention to how the online and offline are closely related: digital multilingual uses are related to the local, socio-​cultural meanings given to particular linguistic resources and their relation to wider cultural models, and this cannot be fully captured without attention to the ethnographic context and the sociolinguistic economy in which they are situated (Staehr & Madsen, 2015; Dovchin, Pennycook & Sultana, 2018). For example, in an ethnographic study of a transnational youth’s literacy development and identity work, Kim (2018) showed how in her digital activities a young woman used a broad semiotic repertoire to gradually increase her communication affordances across contexts, including the classroom, transnational family and multilingual youth community.

179

Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana

Key questions and critical issues In this section, we will briefly discuss key questions and issues related to digital multilingualism. More specifically, we will look at the implications that digital multilingualism has for identity, normativity, moral panics and hate discourses, discourses of nationalism, monolingualism and monoculturalism, resistance, and language learning and teaching.

Digital multilingualism and identity An important theme in research on digital multilingualism has been its role in the construction and performance of identity online. Digital language practices extend and complicate the semiotic resources available to people for their performance of identities and social relationships (Androutsopoulos & Juffermans, 2014). The contexts of interaction where identities are played out are no longer seen in terms of a binary contrast between “online or offline, text-​based or embodied, playful or authentic” (Page, 2016: 403). In digital practices, identity is generally seen as an achievement constructed or performed via the mobilization of linguistic and other semiotic resources. It is seen as a mix of individual, social and political factors which serve to construct people as belonging to or excluded from a social group. Semiotic choices made in digital activities and interactions are seen as indexical, i.e. as symbolically indicating (dis)identification with particular social categories, social and cultural groups, styles, registers and genres, and as tied with an understanding of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class, racialization, age, for example (Newon, 2016). At the centre of analyses have been the ways in which semiotic resources are mobilized, taken up in styling and stylizing, contesting and challenging facets and intersections of their and others’ identities and their perceived or desired social positioning (e.g. Seargeant & Tagg, 2014; Lee, 2014; Georgakopolou, 2017; Leppänen & Tapionkaski, 2021; Androutsopoulos & Lexander, 2021). In research on digital multilingualism, creative and playful identity constructions and performances, in particular, have received a great deal of attention (e.g. Deumert, 2014b; Androutsopoulos, 2015; chapters in Leppänen, Westinen & Kytölä, 2017 and in Cutler & Røyneland, 2018). Playful language mixing, humour, parody and satire, often involving metalinguistic commentary, have been found particularly fruitful resources in exploring participant stances to and identities with particular languages, varieties and registers and groups associated with them (e.g. Higgins, Furukawa & Lee, 2017). While such discourse practices have been shown to draw on, in part, long-​standing discourses of otherness, they also have transformative and emancipatory power, demonstrating that digital multilingualism has a potential for positive change, appreciation of difference and diversity and conviviality (Deumert, 2014a, b; Leppänen & Elo, 2016; Anderson & Macleroy, 2017).

Norms and policies regulating and enabling digital multilingualism The seemingly boundless opportunities that digital social media afford to people for self-​ expression and creativity have often been interpreted as if these spaces are completely unregulated. However, as with any human communication, digital multilingual communication is also governed by norms: who gets to use which communicative resources with whom, in what kinds of linguistic resources and when is, thus, a crucial issue in digital environments. The organization of normativity online has been argued to be polycentric (Arnaut, 2016), with a range of ritual centres of authority that warrant and licence language use and determine how norms of behaviour are

180

Digital Multilingualism

informed by specific voices, genres, and registers (Silverstein, 1998). In digital communication, centres of authority can take various forms: situation-​or site-​specific preferences or expectations, for example, but they can also involve more general, institutional, cultural and social norms and conventions that participants need to orient to in their communication-​for acceptability, efficacy, appropriacy or correctness. Normativity is reflexive action, and it involves ways of evaluating, judging and policing the semiotic conduct of oneself and others. Thus, normativity is always partly “imposed from below –​ by oneself or one’s peers” (Varis & Wang, 2011; Leppänen et al., 2015), in acts of micro-​level language policing which can both reflect and thereby consolidate situated and pre-​existing norms for behaviour, but also contribute to the emergence, (re)shaping and (re)contextualization of new norms. This is the case, for example, of online multilingual interactions in which participants co-​ construct a particular situated norm of multilingual behaviour (Staehr, 2017; Røyneland, 2018). Normativity in social media also involves very explicit forms of regulation that constrain the options and opportunities of participants when they express themselves and interact with others. These include, for example, formalized codes of conduct, such as netiquettes, as well as explicit and institutionalized forms of policing, such as moderation and censorship, as well as more general policies regulating online multilingualism (Kelly-​Holmes, 2012). Importantly, digital platforms, when they promote multilingualism and a translingual disposition, can contribute to the vitalization of endangered, marginalized or minority languages (Outakoski et al., 2018). However, institutional and governmental policies can also remain implicit. Therefore, it is important to identify factors constraining multilingual digital discourse –​when, where, by whom, in what kinds of technological, social, cultural and generic contexts and for what purposes monolingualism or multilingualism is observable in the digital spaces. For example, in Bangladesh digital multilingualism is not explicitly regulated by policy. Even though the government promotes the use of Bangla, the national language, in every domain of life except education, in informal Bangladeshi digital spaces people use a variety of features from other languages as well, such as English, Hindi and Urdu. According to popular discourses, such language uses are generally seen as a corruption of Bangla. Despite the Digital-​Security Act 2018 by the government that served as an enactment of the mono-​political authoritarian biases and ideologies of the political elite and that caused insecurities and anxieties amongst Bangladeshis (Sultana, 2019), digital media users continue to manipulate multilingual and other semiotic resources to satirize the nonchalance of the political parties, unhealthy political competitions, political patronages, undemocratic practices and the ludicrousness of Bangladeshi politics. Their digital multilingualism has thus served as a weapon to challenge governmental and institutional policies and practices (Dovchin, Pennycook & Sultana, 2018).

Digital multilingualism moral panics and hate discourses Since the early days of the internet, digital language uses have given rise to moral panics in both popular and scholarly discourses (Thurlow, 2006). Often, these have been aimed at young people’s multilingual and multimodal practices, but also those by marginalized social groups and ethnic, racialized, gendered and sexual minorities have been targeted. Attacks against and disparagement of multilingual and linguistically heterogeneous language uses have served as means for othering, racism, xenophobia, misogyny and homophobia (Koven & Simões Marques, 2015; Chun, 2016; Archakis et al., 2018; David et al., 2019). While such discourses of hate often spring from positions of hegemonic monolingualism, there are also examples of hate discourses by multilingual digital actors. For example, during the 181

Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana

COVID-​19 outbreak in Wuhan and the ensuing lockdowns, multilingual Sinophobia surfaced on Twitter and 4Chan’s Politically Incorrect Board. Social media users in different countries coined and disseminated multilingual Sinophobic slurs, and their number seemed to increase when Donald Trump referred to COVID-​19 as the Chinese Virus (Tahmasbi et al., 2021; Zhu, 2020). For example, China was termed bugland and chinkland, and the Chinese as chinks, chankoro, chinazi, gooks, insectoids, bugmen, chingchong, ricen***ers and chin***ers. Multilingualism can thus add new dynamics to hate discourses, spreading panic, anxiety, and insecurity, and promulgating violence, intolerance and injustice.

Digital multilingualism at the service of -​isms Digital multilingualism plays a role in discourses and debates related to the nation, nationalism and national culture (e.g. KhosraviNik & Zia, 2014; Kytölä, 2017; Zhu, 2020; Selvi, 2022). For example, it can have important functions for digital actors and their transcultural identities, communality, connectedness and nation-​building. Nevertheless, it can also be mobilized for reinventing and sustaining monolingualism, mono-​culturalism, mono-​religionism, mono-​ nationalism, and mono-​politicism (Lee & Chau, 2018; Tankosić & Dovchin, 2021). It can reproduce problematic values and ideologies associated with the nation, territorialization, the national language and national symbols. For example, in Bangladesh where social media users often operate multilingually, they accentuate their multilingual choices by changing their orthographic patterns, and by combining and meshing multilingual features to create new words. On the one hand, they can use these resources to perform different facets of identities and for minimizing the marginalization that they experience in day-​to-​day life related to their geographical location, gender, educational backgroundor socio-​economic status. On the other hand, they can use these resources as attributes of hyper-​nationalism, hypermasculinity or hyper religionism. This is because they can be used to instigate verbal abuse and violence against people representing other nations, ethnicities, religions or gender. Hence, multilingual practices that in some digital contexts can serve as hybrid and creative means for self-​styling or empowerment may in another context sustain new sets of ideologies and values, discriminating against people (Sultana, 2019, 2022a, 2022b).

Digital multilingualism and resistance Digital hate discourses targeting multilinguals and speakers of ‘other’ languages have also stimulated counter-​discourses, i.e. resistant responses that take issue with hateful, harmful or extremist content online (Leppänen & Westinen, 2022). Although the mechanics and outcomes of such resistant practices may not always testify to the emancipatory potential of this kind of resistance (Lee, 2016), they are important for a number of reasons. Having an explicitly multilingual presence online may serve as an act of resistance for marginalized and minority groups (Dlaske, 2017; Brown & Deumert, 2017; Sultana, 2018). For example, Lou Sarabadzic (2021), a bilingual author, self-​translator and performer, created a hybrid digital persona in both French and English, aiming to challenge the power dynamics prevalent both online and offline. Digital resistance can also involve deliberate political activism, people standing for their linguistic rights and their multilingual language uses as legitimate means to discursively construct their sense of self (Dovchin & Lee, 2019). For instance, a study of Muslim sportswomen on social media showed how they challenged the dominant stereotyped representations of Muslim women by engaging in the political

182

Digital Multilingualism

use of hashtags, by being more visible daily on social media, and by sharing empowering images and narratives with their online communities (Ahmad & Thorpe, 2020).

Digital multilingualism, and language learning and teaching In formal language education, the value of the kind of complex multilingualism that often characterizes informal and interest-​based digital interactions has gradually gained more recognition. Digital practices are beginning to be seen as dynamic, co-​constructed, relevant, high stakes and impactful, and therefore essential for any learner’s multilingual repertoire (Sykes, 2019). In recent approaches to language learning and teaching that highlight multilingualism as practical languaging (Reinhardt & Thorne, 2019), a key tenet has been to see it as transformative action (Li, 2018) in which language users employ, create and interpret different kinds of signs to communicate across contexts and interlocutors and to perform their different subjectivities. It is argued to involve the mobilization of symbolic competence, based on which communicators can create, interpret, and reframe signs according to their symbolic value in multilingual, semiotically and ideologically multi-​layered and complex contexts where symbolic power is contested and fought over (Kramsch, 2020: 473). In Claire Kramsch’s (2020) words, the main objective in language education should no longer be conceived as the mastery of the standard national languages to be used within homogenous national cultures, or of English as the language for neo-​colonialist international communication. Instead, language learners should be seen as “denizens” who are learning for a global multilingual ecology in which they are primarily “answerable to the wellbeing of others, present and future, and in which their agency is circumscribed by forces beyond their control and even beyond their individual intention” (Kramsch, 2020: 463). According to Kramsch (2020: 471), language learners need (to be helped) to develop the ability to find their subject position “in multilingual, changing and conflictual situations” on-​and offline. Importantly, from such a perspective, multilingualism is seen broadly, encompassing not only interlinguistic but also intralinguistic –​ register, style, varieties, intersemiotic –​ and interdiscursive dimensions (Baynham & Tong, 2019), as well as capacities for linguistic and textual recontextualization and cross-​mode and -​modality resemiotization (Leppänen et al., 2014). In principle, the development of such capacities highlights the importance of critical ethnographic and analytic resources that can empower students to interpret and respond to linguistically and discursively complex communication (Kramsch, 2020). Such a pedagogical orientation is illustrated by, for example, the teaching of multilingual digital storytelling that aims at nurturing and reflecting on multiliteracies in practice to help minority and marginalized students to represent themselves, to engage with otherness (Anderson et al., 2018) and to facilitate their engagement with classroom learning in ways that challenge the deficit perspectives of these students (Karam, 2018).

Future directions The previous section has already highlighted many topics that need to stay on the agenda of future studies, particularly due to their connections to social justice. For example, in the currently radically and violently polarizing political climate in the world, it continues to be an important task to study the role of digital multilingualism in institutionalized and informal mis-​and disinformation campaigns and practices. Styles and discourses of hate, discrimination and disparagement

183

Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana

conveying populist, racist, xenophobic and propagandist messages circulate effectively on digital networks. An understanding of how these styles and discourses go viral and get taken up, relocalized and resignified in different local contexts in the world is important, not the least for raising critical awareness of and contesting these processes and the false and propagandist information they convey (e.g. Bracciale et al., 2021). As digital technologies continue to develop and their role in people’s lives keeps changing, they also give rise to new topical phenomena related to multilingualism. One of these is the language/​ s in which smart technologies talk to us, and how we communicate with them (see e.g. Herring, 2016). Many applications and bots already serve customers in their local languages. One question to explore in further studies on digital multilingualism is thus how humans communicate with linguistically (and interactionally) limited technologies such as bots, robots and smart appliances, and what outcomes and effects they have on digital multilingualism and multilinguals. A related issue is the role of algorithms in digital multilingualism. Which languages are present and have the potential to be used online is not only dependent on people’s choices to use them, but also on algorithms (Kelly-​Holmes, 2019). As suggested by Maly (2020), both people and algorithms have agency online, and it is in their interaction that the contemporary production and circulation of ideology needs to be understood. In the commercial algorithmically programmed attention economy, popularity, for example, has become a crucial factor: the more followers and likes you have, the more valuable you are for the platforms, and the more visible you and your discourse become (Maly, 2021). The implications this has for digital multilingualism have not yet been examined in detail, but it could be hypothesized at least that the visibility of content in particular languages may very well be strongly affected by algorithms, in ways that yield more visibility, and hence, impact, to content and discourses in widely used languages. Digitality has also highlighted the importance of translation as multilingual practice (see e.g. O’Hagan & Ashworth, 2002; Baynham & Tong, 2019). Thanks to the availability of translation programmes, the provision of information on local services and commodities, as well as digital activities and interactions in languages that are not widely spoken can become more available. The end products of such translations may not always be grammatical or clear, but they are now changing the parameters of multilingual communication online. For example, it has been shown how machine translation can serve as an empowering multimodal tool for EAL learners, enabling them to flexibly, critically and pragmatically incorporate translations within their semiotic repertoires (Kelly & Hou, 2021). However, the help machine translation offers may also turn out to be problematic in terms of the ideological meanings its outputs convey to the recipients. For instance, Angermeyer (2017) demonstrated how machine-​translated signage aimed at Roma migrants in Toronto was interpreted by the Roma as indexing racial stereotypes and an unwillingness by the authorities to engage in face-​to-​face interaction. Yet another issue related to digital multilingualism that deserves more study is horizontal surveillance practices (Gangneux, 2021) targeting language uses, or forms of lateral language policing (Blommaert et al., 2009; de Bres, 2015) in the context of everyday digital practices (Jones, 2020). As an aspect of neoliberal practices of looking (Lyon, 2018), social media have radically extended what counts as surveillance and policing, and amplified opportunities for both their mutual and participatory, explicit and implicit forms (Albrechtslund, 2013). There already is a considerable body of work that discusses ways in which specific languages and their speakers are subjected to critical scrutiny, moderation and modification, such surveillance often taking the form of metapragmatic commentary or impositions of linguistic purism (Karimzad & Sibgatullina, 2018), verbal attacks and forms of ridicule (e.g. Yamaguchi, 2013; Da Silva, 2015). Considerably less work, in contrast, exists on how the lack of moderation of algorithmic content across diverse cultural and linguistic 184

Digital Multilingualism

contexts can cause “algorithmic harms” to users engaging with platforms in a myriad of languages and diverse socio-​cultural and political environments (but see Chonka et al., 2022).

Conclusion In this chapter, we have discussed digital multilingualism –​ linguistic heterogeneity and multilingual practices –​ as a complex, but still unevenly accessible, languagized reality (Jaspers & Madsen, 2016) involving creative and fluid uses of heterogeneous linguistic resources to connect with others locally and globally, and reflexive and critical identity work and activism, as well as discourses of hate and disparagement. Importantly, digital multilingualism is always embedded in societal and political debates and struggles, also straddling the boundaries between online and offline. To learn, understand, mobilize and contest the resources, meanings and subjectivities afforded by this complex languagized reality, we argued, we need multi-​layered and nuanced ethnographic, linguistic and multimodal analyses reflexively and critically voicing how multilingual resources can be taken up and made meaningful locally and globally.

Related topics Chapter 11 Multilingual literacies; Chapter 23 Media as sites of multilingualism.

Further reading Cutler, C. & Røyneland, U. Eds. 2018. Multilingual Youth Practice in Computer Mediated Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, C. 2016. Multilingualism Online. London & New York: Routledge.

References Ahmad, N. & Thorpe, H. 2020. Muslim sportswomen as digital space invaders: hashtag politics and everyday visibilities. Communication & Sport. 8(4–​5): 668–​691. Albrechtslund, A. 2013. New media and changing perceptions of surveillance. In A Companion to New Media Dynamic. J. Hartley, J. Burgess & A. Bruns, Eds. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. 311–​321. Anderson, J. & Macleroy, V. 2017. Connecting worlds: interculturality, identity and multilingual digital stories in the making. Language and Intercultural Communication. 17(4): 494–​517. Anderson, J., Chung, Y. & Macleroy, V. 2018. Creative and critical approaches to language learning and digital technology: findings from a multilingual digital storytelling project. Language and Education. 323: 195–​211. Androutsopoulos, J. 2013. Code-​switching in computer-​mediated communication. In Pragmatics of Computer-​ mediated Communication. S. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen, Eds. Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. 659–​686. Androutsopoulos, J. 2015. Networked multilingualism: some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 19(2): 185–​ 205. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13670​0691​3489​198. Androutsopoulos, J. & Juffermans, K. 2014. Digital language practices in superdiversity: introduction. Discourse, Context and Media. (3):1–​6. Androutsopoulos, J. & Lexander, K.V. 2021. Digital polycentricity and diasporic connectivity: a Norwegian-​ Senegalese case study. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 25: 720–​736. Androutsopoulos, J. & Staehr, A. 2018. Moving methods online: researching digital language practices. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity. A. Creese & A. Blackledge, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 118–​132. Angermeyer, P. 2017. Controlling Roma refugees with ‘Google-​Hungarian’: indexing deviance, contempt, and belonging in Toronto’s linguistic landscape. Language in Society. 46(2):159–​183.

185

Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana Archakis, A., Lampropoulou, S. & Tsakona, V. 2018. “I’m not racist but I expect linguistic assimilation”: the concealing power of humor in an anti-​racist campaign. Discourse, Context & Media. 23: 53–​61. Arnaut, K. 2016. Superdiversity: elements of an emerging perspective. In Language and Superdiversity. K. Arnaut, J. Blommaert, B. Rampton & M. Spotti, Eds. New York: Routledge. 49–​70. Bailey, B. 2012. Heteroglossia. In Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. London: Routledge. 499–​507. Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Baynham, M. & Tong King L. 2019. Translation and Translanguaging. London & New York: Routledge. Bleichenbacher, L. 2008. Multilingualism in the Movies: Hollywood Characters and their Language Choices. Tübingen, Germany: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag Gmbh Co. KG & Schweizerc Anglistische Arbeiten. Blommaert, J., Collins, J. & Slembrouck, S. 2005. Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication. 25(3): 197–​216. Blommaert, J., Kelly-​Holmes, H., Lane, P., Leppänen, S., Moriarty, M., Pietikäinen, S. & Piirainen-​ Marsh, A. 2009. Media, multilingualism and language policing: an introduction. Language Policy. 8(3):203–​207. Bracciale, R., Andretta, M. & Martella, A. 2021. Does populism go viral? How Italian leaders engage citizens through social media. Information, Communication & Society. 24(10): 1477–​1494. Brown, J. & Deumert, A. 2017. ‘My tribe is the Hessequa. I’m Khoisan. I’m African’: language, desire and performance among Cape Town’s Khoisan language activists. Multilingua. 36(5): 571–​594. Chayko, M. 2021. Superconnected: The Internet, Digital Media and Techno-​Social Life. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. Chonka P., Diepeveen S. & Haile Y. 2022. Algorithmic power and African indigenous languages: search engine autocomplete and the global multilingual Internet. Media, Culture & Society. DOI: org/​10.1177/​ 01634437221104705. Chun, E.W. 2016. The meaning of Ching-​Chong: language, racism, and response in new media. In Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes our Ideas About Race. H.S. Alim, J. Rickford & A.F. Ball, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 81–​96. Cutler, C. & Røyneland, U. 2018. Multilingualism in the digital sphere: the diverse practices of youth online. In Multilingual Youth Practices in Computer Mediated Communication. C. Cutler & U. Røyneland, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3–​26. Da Silva, E. 2015. Humor (re)positioning ethnolinguistic ideologies: “You tink is funny?”. Language in Society. 44: 187–​212. David, N., Nkemakolam, U.D. & Ngozi, O.A. 2019. A computer-​mediated discourse analysis of selected Twitter threads and their replies on the 2019 South-​African xenophobic attacks on Nigerians. NTAtvc Journal of Communication. 3(2): 68–​79. De Bres, J. 2015. Introduction: language policies on social network sites. Language Policy. 14(4): 309–​314. Demo, Š. 2021. Artificial fusion: the curious case of Macaronic Latin. International Journal of Bilingualism. 25(2):369–​383. Deumert, A. 2014a. Sociolinguistics and Mobile Communication. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Deumert, A. 2014b. Sites of struggle and possibility in cyberspace. Wikipedia and Facebook in Africa. In Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change. J. Androutsopoulos, Ed. Berlin: de Gruyter: 36–​48. Deumert, A. 2014c. The performance of a ludic self on social network(ing) sites. In Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. P. Seargeant & C. Tagg, Eds. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 23–​45. Dlaske, K. 2017. Music video covers, minoritised languages, and affective investments in the space of YouTube. Language in Society. 46(4): 451–​475. Dovchin, S. & Lee, J.W. 2019. Introduction to special issue: the ordinariness of translinguistics. International Journal of Multilingualism. 16(2): 105–​111. Dovchin, S., Pennycook, A. & Sultana, S. 2018. A Popular Culture, Voice and Linguistic Diversity: Young Adults On-​and Offline. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gangneux, J. 2021. ‘It is an attitude’: the normalisation of social screening via profile checking on social media. Information, Communication & Society. 24(7): 994–​1008.

186

Digital Multilingualism Georgakopoulou, A. 2017. ‘Friendly’ comments: interactional displays of alignment on Facebook and YouTube. In Social Media Discourse, (Dis)identifications and Diversities. S. Leppänen, E. Westinen & S. Kytölä, Eds. New York: Routledge. 178–​207. Gibson, M. 2015. A framework for measuring the presence of minority languages in cyberspace. In Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Cyberspace. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference held in Yakutsk, Russian Federation from 30 June–​3 July 2014. 61–​70. GSMA. 2021. The mobile gender gap. 2021. www.gsma.com/​r/​gen​der-​gap/​. Herring, S.C. 2016. Robot-​mediated communication. In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. R.A. Scott, M. Buchmann & S.M. Kosslyn, Eds. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 1–​16. Herring, S.C., Stein, D. & Virtanen, T. Eds. 2013. Pragmatics of Computer-​Mediated Communication, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Higgins, C., Furukawa, G. & Lee, H. 2017. Resemiotizing the metapragmatics of Konglish and Pidgin on YouTube. In Social Media Discourse, (Dis)identifications and Diversities. S. Leppänen, E. Westinen & S. Kytölä, Eds. London: Routledge. 319–​343. Hinrichs, L. 2018. The language of diasporic blogs: a framework for the study of rhetoricity in written online code switching. In Multilingual Youth Practices in Computer Mediated Communication. C. Cutler & U. Røyneland, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 186–​203. Jaspers, J. & Madsen, L.M. 2016. Sociolinguistics in a languagised world: introduction. Applied Linguistics Review. 7(3): 235–​258. Jones, R.H. 2020. Accounting for surveillance. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 24: 89–​95. Jones, R.H., Hafner, C.A. & Chik, A. 2015. Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age, London & New York: Routledge. Jones, R.H. & Hafner, C.A. 2021. Understanding Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction, London & New York: Routledge. Jonsson, C. & Muhonen, A. 2014. Multilingual repertoires and the relocalization of manga in digital media. Discourse, Context & Media. 4: 87–​100. Karam, F.J. 2018. Language and identity construction: the case of a refugee digital Bricoleur. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 61(5): 511–​521. Karimzad, F. & Sibgatullina, G. 2018. Replacing “Them” with “Us”: language ideologies and practices of “purification” on Facebook. International Multilingual Research Journal. 12(2): 124–​139. Kelly, R. & Hou, H. 2021. Empowering learners of English as an additional language: translanguaging with machine translation, Language and Education. DOI: 10.1080/​09500782.2021.1958834. Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2012. Multilingualism and the media. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. London: Routledge. 349–​362. Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2019. Multilingualism and technology: a review of developments in digital communication from monolingualism to idiolingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 39: 24–​39. KhosraviNik, M. & Zia, M. 2014. Persian nationalism, identity and anti-​Arab sentiments in Iranian Facebook discourses. Journal of Language & Politics. 13(4): 755–​780. Kim, S. 2018. “It was kind of a given that we were all multilingual”: transnational youth identity work in digital translanguaging. Linguistics and Education. 43: 39–​52. Koven, M. & Simões Marques, I. 2015. Performing and evaluating (non)modernities of Portuguese migrant figures on YouTube: the case of Antonio de Carglouch. Language in Society. 44(2): 213–​242. Kramsch, C. 2020. Educating the global citizen or the global consumer? Language Teaching. 53: 462–​476. Kytölä, S. 2016. Translocality. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 371–​388. Kytölä, S. 2017. “Are they singing the national anthem?” Football followers’ responses to the ethnic diversification of Finland men’s national football team. In Social Media Discourse, (Dis)identifications and Diversities. S. Leppänen, E. Westinen & S. Kytölä, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 62–​93. Kytölä, S. & Westinen, E. 2015. “I be da reel gansta”: a Finnish footballer’s Twitter writing and metapragmatic evaluations of authenticity. Discourse, Context & Media. 8: 6–​19. Lee, C. 2014. Language choice and self-​presentation in social media: the case of university students in Hong Kong. In Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. P. Seargeant & C. Tagg, Eds. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 91–​111. Lee, C. 2016. Multilingualism Online. London: Routledge.

187

Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana Lee, C. & Chau, D. 2018. Language as pride, love, and hate: archiving emotions through multilingual Instagram hashtags. Discourse, Context & Media. 22: 21–​29. Leppänen, S. 2012. Linguistic and discursive heteroglossia on the translocal internet: the case of web writing. In Language Mixing and Code-​switching in Writing: Approaches to Mixed-​language Written Discourse. M. Sebba, S. Mahootian, S. & C. Jonsson, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 233–​254. Leppänen, S. & Elo, A. 2016. Buffalaxing The Other: superdiversity in action on YouTube. In Language and Superdiversity. K. Arnaut, J. Blommaert, B. Rampton & M. Spotti, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 110–​130. Leppänen, S., Jousmäki, H., Kytölä, S., Peuronen, S. & Westinen, E. 2014. Entextualization and resemiotization as resources for identification in social media. In The Language of Social Media: Communication and Community on the Internet. P. Seargeant & C. Tagg, Eds. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 112–​138. Leppänen, S. & Peuronen, S. 2012. Multilingualism on the internet. In Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. London: Routledge. 384–​402. Leppänen, S., Spindler Møller J., Rørbeck Nørreby, T., Stæhr, A. & Kytölä, S. 2015. Authenticity, normativity and social media. Discourse, Context & Media. 8: 1–​5. Leppänen, S. & Tapionkaski, S. 2021. Doing gender and sexuality intersectionally in multimodal social media practices. In Routledge Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality. J. Angouri. & J. Baxter, Eds. London: Routledge. 543–​556. Leppänen, S., Westinen, E. & Kytölä, S. Eds. 2017. Social Media Discourse, (Dis-​)identifications and Diversities, Abingdon: Routledge. Leppänen, S. & Westinen, E. 2022. Sociolinguistic upsets and people of color in social media performances. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 275: 129–​151. Li, Wei. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics. 39(1): 9–​30. Lyon, D. 2018. The Culture of Surveillance: Watching as a Way of Life. Cambridge: Polity Press. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. Eds. 2006. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Maly, I. 2020. Ideology and algorithms. Ideology, Theory, Practice. www.ideol​ogy-​the​ory-​pract​ice.org/​blog/​ ideol​ogy-​and-​alg​orit​hms#_​ed​n24. McCaffrey, K.T. & Taha, M. 2019. Rethinking the digital divide: smartphones as translanguaging tools among Middle Eastern refugees in New Jersey. Annals of Anthropological Practice. 43(2): 26–​38. Newon, L. 2016. Online multiplayer games. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. A. Georgakopoulou & T. Splilioti, Eds. London: Routledge. 289–​304. Nurmi, A. & Pahta, P. 2012. Multilingual practices in women’s English correspondence 1400–​1800. In Language Mixing and Code-​Switching in Writing: Approaches to Mixed-​Language Written Discourse. M. Sebba, S. Mahootian & C. Jonsson, Eds. London: Routledge. 44–​67. O’Hagan, M. & Ashworth, D. 2002. Translation-Mediated Communication in a Digital World Facing the Challenges of Globalization and Localization. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Outakoski, H, Cocq, C. & Steggo, P. 2018. Strengthening Indigenous languages in the digital age: social media–​supported learning in Sápmi, Media International Australia. 169(1): 21–​31. Page, R. 2016. Moving between the big and the small: identity and interaction in digital contexts. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti, Eds. London: Routledge. 403–​411. Pérez-​Sabater, C. 2021. Moments of sharing, language style and resources for solidarity on social media: a comparative analysis. Journal of Pragmatics. 180: 266–​282. Peuronen, S. 2013. Heteroglossia as a resource for reflexive participation in a community of Christian snowboarders in Finland. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 17: 297–​323. Phyak, P. 2015. (En)Countering language ideologies: language policing in the ideospace of Facebook. Language Policy. 14(4): 377–​395. Reinhardt, J. & Thorne, S. 2019. Digital literacies as emergent multifarious repertoires. In Engaging Language Learners in CALL: From Theory and Research to Informed Practice. N. Arnold & L. Ducate, Eds. London: Equinox. 208–​239. Rossich, A. 2018. An overview of literary multilingualism. Comparative Critical Studies. 15(1): 47–​67. Røyneland, U. 2018. Virtually Norwegian: negotiating language and identity on YouTube. In Multilingual Youth Practices in Computer-​Mediated Communication. C. Cutler & U. Røyneland, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 145–​167.

188

Digital Multilingualism Sarabadzic, L. 2021. Née Lou Sarabadzic: translating digital identities, a bilingual experience. Hybrid: Revue des Arts et Médiations Humaines. (7):1–​17. Seargeant, P. & Tagg, C. 2014. Introduction: the language of social media. In Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. P. Seargeant & C. Tagg, Eds. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 1–​20. Sebba, M., Mahootian, S. & Jonsson, C. 2012. Eds. Language Mixing and Code-​Switching in Writing: Approaches to Mixed-​Language Written Discourse, London: Routledge. Selvi Fuad, A. 2022. Resisting English medium instruction through digital grassroots activism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 43(2): 81–​97. Silverstein, M. 1998. Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annual Review of Anthropology. 27: 401–​426. Stæhr, A. 2017. Languaging on the Facebook wall: normativity on Facebook. In Engaging Superdiversity: Recombining Spaces, Times and Language Practices. K. Arnaut, M. Sif Karrebæk, M., Spotti & J. Blommaert, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 170–​198. Stæhr, A. & Madsen, L.M. 2015. Standard language in urban rap: social media, linguistic practice and ethnographic context. Language & Communication. 40: 67–​81. Sultana, S. 2014. Heteroglossia and identities of young adults in Bangladesh. Linguistics and Education 26: 40–​56. Sultana, S. 2015. Transglossic language practices: young adults transgressing language and identity in Bangladesh. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts. 1(2): 68–​98. Sultana, S. 2018. Gender performativity in virtual space: transglossic language practices of young women in Bangladesh. In Language and Culture on the Margins: Global/​Local Interactions. Sjaak Kroon & Jos Swanenberg, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 69–​90. Sultana, S. 2019. Language crossing of young adults in Bangladesh. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 14(4): 352–​372. Sultana, S. 2022a. Digital translingual space in Bangladesh: space of creativity, criticality, or bigotry? In The Sociolinguistics of Global Asias. W.J. Lee, Ed. London & New York: Routledge. 124–​155. Sultana, S. 2022b. Translingual practices and national identity mediated in the semiotised digital spaces. Journal of Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. 45(2): 175–​197. Sultana, S. 2022c. Young professional Bangladeshi women with rebel bones: translingual practices and gender. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: 10.1080/​01434632.2022.2063298. Sultana, S. & Dovchin, S. 2017. Popular culture in transglossic language practices of young adults. International Multilingual Research Journal. 11(2): 67–​85. Sultana, S. 2019. Relocalization in digital language practices of university students in Asian peripheries: critical awareness in a language classroom. Linguistics and Education. 62: 100752, DOI: 10.1016/​ j.linged.2019.100752 Sultana, S., Dovchin, S. & Pennycook, A. 2015. Transglossic language practices of young adults in Bangladesh and Mongolia. International Journal of Multilingualism. 12(1): 93–​108. Sykes, J.M. 2019. Emergent digital discourses: what can we learn from hashtags and digital games to expand learners’ second language repertoire? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 39:128–​145. Tahmasbi, F., Schild, L., Ling, C., Blackburn, J., Stringhini, G., Zhang, Y. & Zannettou, S. 2021. “Go eat a bat, Chang!”: On the emergence of Sinophobic behavior on web communities in the face of COVID-​19. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 1122–​1133. Tagg. C. 2016. Heteroglossia in text-​messaging: performing identity and negotiating relationships in a digital space. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 20(1): 59–​85. Tagg. C. & Lyons, A. 2021. Repertoires on the move: exploiting technological affordances and contexts in mobile messaging interactions. International Journal of Multilingualism. 18(2): 244–​266. Tankosić, A. & Dovchin, S. 2021. The impact of social media in the sociolinguistic practices of the peripheral post-​socialist contexts. International Journal of Multilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/​14790718.2021.1917582. Thurlow, C. 2006. From statistical panic to moral panic: the metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer-​Mediated Communication. 11(3): 667–​701. Thurlow, C. & Mroczek, K. Eds. 2011. Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tupas, R. 2021. Fostering translingual dispositions against unequal Englishes. English in Education. 55(3): 222–​238.

189

Sirpa Leppänen and Shaila Sultana Varis, P. & Wang, X. 2011. Superdiversity on the Internet: a case from China. Diversities. 13(2): 71–​83. Vessey, R. 2016. Language ideologies in social media: the case of Pastagate. Journal of Language and Politics. 15(1): 1–​24. Yamaguchi, M. 2013. Reconsidering communicative competence in Web 2.0 environments: “Asians in the library” and four parodic responses on YouTube. Language & Communication. 33(4): 376–​389. Zhu, H. 2020. Countering COVID-​19-​related anti-​Chinese racism with translanguaged swearing on social media. Multilingua. 39(5): 607–​616.

190

PART III

Multilingualism and education

13 INDIGENOUS EDUCATION AND MULTILINGUALISM Global Perspectives and Local Experiences Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-​Roa and Elsie Rockwell

Introduction The relation between Indigenous education and multilingualism raises issues that require considering how scholars have rethought the basic categories of indigeneity, education, learning and language. This review suggests that recent studies allow us to better observe, from new perspectives, how multiple language resources emerge in diverse situations where learning and teaching are central. Scholars have long recognized that categories referring to indigeneity or alterity have a strong colonial history and on occasions have been forcefully imposed upon very diverse societies in the partition of territories and ranking of populations, particularly in colonization processes and in the construction of nation-​states (López & Acevedo, 2018). To a large degree, various categories have been used to segregate and minoritize others in ways strongly linked to racialization. Our generic use of ‘indigenous peoples’ in this chapter is admittedly tainted by that history. We adopt it, with certain misgivings, acknowledging its use in the 1989 ILO 169 Convention and the 2007 UNESCO Declaration which established linguistic and educational rights for indigenous peoples. To place at the centre the revitalization of the languages minorized by national educational and language policies diverts the gaze from serious current crises. Populations considered as indigenous suffer violation of their human rights and assassination of their activists. Many are being displaced, dispersed, and even exterminated as a result of environmental devastation and violence associated with the dispossession of their territories and natural resources. Extractive capitalist industries, such as open-​pit mining, fracking, pipelines, commercial agriculture, and cattle ranching, are continuously threatening and succeeding in taking over lands possessed by indigenous peoples. Given this state of emergency, Mixe scholar Yasnaya Aguilar mentions that the actual lives of the peoples must be our central concern rather than their languages as such. A nuestras lenguas también las matan cuando no se respetan nuestros territorios, cuando asesinan a quienes las defienden… . Bajo un ataque constante de nuestro territorio, ¿cómo se revitalizará nuestra lengua? Nuestras lenguas no mueren, las matan… El pensamiento único, la cultura única, el Estado único… las borra. Aguilar, 2019, 137 DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-16

193

Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-Roa and Elsie Rockwell

We have sought to keep this in mind, as we review studies of education in multilingual contexts in which the issue is not the survival of the languages alone but also of the struggles involved in defending a place to live and a way of life. With the massive forceful displacement across internal and transnational borders many peoples have travelled or worked together in jobs such as harvesting or construction where speakers of many language varieties adopt various resources to communicate with each other. With the increasing mobility of peoples, worldwide, and the strong colonial pressure to learn and study in standard English, at times even national languages become minoritized (Copp, 2013). Thus, the categorization of languages as indigenous, ethnic, native, foreign, or national, can be questioned. Thinking globally about indigenous education invites us to consider education in multilingual contexts from a perspective of the Global South. Following recent discussions, we do not consider this category to be geographical but socio-​economic. The concept points to a fabric of spaces interwoven through constant communication among speakers of multiple minoritized languages and varieties in multilingual contexts even in the Northern hemisphere. This interweaving goes beyond any closed boundaries and contributes to the constant reclaiming and composing a ‘commons’ or, as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) expressed it: “Un mundo donde quepan muchos mundos.” How does education fit into this configuration? As anthropologists, we contest the identification of education with schooling, and also reject dichotomies such as formal/​non-​formal or contextualized/​decontextualized learning (McCarty & Nicholas, 2012; Lave, 2011). Educational processes occur in many sorts of situations, in which learning is constant and situated in social interaction and collaboration with others. Schooling, an abstraction that covers diverse arrangements, is understood as just another set of contexts. Although modern school systems have historically imposed standardized official languages, actual schools are often permeable to the multilingual environments and admit the inevitable heteroglossia of dialogical enunciation. The same occurs in situations not named ‘schools’, where other ways of learning and teaching occur. This perspective raises the issue of whether ‘indigenous education’ refers to official differentiated or adapted schooling for indigenous children or to the education the peoples, classified as ‘indigenous’, themselves arrange for younger generations, or to both. In this chapter we thus explore processes that overlap to connect the two. We have adopted several limitations, given the available space. To the reader, it may seem that there is a lack of reference to canonical literature that is well known to all who study multilingualism and education. However, it is our intention to discomfort ourselves and to bring to the fore ideas and strategies that are less well known in the Global North literature. We restrict our examples to basic education and community-​based learning from Latin America and Southeast Asia and have left to other chapters the fascinating cases of sub-​Saharan Africa, as well as processes occurring through migration, new digital media, and the arts. We use examples from less well-​known publications of the past decade, including many published in Spanish, French and Portuguese, although our own language disabilities force us to resort to English texts for Southeast Asia. We have also chosen to keep some citations in the language of publication, producing a multilingual text.

The colonial and national contexts of indigenous education ‘Coloniality of power’, a concept developed by Quijano (2000), is increasingly used in Latin America to consider the enduring social formations constructed as a result of conquest and colonization, based on dispossession, enslavement, racialization and exploitation of majority 194

Indigenous Education and Multilingualism

populations in most of the globe. In this process, Quijano adds, heterogeneous systems were historically fashioned and naturalized to classify colonized populations, including those referring to indigenous, native, tribal, minority, autochthonous or aboriginal peoples. In addition, these groups were also often seen as primitive, peasant and primarily rural, thus obscuring both current transformations of rural life and labour and the growing urban indigenous populations. This perspective shows that the definition of ‘indigenous’ is highly variable and arbitrary, as it depends on the social distinctions that have been constructed and modified in each context. As Tamma and Duile (2020) stress, the distinction of who is indigenous emerges within the processes of colonialism and nation-​state formation, so that majority societies have conceived of indigenous people as those living in the mountains or islands, producing for their own sustenance, and opposed to industrial economic development. This meaning has been disputed by the people so categorized. For example, in Indonesia the Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara-​AMAN) claims that they recognize themselves as indigenous in the sense of being original Indonesians and resist other terms with which they have been labelled as alienated tribes, forest invaders, illegal cultivators or primitive peoples. Thus, in some cases people self-​identify as indigenous in order to struggle on the State’s terms for dignifying their lives and obtaining recognition of their land and natural resources, and to access education and health services among other citizenship rights. In Mexico, the people of Atenco fought a legal battle, based on recognition of their historical indigenous origin and local knowledge, to obtain the right to be consulted on the use of their lands and natural resources, but this right was denied as they ‘did not speak an indigenous language’. Likewise, social emancipatory struggles have at times taken up similar labels to combat the very conditions that have kept them oppressed. Perley’s critical use of the label Indigenous Peoples (2014) to claim self-​ determination for the Tobique First Nation in Canada, expresses the trauma of coloniality, as well as his own experience of being an indigenous scholar. Given the categorization and stigma of ‘different’ populations, nation-​states formed as a result of colonialism have historically sought different ways of addressing diversity through education. The tendency has generally been linked to ‘integration’ into a ‘national culture’, but also to differentiate systems. The notion of ‘adapting education to the indigenes’ was coined by Western colonial powers in the early 20th century, under explicitly racist perspectives, and indeed was used to justify apartheid (Kallaway, 2012). The recent international recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to education in their own language and culture has led to various adaptations in official school policies and practices. Outcomes vary, as Akkari (2013) points out, from the folklorization of selected cultural attributes and concessions such as adapting school meals, to radical critical lessons on the history of colonization, enslavement and racialization of groups considered ‘others’, yet most efforts rarely abandon the goal of teaching the national language. Salaün (2016) makes a stronger case by evidencing, with examples from New Caledonia and Hawai’i, how local knowledges and languages become “decontextualized” and transfigured through schooling when included in intercultural curricula. Unfortunately, many experiences confirm Ogbu’s insight (1992, cited by Akkari, 2013) that the more schools identify certain groups as ‘culturally different others’ the more these groups are stigmatized and tend to be excluded or tracked into special education or second-​class options. Thus, it has been found that despite recent awareness of linguistic rights, many students prefer to deny or hide their knowledge of the local language. The stigmatization of multilingual competence, as well as of unacceptable ‘accents’ when speaking the national language, may account for the fact that top-​down attempts to teach or use local languages in schools have often been 195

Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-Roa and Elsie Rockwell

rejected by the families and teachers involved, who demand rather that official schooling guarantee their full access to the ‘national language’. As Salaün (2016) has questioned, regarding this resistance, “Comment convaincre un corps enseignant et des parents à qui l’on n’a eu de cesse de répéter pendant des décennies que la maîtrise de la langue du colonisateur, et d’elle seule, était la garantie de la réussite?” In recent years, dramatic cases continue to be recorded in which speaking the national language is directly linked to citizen rights. For example, Buakanok, et al. (2019) and Dumlao and Jawauta (2020) recorded an educational project to teach the national language to Karen children who lack citizenship and other rights in Thailand because they do not speak it, so UNICEF has financed non-​state projects with a transitional model aimed at full competence in the national language to guarantee access to basic citizen rights. Cases such as these show how various social and political factors may lead to favouring the national language, while the realities of multilingualism and the denial of basic human rights to indigenous people remain hidden. On the other hand, in contexts of indigenous language minoritization, local groups have undertaken efforts to reverse linguistic shift through means other than schooling, such as the performing arts. These movements have been referred to as language revitalization or language reclamation. Flores and Olko point out that “a strict definition … is less important than finding effective ways to recover the use of an endangered language in a specific community” (Flores & Olko, 2021: 85–​ 86); what is relevant is that these initiatives are often developed by specific groups or individuals who seek to activate language use. Leonard and De Korne (2017, cited in McCarty et al., 2019) highlight that contemporary language movements have set themselves decolonizing goals by striving for the self-​(re)empowerment of their languages that entails the continuity of their ways of life and their links to the land.

Three conceptual issues Rethinking language in indigenous education Several scholars now claim that it is necessary to rethink the very notion of language in order to understand and describe how people socialize and learn in situations where multiple resources associated with different languages are used simultaneously or where speakers of several languages coexist (Zavala, 2019). Educational programmes for indigenous peoples have always faced the issue of which languages should be taught and how to teach them, often as separate contents. Solutions range from transitional to immersion schemes, with different proportions and combinations of students’ L1 and L2 as objects and/​or mediums of instruction, depending on their initial competencies in national or indigenous languages as well as on the educational goals (May, 2016). They generally assume clear boundaries between two languages. In recent years, however, sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology have emphasized that languages are not clearly delimited entities (Heller 2007, Blommaert & Rampton, 2011) and that counting and standardizing separate indigenous languages is charged with colonial bias (Pennycook, 2010). Even the category of ‘national language’ is unstable and fragmented due to the existence of many varieties which mark identity positioning and social relations, as shown by Faquire (2010) in the case of the almost 16 varieties of Bangla used in daily life in Bangladesh and by Pellicer (2020) in analyzing the multiple varieties of español indígena in Mexico, used by bilingual indigenous peoples. Furthermore, unlike the morphological classification of agglutinative, inflectional, and isolating languages, the ways of categorizing languages as indigenous are not based on linguistic criteria but 196

Indigenous Education and Multilingualism

on social differentiation and inequality. Labelling languages as indigenous often equates them with specific ethnic characteristics, such as physical appearance of the speakers, with ethical values and forms of behaviour, even with cognitive capacity, as though they were essential features of a people. A different perspective harks back to Bakhtin (1981), who considered language not as a “system of abstract grammatical categories, but rather … as ideologically saturated … as a world view, even as a concrete opinion, insuring a maximum of mutual understanding” (1981:271). His concept of heteroglossia captures the ongoing interweaving of resources from many languages within each enunciation, thus blurring boundaries between them. In the same vein, Blommaert and Backus (2013) point out that learning a language is “a process of growth, of sequential learning of certain registers, styles, genres and linguistic varieties” (2013:15). This means that learning ‘a language’ and indeed everyday “languaging” (Jørgensen et al., 2011) entail dynamic processes where diverse language elements are embedded in different worldviews and used in each sphere of social life in relevant ways. In all social contexts, local diversity, human mobility and physical or virtual connection with people from different backgrounds generate dynamic multilingual and translanguaging practices. We propose that this process may be observed even in classrooms where the ‘national language’ is the only one officially being taught. All the practices that take place in verbal communication and the language resources that participants bring into play in multilingual settings acquire relevance. Zavala and Kvietok (2021) summarize these resources as “elementos de diversas lenguas, ítems de vocabulario, formas gramaticales, acentos y rasgos de entonación, patrones discursivos… (como formas de preguntar, de regañar o de pedir), fórmulas de tratamiento o convenciones genéricas asociadas a tipos de acciones” (2021: 25). That is, in speech people envelop strictly linguistic constructions by using gestures, body postures, and voice nuances to give them additional meaning. Furthermore, spatial and temporal conditions, visual elements, and other ways of making meaning have been shown to directly influence communicative interaction and student learning in indigenous educational contexts. Analyzing multilingual practices is even more complex, as in every act in which people use diverse linguistic resources, they are implicitly interrelating on different scales with other social facts. Taking up Bastardas’ (2016) ideas, linguistic diversity and contact in educational settings must be explained within the framework of the relationships between language and social asymmetries, power relations and their associated language ideologies. The resulting multilingual ecologies, with their multiple scalar implications, thus alter the possibilities of use and meaning of those languaging resources possessed by all actors involved. The above contributions are key for reflecting on how programmes created for bi/​multilingual contexts can be rethought, by considering the social, historical, temporal and spatial conditions on many scales. Additionally, they should be examined in the light of the local language ideologies and social ecologies that either bar or foster an open attitude towards the use of diverse linguistic repertoires in educational settings.

Children’s learning in multilingual settings Rethinking education in multilingual settings has also gained insights from studies of indigenous perspectives on learning. In Brazil and Argentina, several scholars have focused on how indigenous children learn when engaged in everyday activities within their own landscapes (Da Silva, 2015; Pereira, 2021; Leavy & Szulc, 2021). García, Hecht & Enriz, (2020) show how “children 197

Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-Roa and Elsie Rockwell

evolve into social beings within their sociocultural surroundings during infancy which, based on native conceptions of this time in life, is when children attain the largest portion of the knowledge required for collective living” (García et al., 2020: 9). Mexican linguist De León (2005) studied how the Tsotsil peoples of Chiapas consider infancy as the period of life when “the soul arrives”, a process closely linked to learning to speak. In her study among the Galibi-​Maworno (Brazil), Tassinari (2015) centres on how this group considers learning about their territory as vital, as the constitution of children as subjects is generated by observing others act on the territory and learning to name it and talk about it. In Brazil, Gomes and her students (Gomes et al., 2015) have used the concepts of learning as practice (Lave, 2011) and of enskilment (Ingold, 2018), to study local educational processes. Correira da Silva and Gomes describe how, through imitation and repetition, Xakriabá children learn the practice of “pegar corpo” (to get body) during harvest work, meaning both building a strong body and having a conceptualization of “a skill that develops itself from within the body” (Correira da Silva & Gomes, 2015:187). Their research also shows how learning has to do not only with physical labour but also with the way in which Xakriabá youth learn to talk about the importance of “pegar corpo”. Another aspect is related to stories children hear their elders tell, signalling the significance of intergenerational learning. Vázquez (2017) in her study in a Ch’ol village (Mexico) argues that in situated activities children are also involved in narrative processes: “es el espacio ideal de aprendizaje de experiencias relacionadas a la cacería, a la pesca en el río ... [y]‌ las narrativas de seres sobrenaturales que preservan el entorno ecológico cultural de la región, que les permite habitar y conocer su entorno” (2017: 349). Collaboration with indigenous children has produced fascinating results in research conducted by Argentine scholars (Novaro, 2010). Hecht (2018) discovered that Qom children who according to their teachers have ‘lost their language’ are aware of their multilingual environment, and both understand and use the resources learned from their family, when interacting in particular situations, including schoolyard play. Gandulfo (2016) reports on a novel collaborative study in which primary school children revealed that the rural Guarani people in Northern Argentina may “speak little Guarani but know a lot [of the language]”, uncovering a strong undercurrent of active language resources silenced by centuries of prohibition of their use in public spaces. These indigenous perspectives on learning offer insights that are valuable for rethinking language learning in multilingual settings. In many ways, learning to communicate also requires developing bodily skills, from vocalization to gesturing to positioning, as well as acquiring ways to speak about learning and ways to understand the environment. However, in the many diverse contexts in which indigenous children grow up, their rural and urban environments are constantly affected, as mentioned above, by processes of dispossession and exploitation by other social actors. Within such multi-​scaled ecologies, children not only learn a variety of language resources, but also become aware of their relative prestige and of the restrictions placed on their use in given situations, including schooling. In multilingual environments students socialize and learn not only through their own language but also by having to deal with the standardized national languages in written or oral forms. This implies that they create and deploy a great variety of linguistic resources that constitute different communication repertoires useful in bi/​multilingual situations. In this sense, Zavala points out that “la lengua ... sería solo una parte de un repertorio comunicativo, pues siempre se usa en el marco de acciones y actividades situadas, y del despliegue de una diversidad de posicionamientos identitarios” (Zavala, 2019: 348).

198

Indigenous Education and Multilingualism

The dilemmas of standardizing languages Another dimension that crosses educational boundaries is the issue of writing systems. Ever since the ‘reduction’ (as Spanish missionaries termed it) of indigenous languages to writing, largely linked to processes of colonization and evangelization, heated discussions have surrounded the standardization of orthographies to be used in schooling and printing. The debates are marked by the assumption that giving a language a script will help to preserve it, which may have been the case for languages gaining prestige, such as Catalan and Māori, yet for the minoritized languages of many colonized people, the argument has proved false; for instance, the use of Nahuatl, a language with a long history of being written, is rapidly vanishing in semi-​urban contexts inhabited by the Nahua people. The linguistic input in recent years has attempted to give strict phoneme-​grapheme correspondence to the written versions of each indigenous language, only to run into the complexity of multiple varieties whose speakers each claim a slightly different grapheme to record their own distinct ‘sounds’. From the perspective of the indigenous peoples, the choice of one writing system over others signals undesirable hierarchies among communities or affiliation with one or another religion or institution. Some normalized orthographies may be rejected for containing letters such as k and w associated, at least in Spanish-​speaking countries, with ‘foreign’ languages. Moreover, tensions emerge between perspectives on the standardization of writing as Villari and Menacho (2017) note for the two competing orthographies for Quechua in the region of Ancash, Peru. The ministry implanted a unified alphabet with three vowel graphemes (a, i, u) and promoted a purist ideology based on etymology which proscribes loan words and favours neologisms. However, a missionary association, linked to the Summer Institute of Linguistics, has had greater success by using the five vowels of Spanish spelling, respecting local variation, and accepting loan words. Teachers and adults who learned first to read in Spanish find the second option more practical. Voluntarily organized regional collectives have also attempted to unify the orthography of their language varieties. In the case of Mixe languages (Briseño & Rockwell, 2020; Valiñas Coalla, 1991), several contiguous communities held over 30 years of meetings with no state intervention, to revitalize and unify the writing of the language, and yet still express tensions among them due to oral variation. The complexities involved in local attempts to represent the correspondence between phoneme and grapheme have arisen also among the Wayapí in Brazil (López Macedo, 2017), as well as in languages that have chosen one or another Southeast Asian script, such as the Tibeto-​Burman languages known as Cak and Sak, spoken in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh (Huziwara, 2019). It must be recalled that a strict adherence to phonemic and purist standardization of written language goes against the grain of the actual history of alphabetic writing systems, which are never fully phonemic, although they are understood and used by speakers of multiple oral varieties. In what we have reviewed, state standardization of language varieties along phonemic principles has been particularly precarious. When native speakers do not recognize their language variety in print, a case can be made that the struggles over the graphemes to be used to distinguish linguistic differences has paralyzed revitalization movements by causing proficient speakers to believe that ‘they do not know the language’ because they cannot read or write it (Ayala-​Reyes, Rebolledo-​ Angulo & Rockwell, 2022). Thus, it seems crucial to strengthen and revalue the public oral use of these languages while allowing local choice of orthographies for writing them, and regard standardization as a long-​term goal rather than a technical problem.

199

Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-Roa and Elsie Rockwell

Realities of multilingual communication in school settings A recent current of research, converging with perspectives on linguistic landscapes, is uncovering the actual multilingual situations in playgrounds and classrooms even in schools where only the national language is allowed and taught. Many who have worked in school contexts have witnessed moments, when, as a Võro teacher interviewed by Brown (2012) described it, “languages can come out of hiding” even when their use is negatively sanctioned. The spontaneous use of the students’ own languages may be more common than often assumed. However, evaluations suggest that submersion programmes that teach only in a national language leave many indigenous children far behind, with a very superficial L2 competence (May, 2016:12). Ironically, this bars them from their right to learn the very language needed to exercise other civil and political rights. These situations contrast with top-​down programmes in which Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) has become the official state policy in schools for children in indigenous communities. Different approaches characterize these programmes, from immersion methods to subtractive bilingualism. The students may have very different competencies in indigenous languages, from monolingual speakers of the local variety to monolingual speakers of the national language or may even include trilingual children. Although many studies have shown that additive bilingual models are more effective in achieving equitable learning of both the indigenous and the national languages (May, 2016:12), problems persist in actual practice. One issue involves the distinction between the use of the children’s home or heritage languages as object or as medium of classroom instruction. In Mexico, some studies have shown that the indigenous language textbooks that have been published for bilingual schools are scarcely used or are used only to teach a few words or phrases in written form through the medium of oral Spanish (Villavicencio, 2021; Czarny, 2007). Besides, in the IBE programme currently used, the time devoted to indigenous language classes is limited to a few hours a week, while all instruction in other courses is in Spanish. Multilingual communities, such as those established when people speaking different languages are displaced and forced to migrate come to inhabit the same locality (as migrant camps), further challenge any model of ‘bilingual’ schooling in the country. Another problem is the language proficiency and status of the teachers. In IBE schools in Chile, paraprofessional ‘traditional educators’ are hired for a few hours per week to teach Mapuche language and culture. Lagos (2013) reports that because of this the IBE programme in Santiago, where most of the children do not speak Mapundungun, perpetuates relations of discrimination and stigmatization of the Mapuche people. A different case is reported by Limerick (2022), based on long-​term fieldwork in Ecuador, where a strong movement has demanded indigenous territorial and cultural rights. Militant teachers were incorporated into the ministry to develop IBE and trained to standardize their language, yet they often make only symbolic use of phrases in Kichwa during predominantly Spanish events, and some do not use it at home. Meanwhile, in the bilingual classroom teachers and parents have difficulties even recognizing words written in the standardized language they proposed, because of the w and k letters. This has led Limerick to question whether language reclamation can in fact be achieved through state educational policies. The challenge is to find an equilibrium in the uses of multilingual resources that might manifest respect for indigenous peoples, as well as for their languages.

The continual search for alternatives in and to official schooling Despite the disappointing results of the official IBE policies and practices we reviewed, it is encouraging to find alternative practices occurring or being developed both within schools and in other 200

Indigenous Education and Multilingualism

contexts. All teachers, whether or not in the bilingual system, who are working with children with varying degrees of knowledge of indigenous languages, face the challenge of making themselves understood, and many have found ways to teach them successfully. This appearance of local language resources in multilingual classes depends to a large extent on the teachers’ permissiveness. An example that shows how they manage this is Rebolledo’s study, in which she describes the “fluid multivocal interaction” achieved by students and their bilingual teacher in the process of mixing two varieties of Chinantec and local oral Spanish, and often facing the challenges of understanding the academic Spanish used in textbook lessons (Rebolledo & Rockwell, 2018). In contrast, she has shown how in a classroom where the Spanish-​only rule is enforced indigenous students were silenced, even when they have in fact learned some Spanish (Rebolledo 2015), as occurs with many indigenous students in Spanish-​only classes. When teachers allow the use of all languages, multilingual conversations emerge when appropriate, as can be seen in the case of the Tsotsil teacher, Bartolomé Vázquez in Elizondo’s documentary film El Sembrador (2018). Teacher collectives, often those with a strong commitment to social movements, have also made deliberate changes in ways that counter policy while working within official schools. In Mexico examples include the defence of the Ikoot’s language in a preschool in the isthmus village of San Mateo de Mar (Gutiérrez et. al., 2019); Ombeyets is given a specific time each day as sole medium (language separation practice) and written materials are produced by the students themselves. In an alternative model to IBE called “Mapuche education” in three Araucanía schools in Chile, the “transversalized” use of Mapundungún allows Mapuche knowledge to be invoked beyond to the time assigned to language learning (Luna et al. 2018). Some of these efforts, in partnership with university scholars and NGOs, succeed in creating written materials in local languages that are used in the schools, to ensure learning of and through the local language together with indigenous local knowledge. In the Yanomami indigenous territory, several indigenous languages coexist, one of which is Sanöma. Amaral et al. (2017) show how the construction of books linked to traditional music and with the description of local foods allowed teachers and students to identify the use of their language while preserving important knowledge for the community. Also, in Guarani-​Mbya territory, to tie schooling to the community some professors created appropriate spaces for the community’s elders to share sacred narratives from the oral tradition. They then printed a monolingual book in the language called Jereroayu: Textos da tradição oral Guarani-​Mbya, distributed to schools and Guarani communities in Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil) (Ferreira et al., 2020: 207). Other alternatives stem from independent community schools or language learning centres. Many have the backing of non-​state sponsors or have state funding and/​or certification. The autonomous schools in Brazil described by López Macedo (2017), set up by a Wayapí organization with international funding, created their own curriculum and teach almost entirely through the indigenous language, offering Portuguese only as a subject. However, they have faced increasing limitations as they recently obtained official certification. Similarly, Brablec (2022) reviews language revitalization centres set up by Mapuche organizations in Santiago, Chile, and finds that two obstacles hinder their maintenance: dependence on competitive state funding and the racial stigma that makes urban youth lack interest. In some cases, communities take the initiative to negotiate official recognition of the alternative schools they created, as in the case reported by Cornelio and de Castro (2016) of the Pulingayen in Mindanao, Philippines. After more than five years their local educational centre achieved recognition from the Philippine Department of Education without having to abandon the alternative curriculum based on “the ancestral domain, or guap, which is … the physical environment where they toil … [as a] learning [process] for the present youths” (2016: 166). They also proposed their 201

Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-Roa and Elsie Rockwell

own local calendar and use the native language as medium of instruction and gradually introduce English and Filipino to enable children to access later levels of education. A possible sign of successful programmes both in and beyond schooling, happens when they privilege non-​linguistic goals, such as knowledge and care of natural resources, territory, and community projects in which all local language resources are assumed equally valid as means for learning and teaching other contents. Briseño’s study (2020) of a Secundaria Comunitaria Indígena (Oaxaca), a semi-​official village secondary school with strong community involvement, shows how working through research projects linked to community topics (water, territory, crops) creates formal and informal ways of speaking and writing the local indigenous language as well as of the national language. The same can be observed in the community learning centre for the Semai Orang Asli people, created in 2015 on the island of Borneo in Malaysia, driven by local teachers and supported by researchers and Malaysian NGOs. The Semai teachers focus on encouraging the children to learn about their environment, as well as the skills that have been cultivated by their people, such as dance, trapping, crop harvesting and other traditional knowledges. Children are taught through the Semai language, although English and Malay are also offered as subjects so that the children can continue studying at higher educational levels. In addition to motivating local knowledge, the children also become familiar with the struggles for environmental conservation and the right to ownership of their land (see SegiCollege Subang Jaya, 2017). The Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC), an indigenous political organization created in the early 1970s, has defended the territorial, sociocultural, educational rights of Cauca communities (Colombia). One of its pillars has been the revitalization and strengthening of indigenous education by the implementation of their “Educación propia” (Bolaños & Tattay, 2012). In this experience the many indigenous languages have been a vehicle for building local knowledge in all fronts in which they struggle to defend their rights. The strength of the local organization has been fundamental in maintaining and increasing their educational system. These community-​based efforts are not exempt from tensions due to internal differences and state intervention. The point is that both in and beyond state programmes, significant actions in the defence of language, and of all other rights, are taking place.

Final reflections We have begun this review by invoking a statement made by Mixe linguist Yasnaya Aguilar Gil, who argues that we cannot talk about revitalizing languages if we do not place at the centre the lives of people and the defence of their territories. This idea has been expressed as well by many other Amerindian leaders/​intellectuals of Latin America, such as Davi Kopenawe Yanomami and Ailton Krenak. In the context of climate catastrophe, mining and other extractivist industries, dispossession and the continual attack on the territories of indigenous/​original peoples, limiting the discussion to the ‘lives’ of languages and their use in education curbs our perspective. In addition, the forced migration and extreme poverty that result from social and economic inequality are the common denominator of the many diverse indigenous peoples in the Global South. Coloniality of power and of knowledge has had a direct impact on the racialization and discrimination of languages classed as indigenous, stigmatizing their rightful owners. Therefore, this complex context must be considered for the full understanding of indigenous language education. Our initial caveat was to note that the term indigenous is ambiguous and charged with a history of colonialism and nation-​building; it is not used in all contexts, yet it has become the generic

202

Indigenous Education and Multilingualism

term used in international declarations. We also adopted an anthropological concept of education as a range of processes involving learning with or without teaching, and not reduced to schooling (which itself covers a diversity of arrangements). We have reviewed new perspectives for approaching three topics. First, an understanding of multilingualism focused on the multiple language varieties and resources used by speakers in diverse situations, rather than on the parallel existence of languages as separate abstract entities (as in L1 and L2) to be taught or used. Second, a valuing of indigenous concepts for understanding children’s learning experiences in multilingual contexts, to favour situating language learning in everyday practice. And third, an awareness of the dilemmas of standardizing each language in writing through strict phoneme-​grapheme correspondence, and even by marking slight phonetic differences, as it has paralyzed efforts to value and strengthen the oral use of the languages. Racializing ideologies cut across all three domains, conditioning educational processes and outcomes in indigenous contexts. In this text we have sought to show that the relationship between indigenous education and multilingualism involves different dimensions and scales. The discussions and cases recovered here point to the fact that alternative local initiatives are as important as the efforts to influence state education programmes. Although they sometimes seem to go their separate ways, we dare to suggest three ways to build, sustain and strengthen indigenous education and multilingual societies in either official public schools or local alternative programmes, which at times meld together. The first is to question the ideologies and conceptualizations of languages as separate entities that can constitute barriers to communication or learning and then move towards a concept of multilingual resources that enable interaction between people using ‘different languages’. Secondly, in school-​based projects the idea is not to focus work only on languages per se, but to encourage their use both orally and in writing in projects centred on the serious problems facing indigenous peoples today. Beyond placing indigenous languages in a specific subject or timetable slot, the use of all language resources of the learning community should be encouraged at all times, so that they may enrich communication as meaningful action connected with the social and natural environments. The third point is that in all schools, resources of the local indigenous languages and knowledges could be socialized and used by all, both native indigenous speakers and others. The basic challenge is to do away with the racialization and stigma associated with indigenous peoples as a necessary condition for fostering the ongoing vitality of their languages.

Acknowledgements This review received partial support from Conacyt Grant A1-​S-​52363 as well as from our institutions.

Related topics Chapter 1 Lessons for decolonization from pre-​colonial translingualism; Chapter 3 (De)colonial multilingual/​multimodal practices: resisting and re-​existing voices from Latin America; Chapter 9 Indigenous language and education rights; Chapter 10 Linguistic citizenship

Further reading Lopez, L.E. 2021. Pueblos e idiomas indígenas en América Latina y el Caribe: situación Actual y perspectivas. www.acade​mia.edu/​45007​151/​Pueblo​s_​e_​idio​mas_​ind%C3%ADgena​s_​en​_​Am%C3%A9rica​_​Lat​ina_​y_​ el​_​Car​ibe_​situ​aci%C3%B3n_​ac​tual​_​y_​p​ersp​ecti​vas?auto=​downl​oad.

203

Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-Roa and Elsie Rockwell McCarty, T., Nicholas, S. & Wigglesworth, G. 2019. A World of Indigenous Languages. Politics, Pedagogies and Prospects for Language Reclamation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Piccardo, E., Germain-​Rutherford, A. & Lawrence, G. Eds. 2021. The Routledge Handbook of Plurilingual Language Education (1st ed.). London & New York: Routledge. https://​doi.org/​10.4324/​978135​ 1002​783

References Aguilar Gil, Y. 2019. El agua y la palabra. Revista de la Universidad. 859–851, 136–137. www.rev​ista​dela​ univ​ersi​dad.mx/​artic​les/​a52f9​f39-​15d2-​4993-​a8a6-​d8689​d799​5e1/​el-​agua-​y-​la-​pala​bra. Akkari, A. 2013. Introduction. Revue Internationale d’Éducation de Sèvres. 63: 33–​ 42. https//:doi. org/10.4000/ ries.3466. Amaral, L., Gomes, A., Autuori, J. & Saraiva, M. 2017. Diálogos entre a linguística, a educação e a antropologia na produção de materiais de alfabetização na língua sanöma. Revista LinguiStica, 13(1), 104–​125. Ayala-​Reyes, S., Rebolledo-​Angulo,V. & Rockwell. E. 2022. Voices silenced by written texts: indigenous languages encountering standardization. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, https://doi.org/10.1080/17 447143.2022.2159965. Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. Forms of time and of the chronotope in the novel. In The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin. M. Holquist, Ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. 259–​422. Bastardas, A. 2016. Ecología lingüística y lenguas minorizadas: algunas notas sobre el desarrollo del campo. In 53 Reflexiones Sobre Aspectos de la Fonética y Otros Temas de Lingüística. A.M. Fernández Planas, Ed. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, Laboratori de Fonètica. 449–​458. http://​stel3.ub.edu/​lab​fon/​ amper/​homen​aje-​euge​nio-​marti​nez celdran/​53reflexiones/​53-​ABastardas.pdf. Blommaert, J. & Rampton, B. 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities 13(2), 1–​20. Blommaert, J. & Backus, A. 2013. Superdiverse repertoires and the individual. In Multilingualism and Multimodality. Current Challenges for Educational Studies. I. de Saint-​Georges & J.-​J. Weber, Eds. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 11–​32. Bolaños, G. & Tattay, L. 2012. La educación propia: una realidad de resistencia educativa y cultural de los pueblos. Educación y Ciudad. 22, 46–​56. Brablec, D. 2022. Indigenous language revitalisation: Mapuzungun workshops in Santiago de Chile. Bulletin of Latin American Research 41(1), 69–​84. http://​doi:10.1111/​blar.13291 Briseño, J. 2020. La construcción cotidiana de un modelo pedagógico alternativo en educación indígena: entre la participación comunitaria y el uso continuo de la lengua indígena. De Prácticas y Discursos. Cuaderno de Ciencias Sociales. 9(13), 1–​23. Briseño, J. & Rockwell, E. 2020. Los usos escritos y orales del ayöök y del español en la representación de saberes comunitarios en una escuela indígena de Oaxaca, México. Tellus. 20 (43), 274–​294. https://doi. org/10.20435/tellus.v20i43.701 Brown, K. 2012. The linguistic landscape of educational spaces: language revitalization and schools in Southeastern Estonia. In Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape. Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities. D. Gorter, H.F. Marten & L. Van Mensel, Eds. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 281–​298. https://​doi.org/​10.1057/​97802​3036​0235​_​16. Buakanok, F.S., Pandee S., Kruaphung S. & Phutthima, B. 2019. The development of learning skills appropriate for ethnic karen students Baan Pong Nam Ron School, Serm Klang Sub District, Serm Ngam District Lampang Province. Journal of Community Development Research. 12(1): 94–​108. Cornelio, J.S. & de Castro, D. 2016. The state of indigenous education in the Philippines today. In Indigenous Culture, Education and Globalization. Critical Perspectives from Asia. J. Xing & N.G. Pak-​sheung, Eds. Heidelberg: Springer. http://​doi: 10.1007/​978-​3-​662-​48159-​2 Copp, A. 2013. Newcomers navigating language choice and seeking voice: peer talk in a multilingual primary school classroom in Finland. Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 44(2): 124–​141. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​aeq.12011 Correia da Silva, R. & Gomes, A. 2015. Learning, body and territory among indigenous Xakriabá boys. Horizontes Antropológicos. 21(44): 173–​200. https://​doi.org/​10.1590/​s0104-​718320​1500​0200​008 Czarny, G. 2007. Pasar por la escuela, metáfora que guarda distintas caras para abordar la relación comunidades indígenas y escolaridad. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa. 12(34): 921–​950.

204

Indigenous Education and Multilingualism Da Silva, R. 2015. La educación de sí mismo y la producción del niño indígena en el noroeste amazónico de Brasil. Anthropologica. 35(201): 15–​40. https://doi.org/10.18800/anthropologica.201502.002 De León, L. 2005. La Llegada del Alma. Lenguaje, Infancia y Socialización Entre los Mayas de Zinacantán. Mexico City: Ciesas y Conaculta, Inah. Dumlao, R. & Jawauta, N. 2020. From upland to lowland: Karen learners’s position and identity construction through language socialization in the Thai classroom context. Paper presented at the conference: The Conference on Asian Linguistic Anthropology-​The CALA 2020, Bintulu Sarawak, Malaysia, 5–​8 February 2020. https://​glo​cal.soas.ac.uk/​cala2​020-​proc​eedi​ngs/​. Elizondo, M. (Director). 2018. El Sembrador. CUEC. Faquire, K. 2010. Language situation in Bangladesh. The Dhaka University Studies. 67(2), 63–​77. Ferreira, B., de Menezes, M. & Bergamaschi, A. 2020. Memória e (re)existência: a trajetória intercultural da Ação Saberes Indígenas na Escola. Tellus. 20(43): 193–​216. http://dx.doi.org/10.20435/tellus. vi43.704 Flores, J. & Olko, J. 2021. Types of communities and speakers in language revitalization. In Revitalizing Endangered Languages. A Practical Guide. J. Olko & J. Sallabank, Eds. 85–​103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gandulfo, C. 2016. “Hablan poco guaraní, saben mucho”. Una investigación colaborativa con niños y maestros en un contexto bilingües de corrientes, Argentina. Signo y Seña. 29:79–​102. García, M., Hecht, A. & Enriz, N. 2020. Indigenous childhood in Argentina: parenting, care and formative experiences of Qom and Mbyá children. Global Studies of Childhood. 1–​12. https://doi.org/10.1177/204361062095. Gomes, A., Correia da Silva, R. & Medes, V. 2015. Aprendizajes y vida cotidiana entre niños y niñas xakriabá. In Educación, Pueblos Indígenas y Migrantes. Avances desde México, Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina y España. G. Novarro, A. Padawer & A. Hecht, Comps. Buenos Aires: Biblos. 199–​126. Gutiérrez, B., Balóes, G., Arellanes, M. & Meyer, L. 2019. Impactos sísmicos y política lingüística en Oaxaca, México: un recuento colaborativo de voluntad y resistencia docente en la defensa de las lenguas originarias. Forum for International Research in Education. 5(3): 152–​176. https://doi.org/10.32865/ fire20195327 Hecht, A. 2018. “Todavía no se hallaron hablar en idioma” procesos de socialización lingüística de los niños en el barrio toba de Derqui, Argentina. Studies in Sociolinguistics. 09. München: LINCOM GmbH. Heller, M. Ed. 2007. Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Great Britain: Palgrave McMillan. Huziwara, K. 2019. Devising and orthography for the Cak language by using the Cak script. Paper presented at The Conference on Asian Linguistic Anthropology –​The CALA 2019, Siem Reap, Cambodia, 23–​26 January. https://​glo​cal.soas.ac.uk/​cala-​2019-​16-​4/​. Ingold, T. 2018. Anthropology and/​as Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Jørgensen, J., Karrebæk, M., Madsen, L. & Møller, J. 2011. Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities. 13(2), 23–​36. Kallaway, P. 2012. Science and policy: anthropology and education in British colonial Africa during the inter-​ war years, Paedagogica Historica 48(3), 411–​ 430. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​00309​ 230.2011.602​347. Lagos, C. 2013. Revitalización lingüística del mapudungún en entornos urbanos y no urbanos en Chile: el impacto del programa de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (PEIB). Lenguas Modernas 41: 67–​83. Lave, J. 2011. Apprenticeship in Critical Ethnographic Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leavy, P. & Szulc, A. 2021. Cuidando a los niños y niñas, cuidando el territorio. Una mirada etnográfica sobre comunidades rurales mapuche y ava-​guaraní en Argentina. INDIANA 38(1): 79–​101. Limerick, N. 2022. ¿Pueden utilizarse las instituciones estatales para reivindicar los idiomas indígenas? Políticas de educación intercultural bilingüe en Ecuador. RUNA. Archivo de Ciencias del Hombre 43(1): 37–​55. doi: 10.34096/runa.v43i1.10770 López, P. & Acevedo, A. 2018. Beyond Alterity: Destabilizing the Indigenous Other in Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. López Macedo, S. 2017. « Nous allons à l’école pour en savoir plus! » Un regard sur les projets éducatifs des Wayãpi en Amazonie brésilienne. In Quelle Éducation Pour les Peuples Autochtones? I. Bellier & J. Hays, Eds. Paris: CNRS, EHESS. 147–​162. Luna, L., Bolomey, C. & Caniguan, N. 2018. Educación mapuche en el Chile neoliberal: análisis de tres escuelas de la región de La Araucanía. Sinectica. 50, 1–​25. https://doi.org/10.31391/s2007-7033(2018)0050-007.

205

Susana Ayala, Julieta Briseño-Roa and Elsie Rockwell May, S. 2016. Bilingual education: what the research tells us. In Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopaedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). O. García, A. Lin & S. May, Eds. 1–​20. Springer, Cham. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3-​319-​02324-​3_​4-​1. McCarty, T., Nicholas, S. & Wigglesworth, G. 2019. A World of Indigenous Languages. Politics, Pedagogies and Prospects for Language Reclamation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McCarty, T. & Nicholas, S. 2012. Indigenous education in post-​colonial perspectives. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. Abington: Routledge. 145–​166. Novaro, G. 2010. Niños Indígenas y Migrantes. Tensiones Identitarias, Experiencias Formativas y Procesos de Escolarización. Buenos Aires: Biblos. Pellicer, D. 2020. Español mazahua y español coloquial. In D. Pellicer, México Diverso. Sus Lenguas y Sus Hablantes. Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Cultura, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 325–​338. Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as Local Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Pereira, R. 2021. Cuidados na criação da gente: habilidade e saberes importantes para viver no Alto Rio Negro. PhD diss. Brazil: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Perley, B. 2014. Living traditions: a manifesto for critical indigeneity. In Performing Indigeneity: Global Histories and Contemporary Experiences. L. R. Graham & H.G. Penny, Eds. 32–​54. University of Nebraska Press. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​j.ctt​1d9n​mw6.6. Quijano, A. 2000. Colonialidad del poder y clasificación social. Special Issue: Festchrift for Immanuel Wallerstein. Journal of World-​Systems Research. 6(2): 342–​386. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1gm019g.12 Rebolledo, V. 2015. Los silencios de niños hablantes de chinanteco en diversas situaciones escolares. Anthropologica. 33(35): 93–​115. https://doi.org/10.18800/anthropologica.201502.005. Rebolledo, V. & Rockwell, E. 2018. La diversidad lingüística como condición de trabajo docente y recurso de enseñanza: el caso de una escuela unitaria en Oaxaca. Cahiers de la Recherche sur l’Education et les Savoirs 17: 119–​142. SegiCollege Subang Jaya. 2017. Building up a community learning center from scratch: the life’s story of Jenita Engi. Podcast available in https://soundcloud.com/segicollege-subang-jaya/ building-up-a-community-learning-center-from-scratch-the-lifes-story-of-jenita-engi Salaün, M. 2016. La culture autochtone est-​elle soluble dans la forme scolaire? Réflexions à partir de quelques expériences pédagogiques (Hawai’i, Nouvelle-​Calédonie). Cahiers de la Recherche sur l’Education et les Savoirs. 16: 217–​236. Tamma, S. & Duile, T. 2020. Indigeneity and the state in Indonesia: the local turn in the dialectic of recognition. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 39(2): 270–​289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1868103420905967 Tassinari, A. 2015. Produzindo corpos ativos: a aprendizagem de crianças indígenas e agricultoras através da participação nas atividades produtivas familiares. Horizontes Antropológicos. 21(44): 141–​ 172. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-71832015000200007. Valiñas Coalla, Leopoldo. 1991. Apuntes para una dialectología del mixe. Anales de Antropología. 28(1): 437–​ 456. https://​repo​sito​rio.unam.mx/​con​teni​dos/​373 Vázquez, B. 2017. ÑOP /​KÄÑTYESAÑ: Lenguaje, actividades y enseñanza-​aprendizaje comunitario entre los mayas ch’oles de La Esperanza, Chiapas. PhD diss. México: CIESAS. Villari, C. & Menacho, L. 2017. La situación lingüística actual en Ancash como reflejo de la historia de la política lingüística del Perú. INDIANA 34(1): 129–​147. https://doi.org/10.18441/ind.v34i1.129-147 Villavicencio, F. 2021. Libros de texto en lengua indígena. Contradicciones de la educación básica en tiempos de Covid-​19. Ichan Tecolotl. La Casa del Tecolote. 33. Zavala, V. 2019. Justicia sociolingüística para los tiempos de hoy. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje Y Cultura 24(2): 343–​359. https://​doi.org/​10.17533/​udea.ikala.v24n02​a09 Zavala, V. & Kvietok, F. 2021. Una mirada al lenguaje desde los repertorios, registros y recursos de los hablantes. Didáctica de La Lengua y de la Literatura 94: 23–​29.

206

14 MULTILINGUALISM AND LANGUAGES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING IN POST-​C OLONIAL SUB-​S AHARAN AFRICA Feliciano Chimbutane

Introduction This chapter discusses key features of language-​in-​education policies (LiEPs) that have been adopted in post-​colonial sub-​Saharan Africa. While acknowledging the diversity of policies followed by different post-​colonial countries and policy fluctuations influenced by sociopolitical forces operating at national, regional and global levels, this chapter highlights some of the main characteristics shared by most of these countries. With this perspective in mind, policy aspects salient in sub-​Saharan Africa, such as the privileging of inherited colonial languages to the detriment of local languages, the preference for early-​exit transitional models of bilingual education and the adoption of monolingual pedagogies, are compared with those attested in other post-​ colonial countries outside the African continent. This chapter updates and expands the analysis of multilingualism in education offered in Chimbutane (2012), that, among others, highlights the prevalence of coloniality in education policy and practice in sub-​Saharan Africa. To frame the analysis, the chapter starts with a sketch of the historical development of the field of language policy and planning (LPP) (e.g. Ricento, 2000, 2006). This is followed by an analysis of colonial language policies, which, as I argue, have influenced the policy decisions that have been taken across sub-​Saharan Africa since independence. The main section considers two distinct phases of language policy and practice in the post-​colonial period: the post-​independence phase, characterized by the pervasiveness of monolingual LiEPs; and the current new world order, a phase characterized by the promotion of multilingualism and multiculturalism in education but also by the concurrent advancement of English as the global language. The chapter ends with a discussion on the intersections between multilingualism, globalization and coloniality. I show how, to address the continued ‘coloniality of language’ (Veronelli, 2015), Southern scholars have been proposing decolonial epistemologies and practices of language, multilingualism and language policy activity that promote conviviality and solidarity in difference (e.g. Makalela, 2017, 2018; Stroud, 2015, 2018; Stroud & Kerfoot, 2020; William & Stroud, 2013).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-17

207

Feliciano Chimbutane

Theory and method in the field of language policy and planning: changing perspectives The historical evolution of the language policies adopted in post-​colonial contexts is intimately linked with the development of the field of LPP: the multilingual landscape and associated sociolinguistic issues which characterize most of these contexts have played a key role in the constitution and theoretical development of LPP; at the same time, perceptions and practices of multilingualism in these contexts have also been influenced by epistemological paradigms evolving within this research field. LPP was constituted as a research field in the early 1960s, in the context of nation-​state formation following the bloom of independences from colonial masters (especially in Africa) and the drive to ensure linguistic homogeneity, perceived as a sine qua non condition for modernization and progress (see Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008; Ricento, 2000, 2006). This analysis shows how the history of LPP is closely linked with political decolonization and management of multilingualism in the newly constituted states in the 1960s. In this context, a critical review of the evolution of LPP as a research field helps us situate the history of language policies that have been devised in post-​colonial multilingual contexts. Ricento (2000) identifies three historical phases in the development of LPP: (1) decolonization, structuralism, and pragmatism (1960s); (2) the failure of modernization, critical sociolinguistics, and access (early 1970s–​1980s); and (3) the new world order, post-​modernism,​and linguistic human rights –​LHR (from the mid-​1980s). In this later phase, I highlight the continued development of critical, post-​structuralist approaches to multilingualism and LPP, leading to new perspectives such the Global South perspectives (e.g. Stroud, 2001; Makalela, 2017, 2018; Kerfoot & Hyltenstam, 2017; Heugh et al., 2021).

Decolonization, structuralism and pragmatism (1960s) In the first phase, LPP theory, research and practice was concerned with addressing linguistic ‘problems’ of newly independent nations. These included status planning, i.e. definition of the domains and functions of the competing languages in these nations, including the choice of language(s) that should mediate nation-​state building, and corpus planning, i.e. standardization and modernization of indigenous languages and lingua franca by linguists working with a broadly structuralist paradigm (see Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997; Ricento, 2000, 2006). Ricento (2000: 198) notes that “a widely held view among Western(nised) sociolinguists in this period was that linguistic diversity presented obstacles for national development, while linguistic homogeneity was associated with modernization and Westernization.” This view justified the adoption of former colonial languages (e.g. English, French or Portuguese) as official languages or the declaration of major local languages (such as Kiswahili in Tanzania, Somali in Somalia or Urdu in Pakistan) as national (and official) languages. Language planning practitioners of that time regarded this approach as ideologically neutral and as purely technical in nature and oriented towards problem-​solving and pragmatic in its goal (Ricento, 2000: 198; Alidou & Jung, 2001; Bamgbose, 1991, 2000). Negative consequences of this approach include the marginalization of local languages and their speakers, a threat to linguistic and ethnic diversity.

The failure of modernization, critical sociolinguistics and access (early 1970s–​1980s) The second phase of LPP development was characterized by an acknowledgment of the failure and negative effects of these North-​Western models of modernization and development. As Ricento 208

Languages of Learning and Teaching in Sub-Saharan Africa

(2000: 200) puts it, “newly independent states found themselves in some way more dependent on their former colonial masters than they had been during the colonial era.” In response, practitioners, especially those situated within different paradigms derived from critical social theory, started to reconceptualize language and LPP. They began to see LPP as ideologically motivated, rather than neutral. Through their analyses of historical and economic contexts in which earlier policies were produced, analysts showed how the choice of languages of wider communication (LWC) for high functions (e.g. government and formal education) and/​or certain national languages for low functions (e.g. communication in informal and intra-​ethnic domains) contributed to the production and reproduction of social stratification and to an increase in inequalities in post-​colonial contexts. In this regard, Tollefson (1991) argues that, through language policy decisions in education, governments create conditions, such as forcing the majority of the children from minoritized languages to learn in a language they do not or barely speak before entering school (often an inherited colonial language or a national lingua franca) and offering poor-​quality public education, which ensure that large numbers of people are unable to acquire the language(s) or the linguistic competence that they would need to succeed in school and efficiently participate in social and political life. As discussed later in this chapter, the notion of ‘ukolonia’ (Bokamba, 2011) captures this mechanism for forging social inequalities. Ricento (2000: 202–​203) argues that the choice of European languages as resources for national development tended to serve the interests of metropolitan countries, while the privileging of certain national languages led to the marginalization of many other indigenous languages and their speakers. This latter point can well be illustrated, among others, by the case of Botswana, in which the institutionalization of Setswana is threatening other local languages (see, e.g. Nyati-​ Ramahobo, 2000; Stroud, 2001; Heugh, 2008) and by the case of Tanzania where the promotion of Kiswahili and its prestige status has been at the expense of other indigenous languages of the country (see, e.g. Abdulaziz, 2003; Foster, 2021).

The new world order, post-​modernism and LHR (from the mid-​1980s) The third and contemporary phase of LPP development has been shaped by geopolitical transformations at local, national and global sociopolitical levels. These include the increased national and international mobility, the establishment of supra-​national coalitions and the globalization of capitalism. Among other things, the sociopolitical transformations that have taken place over the three decades or so have called into question the boundaries and power of nation-​states. On one hand, LWC and associated cultures have been making their way into the domains of local and regional languages and cultural practices, and, on the other hand, the power of nation-​states, especially the less powerful states, has weakened in the face of superpower regional coalitions and global capitalist forces. Consequently, many low-​status languages are being lost as, for integrative and socio-​economic reasons, speakers of these languages have been ‘forced’ to shift into the languages of power and socio-​economic mobility. From an epistemological point of view, this phase has been influenced by post-​modernism and post-​structuralism, but with critical theory continuing to exert its influence. Accordingly, one response to the abovementioned sociopolitical, economic and sociolinguistic transformations has been to articulate an ‘ecology of language’ paradigm, which has come to be widely regarded as a useful paradigm for critically addressing current multilingual policy demands (Hornberger, 2006; Ricento, 2000). Within this paradigm, it is assumed that languages, in a given environment, come in contact with each other and with the sociopolitical, economic and cultural environments in which they are used (Hornberger, 2002; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). Therefore, “language planning 209

Feliciano Chimbutane

activity cannot be limited to one language in isolation from all the other languages in the environment” (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997: 271) and must consider a wider range of contextual factors (sociopolitical, economic and cultural) implicated in the status and use of those languages. In current critical, post-​modern and post-​structuralist approaches there is special consideration for the role that individuals and collectivities play in language use, in shaping attitudes and in policymaking and implementation. This explains the importance accorded to bottom-​up LPP initiatives (e.g. Alexander, 1992; Stroud, 2001; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008). It is within this context that the notion of Linguistic Citizenship can be embedded. Linguistic Citizenship is a decolonial approach to language and multilingualism, that focuses on how people use their multimodal semiotic resources to exercise voice and agency and create new spaces for participation across contexts (e.g. Stroud, 2001, 2015, 2018).

Global South perspectives (from the first decade of the 2000s) In the last two decades or so, the critical orientation to LPP has led to the blossoming of Global South perspectives (e.g. Stroud, 2001; Kerfoot & Hyltenstam, 2017; Heugh et al., 2021; Makalela, 2017, 2018), which focus on language-​related struggles for basic, economic, political and social transformation (Pennycook & Makoni, 2020) in the Global South and challenge universalistic discourses of linguistic diversity while proposing its view as a context-​specific and multidimensional phenomenon (e.g. Heugh et al., 2021). While drawing on previous critical work in socio-​and applied linguistics, these perspectives are also informed by Southern experiences, ontologies and epistemologies (e.g. Kerfoot & Hyltenstam, 2017; Heugh et al., 2021). Working deliberately from Southern and African perspective, Linguistic Citizenship (Stroud, 2001) and Ubuntu translanguaging (Makalela, 2017, 2018) epitomize this trend towards re-​centring Southern experiences, ontologies and epistemologies in socio-​and applied linguistics. In summary, from the sociopolitical point of view, LPP emerged from a context of political decolonization and moved through a phase dominated by a preoccupation with modernization and into the new world order, characterized by a renewed interest in multilingualism, but also by the advancement of new forms of monolingualism. The current phase has been characterized by efforts to devise approaches to language, multilingualism and LPP that can best respond to language-​driven social inequalities, although some discourses from the earlier stages are still articulated in some settings. It is within this context that Southern epistemologies emerge.

Early developments: colonial language-​in-​education policies As various scholars have pointed out, to appreciate the current language and education issues in post-​colonial Africa (and in other post-​colonial contexts), one needs to critically review the language policies that prevailed during colonial rule (Campbell-​Makini, 2000; Alidou, 2004; Alidou & Jung, 2001). This is because most current language policy decisions and commonly held views about former colonial and African languages and knowledge still reflect the colonial legacy (Bamgbose, 1991; Obondo, 2008). I would add that any historical overview needs to be taken further back, to the pre-​colonial era, to contextualize some of the current influential ideological trends about the value of the African legacy in education and development, such as the ideology underpinning the ‘African renaissance’ movement (see Alexander 1999, 2003). A socio-​historical approach of this kind to language policy and practice is also applicable to other post-​colonial contexts worldwide (see, e.g. Ricento, 2000, 2006; Rassool, 2007).

210

Languages of Learning and Teaching in Sub-Saharan Africa

It is now commonly understood that, to legitimate their colonial practices of domination and subordination, Europeans represented themselves as racially and culturally superior to colonized peoples. In their colonial discourse, they constructed the view that their superiority ascribed them the natural or celestial ‘right to rule’ and ‘civilize’ the allegedly inferior peoples they had subjugated (Campbell-​Makini, 2000; Rassool, 2007; Errington, 2008). Despite various cases of resistance across contexts, overall, the colonized eventually assumed this colonially constructed condition of inferiority vis-​à-​vis the superiority of their oppressors. Today, after more than half a century of independence for most of the former colonial countries, the symbolic domination of the North-​West over these countries still prevails; more than ever, North-​Western cultural values and languages, especially English, are still the sought-​after symbolic commodities. How was this colonial discourse materialized by the different colonial powers in Africa, particularly as regard LiEPs? In the analysis of colonial language policies in sub-​Saharan Africa, it is common to acknowledge two major groups of colonial powers, based on whether they tolerated/​promoted or proscribed the use of African languages in official domains, including in education. Ansre (1978) uses the terms ‘pro-​users’ and ‘anti-​users’ to refer to these two groups. In the case of formal education, the ‘pro-​ users’, such as Britain and Germany, tolerated or even promoted the use of African languages as media of instruction, particularly at the elementary level. The ‘anti-​users’, like France and Portugal, imposed the use of colonial languages as media of instruction, at the same time that they proscribed the use of African languages. The language policies adopted in education and elsewhere reflected the general colonial philosophies entertained by each colonial power. For example, the British ‘pro-​user’ policy was consistent with its ‘policy of indirect rule’ (Alidou, 2004: 199): British colonial territories were indirectly administered via local chiefs. Discussing this policy, Obondo (2008: 152) notes that the British assumed that “a colony’s needs could well be served by training a rather small cadre of ‘natives’ in English and allowing these to mediate between the colonial power and the local population”. In contrast, the ‘anti-​user’ policies of France and Portugal were consonant with their overt and de jure assimilationist philosophies. For France and Portugal, one of their core missions in Africa was to ‘civilize’ the natives by spreading their languages and cultural values. Within this ideological setup, the use of African languages was, in both cases, viewed as an obstacle to the objectives of cultural assimilation in the colonial languages, namely French and Portuguese. Therefore, these European languages were defined as the sole languages of formal education. In contrast, the use of African languages was restricted to informal domains and, exceptionally, to evangelical purposes. Despite the descriptive usefulness of the ‘pro-​user’ versus ‘anti-​user’ divide, I find it overly simplistic. For example, it gives the impression that the pro-​users were altruistic and ideologically neutral; it may also lead to the interpretation that a given colonial power placed in a given category was consistent in its language policy throughout the time and across contexts, which was not the case. In fact, cultural assimilation was part of the agenda of both ‘pro-​users’ and ‘anti-​users’ colonial powers. The difference was that, unlike France and Portugal, for example, who had overt and de jure assimilationist approaches, pro-​user countries, such as Britain, adopted what Bokamba (1991: 183) called “an evolutionary or laissez faire” policy of assimilation. Moreover, the policies adopted by colonial powers were not always consistent over time and across contexts. For example, although in most of its African colonies Great Britain tolerated the use of African languages in the first years of schooling, when the ‘Mau Mau’ Freedom Movement was perceived as a threat to the colonial establishment in Kenya, instruction in African languages was proscribed and English was mandated instead (Arnove & Arnove, 1997, as cited in Rassool, 2007). Fluctuations and ambiguities in the British language policy also occurred in colonial India (see Rassool, 2007).

211

Feliciano Chimbutane

Overall, the different colonial policies outlined above led to common underlying consequences: the construction of the view of European languages as languages of modernity and socio-​economic advancement and African languages as inferior forms of speech, only useful in informal domains. However, the ideological philosophies associated with the ‘pro-​user’ and ‘anti-​ user’ divide may also help to explain some nuanced differences in terms of language development and language attitudes in the countries concerned. In the countries where the use of African languages was tolerated and even promoted, particularly in education, they underwent relative development, here defined as the availability of standardized orthographies, glossaries, dictionaries, grammars, fictional literature materials, etc. in such languages (e.g. Kiswahili in East Africa, Shona in Zimbabwe, Setswana in Botswana), although Makoni and Pennycook (2005) argue that these language descriptions and products were based on European metalinguistic categories and regimes of thought that served Christian and colonial ideologies of uniformisation and social control. Also, in such cases where African languages were tolerated, people have tended to be more positive regarding the use of African languages in formal arenas. This has been the case in former British and German colonies. In the countries where African languages were officially banned, they have not been developed in this way. They remained restricted to informal domains and were primarily used orally. In such cases, people have tended to be less tolerant about the use of these languages in official functions. This has been commonly the case in former French and Portuguese colonies.

Language in education policies in post-​colonial contexts The independence phase: Nation-​state building and the pragmatism of monolingualism Faced with the sensitive question of choosing the language(s) to be used in official domains as an integral part of the project of nation-​state building at independence, most African leaders opted for retaining the former colonial languages as official languages for government. In a highly multilingual sub-​Saharan Africa, these were perceived as the neutral languages of integration and modernization (Bamgbose, 1999). Thus, with rare exceptions, the language-​in-​education policies that reigned in the colonial era were also maintained after independence: where African languages had been excluded, they remained excluded, and where they had been allowed in the lower primary school, they continued to be used but limited to this level. The exceptions to this general trend included: (i) the abandonment of the use of African languages and adoption of the English-​only monolingual model of education at all levels, a backwards move, as happened in Ghana, Kenya and Zambia; and (ii) the extension of the use of African languages in education, as in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Tanzania. The first trend was based on the perceived functionality of the societal use of a former colonial LWC, whereas the second trend was linked to the pursuit of nationalistic goals. Despite the differences in terms of goals, these two trends share the tendency to marginalize other languages in the society, as in both cases such other languages are not only excluded from the official domain of the school but also from other high-​status domains. Indeed, even the case of Tanzania, which has been championed as a successful example of development and promotion of indigenous languages into high functions, it turns out that the promotion of Kiswahili, which is the first language of a tiny minority (mostly Zanzibari in origin), came at the price of exclusion of other local languages and their speakers. The same outcome applies to the privileging of Amharic in Ethiopia, Chichewa in Malawi and Setswana in Botswana 212

Languages of Learning and Teaching in Sub-Saharan Africa

(see Alidou et al., 2006; Heugh, 2008; also Nyati-​Ramahobo, 2000, in relation to Botswana). As happens in contexts where a former colonial LWC is the sole medium of instruction, many children are forced to develop initial literacy and numeracy skills in a language different from the one that they speak at home or in their local communities. The same applies, for example, to India and Pakistan, where English and languages of local dominant groups (e.g. Hindi and Urdu) are superimposed in the educational field (see, e.g. Rassool, 2007; Mohanty, 2008).

The failure of the monolingual model and attempts to change the colonial language-​in-​education legacy Since the independence phase, but most notably following the successful Nigerian bilingual education project in the 1970s, there have been attempts to change the monolingual colonial legacy in sub-​Saharan Africa, though many attempts to introduce changes fail to go beyond the experimental phase. Among the reasons that have been pushing African countries to experiment with alternative education programmes that involve the use of local languages as media of instruction is the growing consensus about the inefficiency of monolingual education systems in European languages, which are second and even foreign languages for most of the school children in Africa. The basic argument advanced has been that the high rates of academic failure attested in sub-​Saharan Africa are to a large extent linked to the fact that a language foreign to the child (English, French or Portuguese) has been used since the first day of schooling (Bokamba, 1991; Bamgbose, 1999; Küper, 2003; Alidou, 2004; Djité, 2008) or the transition to a second language has been made too early, before the child has developed solid foundations in her/​his own mother tongue and before proficiency in L2 has been sufficiently developed (Alidou et al., 2006; Heugh, 2008). Depending on their objectives, Bamgbose (2000: 51) groups the African bilingual education experiments into three types: (i) the first type covers cases in which attempts are made to improve a previously existing bilingual programme, without changing the extent of use of African languages as media of instruction; the case of the Primary Education Improvement Project in Northern Nigeria illustrates this type of experiments (see Bamgbose, 2000); (ii) the second type involves cases that try to extend the use of African languages as media of instruction from two/​three years to all of primary education; the Six-​Year Primary Project in Nigeria fall within this group (see Fafunwa, 1990; Bamgbose, 2000); and (iii) the third case covers cases where African languages are used for the first time as medium of instruction; this type can be illustrated by the cases of PEBIMO project in Mozambique (Benson, 2000; Chimbutane, 2011), écoles expérimentales in Niger, les écoles satellites in Burkina Faso and les écoles de la pedagogie convergent in Mali (see Alidou, 2004; Alidou et al., 2006). Despite the attested success of some of the pilot projects in sub-​Saharan Africa, a common trend is that, for various reasons, they are not expanded to wider contexts –​they die at the experimental phase. Negligence in implementation, ideologically based misconceptions about education in African languages and lack of political will emerge as the key reasons why such successful initiatives have not been replicated and/​or expanded (see Kamwangamalu, 2009; Bamgbose, 2000). The lack of follow-​up to successful African (and international) experiences has led some authors to conclude that language policy decisions in Africa are not guided by research findings but mainly by political pragmatism (see Alidou & Jung, 2001; Küper, 2003). In addition to blaming domestic language planners and politicians for the perpetuation of the colonial language-​in-​education policies in sub-​Saharan Africa, analysts have also pointed to former colonial masters and associated Western aid institutions, such as the World Bank and the 213

Feliciano Chimbutane

International Monetary Fund (IMF), as equally responsible for this status quo. The perception by critics has been that, for political and economic reasons, the agenda of former colonial powers and some North-​Western financial institutions is to perpetuate the hegemony of European languages in African high domains, including in education. In this context, they use all the means at their disposal, including ‘economic blackmail’, to impede the incursion of African languages into the domains ‘traditionally’ reserved for former colonial languages (for details, see Mazrui, 2000; Alidou, 2004; Chimbutane, 2012). A conclusion that can be drawn from this historical outline is that, although local politicians have a stake in the perpetuation of the dominance of European languages in post-​colonial contexts, it is also important to bear in mind the fact that language policy trends such as those I have outlined above are, to a large extent, influenced, if not determined, by external forces, including the influential power of metropolitan countries. Most post-​colonial countries are still dependent on former colonial powers and international aid agencies for their financial support, which makes them also politically dependent. The financial power of former colonial masters and international aid agencies allows them to dictate economic, cultural and political decisions in post-​colonial contexts.

The new world order and the trend towards multilingual policies and practices There are two competing tendencies taking place in the world today: on the one hand, we are witnessing a trend towards multilingual policies and practices, mainly aiming at promoting regional and local languages and their speakers; on the other hand, there is the advancement of English as a global language. In fact, many pluralist initiatives are, in one way or another, a response to the linguistic imperialism of English (Phillipson, 1992) and other LWC. Both trends are having a huge impact on LiEPs and practices worldwide, including in post-​colonial contexts. As May (2000) has pointed out, contemporary phenomena such as increased national and international population mobility, the operation of supra-​national politic-​economic structures, and globalization are, at the same time, destabilizing the tenets of nation-​state politics and reshaping linguistic and cultural pluralism. In the context of democratization and liberalization, the principle of ‘political togetherness in difference’ (Young, 1993: 124) is gaining momentum worldwide, and, in tandem with other forms of political change, is being translated into multilingual language policies (Hornberger, 2002). This has prompted the promotion of bilingual and multilingual education, even in the most conservative contexts. The current blossoming of multilingual education initiatives in the world illustrates this changing view of the relationship between multilingualism and national unity –​multilingualism and multiculturalism are increasingly viewed not as problems but rather as resources that nations should capitalize upon (Ruíz, 1984). This shift can be described not only as a response to the oppressiveness of monolingual and monocultural ideology but also to its limits. The oppressive nature of a monolingual ideology has to do with the fact that individuals and often minoritized linguistic groups are forced to conform to language entitlements defined at state level, which invariably represent the interests of dominant linguistic groups. The limits of this ideological position can be illustrated by worldwide experiences showing that one common culture and one common language does not necessarily lead to a harmonious society (Young, 1990). In sub-​Saharan Africa, the cases of Burundi, Rwanda and Somalia have been used to illustrate this same point (e.g. Campbell-​Makini, 2000; Küper, 2003). Although about 90% of the populations of these three countries share the same ancestral language, these are (or were at some point) among the most unstable countries in 214

Languages of Learning and Teaching in Sub-Saharan Africa

Africa, which shows that the boundaries between social groups are not necessarily drawn along linguistic lines. Additional evidence of the limits of a monolingual ideology in education comes from the fact that, despite being in place for centuries, it has failed to empower most Africans and push the continent towards development. On the contrary, it has been argued that this ideology, along with educational policies promoting monolingualism, has a direct bearing on the under-​development of sub-​Saharan Africa (e.g. Fafunwa, 1990; Küper, 2003; Djité, 2008) and has deepened inequalities among Africans, since an educated and socio-​economically privileged minority and an uneducated and socio-​economically marginalized majority are produced and reproduced across generations (e.g. Alexander, 1999; Alidou & Jung, 2001; Heugh, 2008). To explain why the majority of African ruling elite tends to maintain inherited colonial languages as official languages in post-​colonial contexts, Bokamba (2011) advances the theory of ‘ukolonia’, defined as: a psychological syndrome that obfuscates the rational thinking of a patient in a post-​colonial society and causes him/​her to evaluate himself/​herself in terms of values and standards established by the former colonial masters’ culture(s). In other words, it is an internalized colonial mentality way of self-​valuation. Bokamba, 2011: 161 The evidence produced here is now being used to critique the monolingual and monocultural views embedded in institutional life in Africa and to forge an alternative vision of language policy and national identity based on the recognition and promotion of the different languages, cultural values and practices represented in the different polities. The underlying philosophy is that unity in difference is feasible (Young, 1993), and that African development can only be attained if, in addition to inherited European languages, African languages are also used for high functions (Alexander, 1999; Bamgbose, 2000; Djité, 2008; Prah, 1995; Rubagumya, 2003). The new trend of multilingual language policies in sub-​Saharan Africa, including in education, can be regarded because of this continental and transcontinental ideological shift. As a matter of fact, compared to the independence phase, there are more African states that have recognized African languages as official languages either singly, or jointly with an inherited European language –​Botswana, Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Lesotho, Madagascar, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa and Tanzania. The South African and Eritrean language policies have been used as illustrative examples of constitutionally declared multilingual policies (see Hailemariam, 2002; Obondo, 2008). Accordingly, there are more countries piloting, introducing or expanding the use of African languages in education, as illustrated by the cases of Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger (Alidou, 2004; Alidou et al., 2006; Alidou & Jung, 2001), Cape Verde, Mozambique and São Tomé e Príncipe (Benson, 2000; Chimbutane, 2017). The fact that these former French and Portuguese colonies, where there were de jure policies of assimilation, are piloting or introducing bilingual programmes based on African languages can be regarded as strong evidence of a change of attitudes towards African languages and associated cultural values. However, despite this multilingual ethos in sub-​Saharan Africa, in many cases there is a mismatch between discourse/​policy and actual practice, as in most contexts the declared policies have not been effectively applied (see, e.g. Bamgbose, 1999, 2000; Kamwangamalu, 2009; Trudell & Piper, 2014). The reasons for ineffective application of pro-​African language policies in education include poor planning that result in scarcity of quality teaching and learning materials in African languages and trained bilingual teachers (e.g. Alidou, 2004; Alidou et al., 2006; Chimbutane, 2011); societal perceptions that African languages are not technically prepared nor legitimate vehicles for 215

Feliciano Chimbutane

formal education (Djité, 2008; Bamgbose, 2011); erroneous views that African languages curtail the acquisition of inherited European languages and school content, perceived as the gateways for further education and socio-​economic advancement (Obondo, 2008; Chimbutane, 2013); and poor advocacy actions aiming at obtaining parental, community and societal buy-​in and active participation in the provision of education based on African languages (Stroud, 2001; Alidou, 2004; Chiatoh, 2011). In one way or another, all these factors reflect the coloniality of language, in which African languages were conceptualized and represented as inferior forms of speech, only useful in informal domains. One of the consequences of ineffective implementation of bilingual education programmes based on African languages is the increased disbelief in meaningful education conducted through these languages. Poorly planned and under-​resourced bilingual education programmes do not offer a proper environment for students’ acquisition of and learning in a second or foreign language. Ineffective planning and consequent poor results may explain, at least in part, parents’ and teachers’ resistance to bilingual education in sub-​Saharan Africa. This suggests that, in many cases, parents prefer to send their children to schools using an inherited European language as LoLT not only because of long-​standing negative attitudes attached to African languages (Banda, 2000; Campbell-​Makini, 2000 in relation to South Africa and Tanzania, respectively), but also because they understand that those schools are better resourced and more likely to harness their children the linguistic and cultural capital necessary for access to higher education and for future upward socio-​economic mobility (see, for example, Bunyi, 2008; Rubagumya, 2003, in relation to Kenya and Tanzania, respectively). In addition to attitudinal and implementational constraints, the multilingual ethos is further hindered by global forces, in particular the renewed advancement of English into the domains of local, national and regional languages. One major consequence of this advancement is the backward movement attested in some countries that, until recently, had accorded a privileged space to some national languages. Some of these countries have switched or are switching back towards English, especially for educational purposes. The setback in the swahilization process of Tanzania from the 1980s (Campbell-​Makini, 2000; Mazrui, 2000; Rubagumya, 2003) and the language-​ in-​education policy reversals attested in Ghana (Trudell & Piper, 2014), Kenya (Mazrui, 2000), Rwanda (Pearson, 2014), Malawi (Mtenje, 2014) and Zambia (Heugh, 2008; Obondo, 2008), for example, illustrate the re-​legitimation of the hegemony of English by the concerned states. In all these cases, the renewed advancement of English is associated with the phenomenon of globalization: English is perceived as the language of science, technology, business and international communication. That is, the language that allows individuals and states to negotiate and compete in the global market. This focus on English at individual and societal levels has led McKinney to propose the concept of “anglonormativity”, which describes “the expectation that people will be and should be proficient in English and are deficient, even deviant, if they are not” (McKinney, 2017: 80). The evidence and analysis offered in this section suggest that despite the arguments about cognitive, cultural and psychological advantages that advocates of bilingual education based on African languages have put forward to support instruction in children’s home language, parental and societal considerations about symbolic and material rewards associated with dominant languages and cultures pose a real challenge that needs to be addressed (Hornberger, 2006). Devising a language policy that favours education in African languages is not enough. There should also be activities prompting its effective implementation to enable students to gain the resources equated with upward social mobility and participation. This should include proficiency

216

Languages of Learning and Teaching in Sub-Saharan Africa

and academic attainment in inherited European languages, as well as lead to the re-​representation of their minoritized languages as valid forms of cultural capital also in mainstream markets; otherwise, people may overlook the language ‘rights’ that states, supranational and global coalitions often strive to ascribe to non-​dominant languages.

Towards decolonial approaches to language, multilingualism and social ethics The main argument advanced in this chapter is that post-​colonial language policies and practices in post-​colonial sub-​Saharan Africa still reflect the ‘coloniality of language’ (Veronelli, 2015), in the sense that these are conceptualized and represented according to the colonial project of domination and exploitation, but also conditioned by ongoing forces of globalization. Within this framework, as in colonial times, multilingualism has been conceptualized and represented as a problem to be managed through top-​down LPP activities, whose focus has been homogenizing linguistic and cultural diversity in name of nationalistic claims. As such, metropolitan languages have been conceptualized and represented as the appropriate instruments for realizing the post-​ colonial nation-​state project, a language ideology that is contributing to deepen social inequalities by privileging minorities that can master these languages while marginalizing most citizens who can only function in African languages. In response to these prevailing colonial logics, scholars have been proposing decolonial approaches to language, multilingualism and language policy that challenge traditional views of language as autonomous and homogeneous and multilingualism as a problem, at the same time that they highlight the importance of grassroots agency and voice and address language related social injustices, including those related to economic and sociopolitical participation in society (e.g. Heugh & Stroud, 2018; Heugh et al., 2021; Kerfoot & Hyltenstam, 2017; Pennycook & Makoni, 2020). Relevant to the analysis of the sub-​Saharan context, in this section I explore the notions of Linguistic Citizenship (e.g. Stroud, 2015, 2018; Stroud & Heugh, 2018; Stroud & Kerfoot, 2020; William & Stroud, 2013) and ‘ubuntu translanguaging pedagogy’ (Makalela, 2017, 2018) as examples of decolonial, Southern lenses to multilingual encounters. Drawing on African experiences, the notion of Linguistic Citizenship seeks to uncover language related social injustices, often associated with the colonial matrix of power, and to “promote a diversity of voice and contribute to a mutuality and reciprocity of engagement across difference” (Stroud, 2015: 20, italics in original). This notion captures the idea that individuals and social groups should (and should be allowed to) exercise control over their languages and negotiate their political and socio-​economic participation across contexts. While underscoring the primacy and agency of the ‘grassroots’ to organize politically through language on their own conditions and forms of sociality (Stroud, 2018), this notion is meant to help mediate between universal and local, between national and individual interests. The notion of ‘ubuntu translanguaging pedagogy’ is broadly used to refer to “African worldviews of interdependence and general use of languages without boundaries” (Makalela, 2018: 262). Departing from a broader African epistemology of being and languaging practices, ‘ubuntu translanguaging pedagogy’ is a call for recreation of “complex multilingual spaces that reflect the ubuntu principles of ecological interdependence” (Makalela, 2017: 17). Crucial to this notion is the view of multilingualism as a way of being, a conduit of solidarity and languages as hybrid rather than bounded entities clearly differentiated from one another. Within the Linguistic Citizenship framework, Stroud and Kerfoot (2020) argue for reconceptualization of multilingualism as a “transformative epistemology and methodology of

217

Feliciano Chimbutane

difference”. These authors propose a view of “multilingualism as a transformative and decolonial instrument of social change and epistemic justice more broadly” (Stroud & Kerfoot, 2020: 16) Among other things, this view of multilingualism helps to understand, for example, how, despite ethnolinguistic differences created and exacerbated by colonialism, Africans are able to speak multiple African languages and use their multilingual profile as an asset that allows them to navigate different spaces and generate socio-​economic wealth. This shows that, rather than being a problem, as colonially constructed, multilingualism is a powerful resource that can be used to engage with and mind differences. In this sense multilingualism, including that involving African languages and metropolitan languages, can be re-​conceptualized and used as a tool for conviviality and coexistence, understood as processes of cohabitation and interaction in contexts of diversity and difference (see Williams & Stroud, 2013). This social orientation of practices of multilingualism is also captured by the concept of ‘ubuntu translanguaging pedagogy’ with its emphasis on human interdependency and use of languages without boundaries (Makalela, 2018). Linguistic citizenship and ubuntu translanguaging align with Pennycook and Makoni’s (2020: 46) description that, in Southern post-​colonial contexts, “multilingualism is part of wider social and cultural practices, making the social grounding of human interaction central, as opposed to language-​centred multilingualism, which assumes a multiplicity of language systems as central to the analysis”. This transformative potential of multilingualism seems to be the key driver of the so-​called ‘multilingual turn’ (May, 2014) in the Global North and West, including in education. This movement focuses on plurality, multiplicity and hybridity in the view of language and language use. Programmes such as Erasmus Mundus in the European Union aim to operationalize this goal of using multilingualism as an instrument of conviviality and coexistence in difference, although only certain forms of multilingualism (i.e. ‘elite multilingualism’ in European languages) seem to count. In fact, as Kubota (2016:49) proposes, there is a need to investigate to what extent the ‘multilingual turn’ is not tied up with “the systems of power that produce racial, economic, and other inequalities related to plural and hybrid linguistic practices”. Despite the coloniality of language, plurality, multiplicity and hybridity have been some of the de facto outcomes of multilingualism and languaging practices in most contexts in the Global South. Given these movements in the Global North and West, where monolingual and monocultural ideologies were engineered, fostered and then transplanted to colonial contexts, Africans should ask themselves why then not wake up from the colonial lethargy and re-​evaluate their multilingualism and legitimately explore the affordances of their sociolinguistic mosaic, repertoires –​of which nativized metropolitan languages are part and parcel. The calls for the use of multilingual pedagogies, including the use of translanguaging practices, translate this need to explore multilingual resources in African education (e.g. Makoe & McKinney, 2014; Makalela, 2017, 2018; Chimbutane, 2013, 2017). As illustrated and discussed throughout this chapter, a salient feature of education in sub-​ Saharan Africa has been that citizens tend to focus more on acquisition of European languages and on education in these languages. However, for the overwhelming majority of the populations, particularly in rural contexts and vulnerable families, this focus on formal acquisition of European languages and associated cultural capital is not at the expense of their ancestral African languages and modes of being. For these citizens, inherited European languages and African languages and associate cultural capital constitute or should all constitute part of their multilinguality and linguistic citizenry. Therefore, the same way it is assumed that the subaltern cannot do without Western epistemes and paradigms, such as modernity and globalization (e.g. Mignolo, 2013), speakers of marginalized African languages also cannot do without the inherited colonial languages. This view is in tune with Kusch’s notion of ‘duality’, which, contrary to dichotomy, entails the avoidance of 218

Languages of Learning and Teaching in Sub-Saharan Africa

taking extreme positions but maintain the fragile balance between the opposites so that the world does not destroy itself (Holas, 2017: 69, paraphrasing Kusch, 2008). In this way, speakers of African languages may be better off border-​crossing or moving between their ancestral languages and European languages and associated modes of thinking, doing and being, while affirming multiple, fluid identities and enjoying the affordances available within this bordering way of life. The ethical orientation of citizens who choose to live between opposites should inform the ethics in formal education in post-​colonial contexts, particularly in sub-​Saharan Africa. This transformative ethics can be enacted through adoption of ‘localized’ curricula and decolonial pedagogies, ones that involve “opening up the possibilities of teaching and learning subaltern knowledges positioned on the margins or borders of modernity” (Mignolo, 2007: 455). This should be a platform for collaboration between school and community actors in co-​construction of hybrid knowledges, which contribute to empower secular marginalized agents and enhance the relevance of formal education for these communities, which are the overwhelming majorities in sub-​Saharan Africa. In summary, what is needed are contextually based, pluralistic language policies and practices, ones that accommodate state, community and individual voices and interests and address contemporary language-​related social inequalities. Within this framework, while at the same time disengaging from colonial representations of African languages and from claims of African authenticity and universalism, Africans should capitalize on their multilingualism “as a mode of engaging with difference, as the process of ordering encounters linguistically” (Stroud & Kerfoot, 2020: 14), that is, as a method and praxis of conviviality and coexistence in difference. Despite constraints in implementation, ideological and legislative spaces for multilingual praxis have never been as open as they are nowadays in sub-​Saharan Africa. This openness invites different stakeholders, including intellectuals, local communities and civil society organizations to exercise linguistic citizenship and influence the implementation of decolonial multilingual language policies and practices leading to conviviality and coexistence.

Related topics Chapter 1 Lessons for decolonization from pre-​colonial translingualism; Chapter 2 Looking at multilingualisms from the Global South; Chapter 9 Indigenous language and education rights; Chapter 10 Linguistic citizenship; Chapter 15 Decolonizing multilingual pedagogies

Further reading Erling, E., Clegg, J., Rubagumya, C.M. & Reilly, C. Eds. 2021. Multilingual Learning in Sub-​Saharan Africa: Critical Insights and Practical Applications. London & New York: Routledge. García, O., Johnson, S.I. & Seltzer, K. 2017. The Translanguaging Classroom: Leveraging Student Bilingualism for Learning, Philadelphia: Caslon. Orwenjo, D.O., Njoroge, M.C., Ndung’u, R.W. & Mwangi, P.W. Eds. 2014. Multilingualism and Education in Africa: The State of the State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

References Abdulaziz, M.H. 2003. The history of language policy in Africa with reference to language choice in education. In Towards a Multilingual Culture of Education. A. Ouane, Ed. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Education. Alexander, N. 1992. Language planning from below. In Language and Society in Africa. The Theory and Practice of Sociolinguistics. R. Herbert, Ed. Johannesburg: Witswatersrand University Press. Alexander, N. 1999. An African renaissance without African languages. Social Dynamics. 25(1): 1–​12.

219

Feliciano Chimbutane Alexander, N. 2003. The African Renaissance and the Use of African Languages in Tertiary Education. PRAESA occasional papers No. 13, Cape Town: Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa (PRAESA). Alidou, H. 2004. Medium of instruction in post-​colonial Africa. In Medium of Instruction Policies: Which Agenda? Whose Agenda? J. Tollefson & A. Tsui, Eds. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-​Utne, B., Diallo, Y.S., Heugh, K. & Wolff, H.E. 2006. Optimizing Learning and Education in Africa –​ The Language Factor: A Stock-​taking Research on Mother Tongue and Bilingual Education in Sub-​Saharan Africa. http://​adea​net.org/​bienn​ial-​2006/​doc/​docum​ent/​B3_​M​TBLE​_​en.pdf. Alidou, H. & Jung, I. 2001. Education language policies in Francophone Africa: what have we learned from the field experiences? In Language Policy: Lessons from Global Models. S.J. Baker, Ed. California: Institute of International Studies (Contributor: Monterey Institute of International Studies). Ansre, G. 1978. The use of indigenous languages in education in sub-​Saharan Africa: presuppositions, lessons, and prospects. In Georgetown Round Table on Language and Linguistics. J.E. Alatis, Ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Arnove, A.K. & Arnove, R.F. 1997. A reassessment of education, language, and cultural imperialism: British colonialism in India and Africa. In International Handbook of Education and Development: Preparing Schools, Students and Nations for the Twenty-​First Century. W. Cummings & N. McGinn, Eds. Oxford: Elsevier. Bamgbose, A. 1991. Language and the Nation: The Language Question in Sub-​Saharan Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bamgbose, A. 1999. African language development and language planning. Social Dynamics. 25(1): 13–​30. Bamgbose, A. 2000. Language and Exclusion: The Consequences of Language Policies in Africa. Hamburg: Lit Verlag Munster. Banda, F. 2000. The dilemma of mother tongue: prospects for bilingual education in South Africa. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 13 (1): 51–​66. Benson, C. 2000. The primary bilingual education experiment in Mozambique, 1993 to 1997. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 3(3): 149–​66. Bokamba, E.G. 1991. French colonial language policies and their legacies. In Language Planning: Focusschrift in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman. D.F. Marshall, Ed. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3. Bokamba, E.G. 2011. Ukolonia in African language policies and practices In Selected Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. E.G. Bokamba et al., Eds. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Bunyi, G. (2008) Constructing elites in Kenya: implications for classroom language practices in Africa. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edition, Vol. 3: Discourse and Education. M. Martin-​ Jones, A.M. de Mejia & N.H. Hornberger, Eds. New York: Springer Science+​Business Media LLC. Campbell-​Makini, Z.M.R. 2000. The language of schooling: deconstructing myths about African languages. In Language and Institutions in Africa. S.B. Makoni & N. Kamwangamalu, Eds. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society. Chiatoh, B.A. 2011. Sustaining mother tongue medium education: an inter-​community self-​help framework in Cameroon. International Review of Education. 57: 583–​597. Chimbutane, F. 2011 Rethinking Bilingual Education in Post-​colonial Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Chimbutane, F. 2012. Multilingualism in education in post-​colonial contexts: with special reference to sub-​ Saharan African. In Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Creese & A. Blackledge, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. Chimbutane, F. 2013. Codeswitching in L1 and L2 learning contexts: insights from a study of teacher beliefs and practices in Mozambican bilingual education programmes. Language and Education. 27(4): 314–​328. Chimbutane, F. 2017. Multilingual resources in classroom interaction: Portuguese and African/​ Creole languages in monolingual and bilingual education programs. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Discourse and Education (3rd ed.). S. Wortham, D. Kim & S. May, Eds. New York: Springer. Djité, P.G. 2008. The Sociolinguistics of Development in Africa. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Errington, J. 2008. Linguistics in a Colonial World: A Story of Language, Meaning and Power. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Escobar, A.M. 2012. Bilingualism in Latin America. In Bhatia, T.K. & Ritchie, W.C, Eds. The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.

220

Languages of Learning and Teaching in Sub-Saharan Africa Fafunwa, A.B. 1990. Using national languages in education: a challenge to African educators. In African Thoughts on the Prospects of Education for All. Dakar, 27–​30 November 1989. UNESCO/​UNICEF, Eds. Dakar: UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Africa. Foster, D. 2021. Language of instruction in rural Tanzania: a critical analysis of parents’ discursive practices and valued linguistic capabilities. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Bristol. Hailemariam, C. 2002. Language and Education in Eritrea: A Case Study of Language Diversity, Policy and Practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Aksant Academic Publishers. Heugh, K. 2008. Language policy and education in Southern Africa. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edition, Vol. 1: Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. S. May & N.H. Hornberger, Eds. New York: Springer Science+​Business Media LLC. Heugh, K. & Stroud, C. 2018. Diversities, affinities and diasporas: a southern lens and methodology for understanding multilingualisms. Current Issues in Language Planning. DOI:10.1080/​ 14664208.2018.1507543. Heugh, K., Stroud, C., Taylor-​Leech, K. & De Costa, P. Eds. 2021. A Sociolinguistics of the South. London & New York: Routledge. Holas, S. 2017. Rodolfo Kusch’s ‘estar’ as seen from the systemic perspective of Humberto Maturana as a way of ‘corazonar’ coexistence. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education. 47(1): 64–​72. Hornberger, N.H. 2002. Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: an ecological approach. Language Policy. 1: 27–​51. Hornberger, N.H. 2006. Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. T. Ricento, Ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Kamwangamalu, N. 2009. Reflections on the language policy balance sheet in Africa. Language Matters. 40(2): 133–​144. Kaplan, R.B. & Baldauf, R.B. Jr. 1997. Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kerfoot, C. & Hyltenstam K. Eds. 2017. Entangled Discourses: South-​North Orders of Visibility. New York & London: Routledge. Kubota, R. 2016. The multi/​plural turn, post-​colonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics. 37(4): 474–​494. Küper, W. 2003. The necessity of introducing mother tongues in education systems of developing countries. In Towards a Multilingual Culture of Education. A. Ouane, Ed. Paris: UNESCO Institute of Education. Liddicoat, A.J. & Baldauf, R.B. 2008. Language planning in local contexts: agents, contexts and interactions. In Language Planning in Local Contexts. A.J. Liddicoat & R.B. Baldauf Jr., Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makalela, L. 2017. Translanguaging practices in a South African institution of higher learning: a case of Ubuntu multilingual return. In Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies. C. Mazak & K. Carroll, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makalela, L. 2018. Teaching African languages the Ubuntu way: the effects of translanguaging among pre-​ service teachers in South Africa. In The Multilingual Edge of Education. P. Van Avermaet, S. Slembrouck, K. van Gorp, S. Sierens & K. Maryns, Eds. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Makoe, P. & McKinney, C. 2014. Linguistic ideologies in multilingual South African suburban schools. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 35(7): 658–​673. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2005. Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal. 2(3): 137–​156. May, S. 2000. Uncommon languages: the challenges and possibilities of minority language rights. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 21(5): 366–​385. May, S. Ed. 2014. The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education. London: Routledge. Mazrui, A. 2000. The World Bank, the language question and the future of African education. In A Thousand Flowers: Social Struggles Against Structural Adjustment in African Universities. S. Federici, G. Caffentzis & O. Alidou, Eds. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, Inc. McKinney, C. 2017. Language and Power in Post-​Colonial Schooling: Ideologies in Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Mignolo, W. 2007. DELINKING: the rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-​ coloniality. Cultural Studies. 21(2/​3): 449–​514.

221

Feliciano Chimbutane Mignolo, W. 2013. Geopolitics of sensing and knowing: on (de)coloniality, border thinking, and epistemic disobedience. Confero​. 1(1): 129–​150. Mohanty, A. 2008. Multilingual education in India. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edition, Vol. 5: Bilingual Education. J. Cummins & N.H. Hornberger, Eds. New York: Springer Science+​Business Media LLC. Mtenje, A.D. 2014. An assessment of the evolution of language in education policies in Malawi: questions on what should drive a policy. LiASIG Annual Meeting, SOAS, 3 May 2014. Nyati-​ Ramahobo, L. 2000. Language situation in Botswana. Current Issues in Language Planning. 1(2): 243–​300. Obondo, M.A. 2008. Bilingual education in Africa: an overview. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edition, Vol. 5: Bilingual Education. J. Cummins & N.H. Hornberger, Eds. New York: Springer Science+​Business Media LLC. Pearson, P. 2014. Policy without plan: English as a medium of instruction in Rwanda. Current Issues in Language Planning. 15(1): 39–​56. Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. 2020. Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from the Global South. London & New York: Routledge. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prah, K.K. 1995. African Languages for the Mass Education of Africans. Bonn: Education, Science and Documentation Center. Rassool, N. 2007. Global Issues in Language, Education and Development: Perspectives from Post-​colonial Countries. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ricento, T. 2000. Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 4 (2): 196–​213. Ricento, T. 2006. Theoretical perspectives in language policy: an overview. In An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. T. Ricento, Ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Rubagumya, C.M. 2003. English medium primary schools in Tanzania: a new ‘linguistic market’ in education. In The Language of Instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA). B. Brock-​Utne, Z. Desai & M. Qorro, Eds. Dar es Salaam: E&D Publishers. Ruíz, R. 1984. Orientations in language planning. National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) Journal. 8(2): 15–​34. Stroud, C. 2001. African mother-​tongue programmes and the politics of language: linguistic citizenship versus linguistic human rights. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 22(4): 339–​55. Stroud, C. 2015. Linguistic citizenship as utopia. Multilingual Margins. 2(2): 20–​37. Stroud, C. 2018. Linguistic citizenship. In The Multilingual Citizen: Towards a Politics of Language for Agency and Change. L. Lim, C. Stroud & L. Wee, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Stroud, C. & Kerfoot, C. 2020. Decolonising higher education: multilingualism, linguistic citizenship & epistemic justice. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies. 265: 1–​21. Tollefson, J.W. 1991. Planning Language, Planning Inequality. New York: Longman. Trudell, B. & Piper, B. 2014. Whatever the law says: language policy implementation and early-​grade literacy achievement in Kenya. Current Issues in Language Planning. 15(1): 4–​21. Veronelli, G.A. 2015. The coloniality of language: race, expressivity, power, and the darker side of modernity. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s & Gender Studies. 13: 108–​34. Williams, Q. & Stroud, C. 2013. Multilingualism in transformative spaces: contact and conviviality. Language Policy. 12: 289–​311. Young, I.M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Young, I.M. 1993. Together in difference: transforming the logic of group political conflict. In Principled Positions: Postmodernism and the Rediscovery of Value. J. Squires, Ed. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

222

15 DECOLONIZING MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGIES Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García

Introduction Teachers’ roles in multilingual and multiethnic contexts are critical not just to ensure an effective teaching–​learning environment, but also to create equitable educational opportunities where children from all linguistic and ethno-​racial backgrounds can safely take up their epistemologies, identities and practices to learn. The question of whether students engage in learning depends largely on how teachers value and leverage students’ knowledge systems, and cultural and linguistic practices (Heugh, 2015; Makalela, 2015). Many nation-​states, embracing (neo)liberal ideologies, include linguistic rights (Skutnabb-​ Kangas, 2015) in their constitutions and even in educational policies. Yet, they continue to reinforce language ideologies that strengthen the hierarchy of languages and erase multilingual epistemologies and repertoires. Much has been written about the importance of multilingualism in education to educate Indigenous and minoritized children equitably (see, for example, Cenoz, 2009; García 2009; Hornberger 2009; Skutnabb-​Kangas et al., 2009). But as Ndhlovu and Makalela (2021) have pointed out, the mainstream understanding of multilingual education has been pre-​eminently colonial, defending language and multilingualism as colonial apparatuses of domination. In particular, little has been said about how to decolonize multilingual pedagogical approaches so that they embrace epistemologies, identities, and language practices of Indigenous and language minoritized communities. Language pedagogical practices remain carry-​ over products that are based on a Greco-​Latin thought and knowledge systems, which often contradict Indigenous and other minoritized knowledge systems and language practices (Ndlovu-​ Gatsheni, 2015, 2019). Built around the “colonial matrix of power” (Mignolo & Walsh 2018), a monolingual mentality in teacher training, textbooks and assessment shapes ways of teaching multilingual students. Despite persistent efforts to create ideological and implementational space (Hornberger, 2005) for the knowledge systems and language practices of Indigenous and language minoritized people, the epistemologies of colonizers and dominant people still pervade educational policies and practices (see García et al., 2021). This is the product of what Boaventura de Sousa Santos has called “abyssal thinking”, that is, reasoning that only validates the understandings of those on the dominant side of the line, opening up an abyss that renders the knowledges of the others invisible.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-18

223

Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García

Just as colonial languages were constructed as monoglossic entities that could be taught and used as medium of education, minoritized communities were also assigned a language that was named, described and classified by missionaries and linguists to fit their own epistemologies. The named languages that were the products of these descriptive grammars had little to do with the ways Indigenous and minoritized communities used language to make sense of their own worlds (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007). We argue that decolonizing multilingual education first and foremost requires us to engage in a critical understanding of the historical conditions in which languages are used and how power relations among people are created. In what are considered “post-​colonial” contexts such as Africa, Asia and Latin America, but also in the Global North, such as in the US, language education policies and pedagogies continue to be framed within colonial and nationalist ideologies (Hamid et al., 2013; Tupas, 2015) that benefit those with institutional power –​speakers of the dominant language and of the dominant social/​racial/​ethnic class. Such ideologies reinforce a deficit approach toward the language practices of Indigenous and minoritized communities. In this paper, we start by describing four contexts with different histories of colonization and domination over Indigenous and other minoritized speakers. We do so to show that settler colonialism, whether early or late, European or not, has had an important role in creating hierarchical categories based on constructs of race/​ethnicity, language, and gender. The exclusion of those considered to be racially and sexually inferior from a school system that operated in the language of the dominant colonizers and based only on the knowledge system of the powerful, has created the coloniality of schooling that exists today. We use the term coloniality in the sense given to us by the Peruvian sociologist, Aníbal Quijano (1991, 2000), that is, a system of domination that perdures after the colonizers have left. The coloniality of schooling is also prevalent in multilingual education programmes that were developed in the 20th century across different contexts. These programmes sometimes “crossdress” (Cusicanqui, 2012) as responding to the needs of the minoritized population, and yet, in practice, as we will see, they only superficially modify the existing power structures. As a result, many bilingual and multilingual education programmes also produce subjectivities of inferiority and educational failure among Indigenous and minoritized students. Despite the very different histories of colonization, what is common to the four cases we present –​Nepal, Peru, South Africa and the United States –​is the ways in which language has been constructed for schooling, or “invented” as Makoni and Pennycook (2007) would say, to dominate over racial and ethnic minorities without power. Common also is the ways in which language pedagogical practices have insisted on teaching monolingually, or even bi/​multilingually, but always based on a monoglossic construction that excludes the epistemologies and dynamic languaging of multilingual speakers with less institutional power. To decolonize multilingual education, more is needed than simply developing bilingual and multilingual programmes where minoritized languages are used. The questions for us are: How can teachers/​educators challenge colonial ideologies in language education? What do decolonizing projects in multilingual education look like? Multilingual pedagogies that do not engage with transforming the power relations and systemic oppression over minoritized communities are simply not enough. Teachers working with multilingual students from Indigenous and minoritized communities could focus on developing their students’ critical historical consciousness (Freire, 1970) of how inequities have been constructed through school and the framing of language. After considering these questions, we end this chapter by identifying the principles of multilingual pedagogical practices that are capable of disrupting the coloniality of schooling.

224

Decolonizing Multilingual Pedagogies

Linguistic coloniality and schooling Coloniality, as “the most general form of domination” includes “the cultural complex” that supports the superiority of “European rationality” as the universal way of knowledge construction (Quijano 2007: 171). In rejecting epistemological heterogeneity, the European coloniality of knowledge has been reinforced through colonial languages, ideologies and technologies of knowledge such as language policies, pedagogies and textbooks. In his Decolonizing the Mind (1994), Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o describes how the imposition of colonial languages and epistemologies in education have contributed to the “colonial alienation” of Indigenous and minoritized people. It is important for teachers to understand the historical conditions of the coloniality of languages to begin the project of “epistemological decolonization” (Quijano, 2007). Despite their contextual differences, the four cases we present in the next section clearly show that the move from monolingual to multilingual education in the second half of the 20th century has not resulted in transforming the social conditions of the linguistically minoritized population. The recognition and use of non-​dominant languages in education is simply not enough to overcome power inequalities rooted in the history of colonialism and linguistic nationalism. Multilingual education has to be accompanied by multilingual pedagogies that disrupt the colonial matrix of power (Quijano, 2007). We start first with a discussion of each context in alphabetical order.

Nepal Nepal was never governed by any European colonial administration. However, the coloniality of European rationality and epistemology has been pervasive since the mid-​19th century, influenced by the presence of the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent. Beginning with an English medium school for the royal family in 1854, the British regime in the subcontinent was influential in promoting a European ideology of linguistic nationalism. Since the mid-​1950s, Nepal has followed an ideology of ek-​desh-​ek-​bhaashaa (one nation–​one language) which defined Nepal as a homogenous community of people speaking Nepali (Phyak, 2018, 2021; Yadava, 2007). To enforce that ideology, schools played an important role, with textbooks and teacher recruitment nationalized and education taking place strictly in Nepali. And yet, Nepali was considered to be the first language only of the ruling and the dominant caste group. The multilingualism of Nepal is historically built on the rich oral practices of Indigenous and language minoritized communities. The 2012 census data show that Indigenous communities speak more than 80 different named languages besides Nepali. Named languages such as Newar, Limbu/​ Yaakthung, Tamang, Gurung, Magar, Tharu and Rai have a rich written literature and literary traditions as well. Whereas Indigenous and local minoritized languages were banned in public schools, even in the playground, until 1990, the State allowed private and missionary schools for middle class and elite students to use English as a medium of instruction. These divisive policies not only segregated the students in terms of their linguistic and socio-​economic backgrounds, but also perpetuated an ideology of deficit among speakers of Indigenous/​minoritized languages (Phyak, 2021). The students in public schools were taught in Nepali while the elite schools used English as a sole medium of instruction. This policy constructed a public assumption that languages other than Nepali and English have no relevance in education. Due to the pressure exerted by what was known as the People’s Movement, the 1990 Constitution recognized Nepal’s linguistic, ethnic and cultural diversity as part of the State’s identity. Subsequent policy emphasized the need for mother tongue education, at least in words. In 2015, the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal stated that Nepal was

225

Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García

a “multilingual, multicultural, and multi-​ethnic country”. Despite the recognition of multilingualism, the voices of Indigenous people and other marginalized groups for multilingual education have not been fully heard, mostly because Indigenous/​minoritized languages are still seen as a problem in education and the public sphere. Some local governments and schools have started to implement mother tongue-​based multilingual education (MTB-​MLE); although there is a significant policy–​practice gap. MTB-​MLE embraces both political and educational dimensions of multilingual education. It represents Indigenous people’s historical struggle for language rights and right to speak their mother tongues in the public sphere and builds on the knowledge that multilingual education supports quality learning for all children. But many of these programmes are experimental and use ‘mother tongues’ only to transition quickly to Nepali. Others teach the ‘mother tongues’ only as a subject, instead of using them as medium of instruction. In curricularizing languages other than Nepali, many Indigenous and minoritized speakers are further alienated. In the existing discourse, mother tongue education is viewed as the education only for minoritized language speakers. But their home practices, often also multilingual, bear little resemblance to what schools have constructed as their ‘mother tongues’. Both policy documents and pedagogical practices continue to enforce separatist language ideologies.

Peru When the Spanish conquistadores arrived in present-​day Peru, the Inca Empire ruled most of the territory. Quechua was predominant, and there were independent states where Quechua, Aymara and other Indigenous languages were spoken. As part of the process of domination that accompanied colonization, Spanish conquistadores created categories of exclusion. The Indigenous population was assigned a different and inferior biological race and language. These ‘other’ people were then considered ‘non-​human’ and incapable of communicating because they lacked what was considered the only valid language (Cerrón-​Palomino, 2010). As in much of Latin America, the Spanish colonial government repressed all cultural and linguistic expression of the Indigenous populations, especially after the revolt of Túpac Amaru in 1780. The white ‘criollos’, children of Spaniards considered white and born in the Americas, continued with this same policy and ideology once they took power after independence. Up to the 1960s, the education of Indigenous Peruvians focused on transforming them into monolingual speakers of a ‘standard’ Spanish with Catholic values (Contreras 1996, Trapnell y Zavala, 2013; Zavala, 2015, 2018; Zavala & García, Forthcoming). The formal inclusion of lenguas originarias in the education of some Indigenous communities started with Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) in Peru and other Latin American countries in the 1960s. This was tied to government-​based reforms enacted by the populist military government ruling at the time related to the redistribution of land through agrarian reforms (López, 2003, 2020; Ruelas Vargas, 2021). The 1979 Peruvian Constitution was the first time when Quechua and Aymara were considered ‘of official use’ (and other ‘aboriginal languages’ were considered part of the cultural patrimony of the country). Unlike Spanish, which was the official language in the entire country, Quechua and Aymara were of ‘official use’ in some areas. The updated 1993 Constitution (which is the current one) upgraded Quechua, Aymara and other aboriginal languages to ‘official languages’, but continued to consider them as such only in the geographical areas where these languages prevailed. Despite this official recognition, IBE has become apolitical in the past 30 years. Its emphasis has become the revitalization of especially Quechua and Aymara, as discrete linguistic objects (Trapnell & Zavala, 2013; Zavala & Brañez, 2017), and detached of 226

Decolonizing Multilingual Pedagogies

any intention to revert the unequal treatment that Indigenous populations have received and continue to receive. While the stated aim of IBE is for people who speak a lengua originaria to learn to read and write in their own lengua and Spanish and to be able to communicate effectively in different contexts (Ministerio de Educación del Perú, 2016), the offering of IBE has become limited to the first two or three grades of primary school and exists only in rural schools, similar to Nepal. This means that while the lenguas originarias are included in the early grades, rural students who speak little Spanish when entering schools would become de facto castellanizados (Hispanics) after their IBE ends. In the cities, Indigenous bilinguals are taught in Spanish only. Although named bilingual and intercultural, IBE has not discarded monolingual epistemologies, and assigns the two languages to a role of first and second, each considered the standard, and separating these now curricularized languages from the languaging of Indigenous communities (Kvietok-​Dueñas, 2019). Pedagogical practices in IBE have generally reproduced a deficit discourse that these students do not speak either the Indigenous language or Spanish, well.

South Africa South Africa was ruled by the Dutch and the British at different historical periods dating as far back as 1652. Since then, the ways of speaking of the autochthonous Africans and other Black Africans who have migrated to the country have been marginalized and castigated as the “clucking of the turkeys” (Alexander, 1989). During this early period of the Dutch settlers, schooling was meant to produce slaves to serve the settlers and literacy instruction was carried out through the medium of Dutch. African languages were, according to the Dutch, incomprehensible as turkey sounds and not suitable for communication between the masters and the African slaves. The apartheid government in South Africa was established in 1948 after the white Afrikaner descendants of the Dutch came to political power for the first time. Apartheid not only segregated people according to the colour of their skin but was also inspired by the European Enlightenment ideology of one nation, one language. The apartheid architect, Dr. H.F. Verwoerd decreed: “Those who speak different languages must stay in separate quarters” (Alexander, 1989: 21). This philosophy of separation was at the heart of the apartheid regime that saw division of the speakers of Bantu languages into what was referred to as Bantustan homelands –​internal territories that were formed based on what were defined as language differences. Makalela (2015) has referred to this language boundary formation as linguistic apartheid. This means that only one African language would be used in the schools of each of the ten Bantustan homelands. This one homeland–​ one language situation resulted in the selection of one African language used as the medium of learning and teaching from Grade 1 till Grade 8 and then reversed to Grade 1 till Grade 3 after the 1976 Student Uprising. This Bantustan arrangement mimicked the nation-​statism ideology of one language–​one nation and advanced colonial assimilation of South African languages, people and culture into European values where only European languages are used in high domains of life. Until 1990 and the end of the apartheid rule, schooling in South Africa was strictly in the languages of the white colonizers –​English or Afrikaans. Despite the subsequent recognition of 11 languages with official status (Republic of South Africa, 1996), the South African language education system today still reflects a monolingual coloniality, leaning towards English only. But even when school is said to be bilingual or multilingual, it does not match the actual dynamic linguistic practices of students. The current language in education policy encourages multilingualism in schools and leaves the responsibility to school governing bodies to promote multilingualism, which includes using more than one language for learning and teaching (Department of 227

Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García

Education, 2007). In practice, however, this policy is interpreted through monolingual lens where use of African languages as media of learning and teaching is reserved for Grades 1 to 3 and then a transition into English medium from Grade 4. This approach has in actual fact not changed the old colonial practice of subtractive bilingualism where African languages ceased to be the media of learning and teaching from Grade 4. Contrary to this school monolingual practice, the student speaks many languages that overlap in their everyday meaning-​making process. It is in this connection that this policy–​practice gap leaves teachers disoriented, and their students disproportionately disadvantaged in the post-​apartheid and post-​colonial South Africa.

The United States The territory that today is the United States was inhabited by Indigenous nations with diverse cultural and language practices before the European invasion. European colonizers arrived from Spain in the 16th century and settled in what is today Florida and California, and in the early 17th century throughout the Southwest region. The first settlers from England arrived in 1619 on the eastern coast of the territory, at the same time as enslaved Africans. Through war, forced occupation and enslavement, the US gained more territories and resources in the North American continent as well as in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, while categorizing the dominated Mexicans, Native Americans and the enslaved African Americans as racially and linguistically inferior. Educational projects for enslaved, Indigenous and colonized populations up to the mid-​20th century discouraged their development of literacy and were designed to destroy their knowledge systems and language practices. Those considered racially and linguistically different were considered inferior and segregated in schools. Their schooling was poor, with below-​grade-​level instruction in under-​resourced schools, and in English only. As a result of the civil rights struggles spearheaded by Chicanx, Puerto Rican and Native American people in the 1960s, bilingual education programmes started to emerge. But this use of languages other than English in education soon became only a transitional measure, similar to the other three cases here considered, until the student became ‘English proficient’. The developmental maintenance bilingual programmes that had been organized by racialized communities demanding better educational, social, occupational and housing opportunities during the 1960s began to disappear. In its place a different type of bilingual education emerged –​the so-​called ‘dual language programmes’. The shift from ‘bilingual’ to ‘dual language’ as the 20th century came to a close, indexes an apolitical programme, distanced from the civil rights struggles that accompanied early bilingual education. Many American dual-​language bilingual programmes have turned from their original purpose of educating language-​minoritized children, and in particular Latinx students, to serving English speakers who want to become bilingual. Thus, although the trend toward an apolitical multilingual education is similar in the US as in Nepal, Peru and South Africa, the present apolitical nature of American dual-​language bilingual programmes is different. Because Spanish as a ‘world language’ enjoys more privilege than the indigenous minoritized languages of Nepal, Peru or South Africa, American dual-​language bilingual programmes are often used as instruments to gentrify neighborhoods, attracting white middle-​class families to schools and communities that were previously populated by Latinx working-​class families (Delavan, Valdéz & Freire, 2017). These dual-​language programmes reinforce the colonial understanding of bilingualism as double monolingualism and promote standards in an invented ‘academic English’ and ‘academic Spanish’ that minoritized bilinguals cannot meet. Mena and García (2020) have referred to the Spanish taught and validated in many of these bilingual schools as “Spanish from elsewhere”, for it leaves out the bilingual practices of Latinx people in the US. In these bilingual programmes, racialized 228

Decolonizing Multilingual Pedagogies

bilinguals often learn that the dynamic language practices in their families are something of which to be ashamed. The fact that bilingual programmes use a language other than English as a medium of instruction does not in any way alleviate the coloniality of schooling.

Decolonizing multilingual pedagogies As we have seen, the simple use of multilingualism in education based on Western European notions of bi/​multilingualism as the addition of multiple named languages does not suffice to educate minoritized bilingual speakers in socially and cognitively just ways. Bilingual and multilingual programmes often reproduce the language epistemologies that have been precisely constructed to dominate and exclude minoritized populations from power and privilege. For example, the MTB-​MLE programme in Nepal still embraces a standard language ideology that excludes oral and Indigenous epistemologies of languages (Phyak, 2021). The intercultural bilingual education programmes in Peru teach in a version of the Indigenous language that has been standardized away from the practices of the community. The same happens in South Africa where the very dynamic multilingual practices of African students are not recognized in programmes that teach in an indigenous African language or Afrikaans or English. And as we have seen in the American case, the use of Spanish in schools has been curricularized in ways that often exclude the dynamic bilingual practices of the Latinx community. To decolonize multilingual pedagogical practices would require adopting a different epistemology about knowledge, language and bi/​multilingualism. The notion of named languages would have to be disrupted, as the pedagogical focus becomes connecting to the dynamic languaging of people and their knowledge systems. More than simple pedagogical strategies are thus needed. For this, it is important to go beyond the ideology of policy-​as-​text and focus on diverse languaging practices that students bring into the classroom. Decolonial multilingual pedagogical practices will look different across contexts because they must be attuned to the local effects of coloniality (Rajendram, 2021a, b). Nevertheless, we identify three principles of a decolonizing multilingual pedagogy that would centre the epistemologies and practices of minoritized bilingual students: 1. Using folk linguistic resources and the communities’ funds of knowledge 2. Leveraging speakers’ translanguaging, that is, their unitary linguistic/​semiotic repertoire 3. Developing learners’ critical consciousness regarding the historical role of language in domination Although we describe each principle separately, we warn readers that they do not work in isolation. For example, leveraging minoritized bilingual students’ unitary linguistic/​semiotic repertoire is only fitting if their epistemologies and funds of knowledge are included for the purpose of raising their critical consciousness.

Using folk linguistic resources and communities’ funds of knowledge Rather than focusing on the modern scientific knowledge about language and language education espoused by Western structural linguists, decolonial multilingual pedagogies embrace language practices, epistemologies and abilities of non-​linguists, the actual users of languages. This “folk linguistics” (Preston, 2002), defined as “the beliefs about, reactions to, and comments on language by what we call ‘real people’ (i.e. nonlinguists)” (p. 13), builds on the knowledge and language practices of community members. 229

Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García

For decolonizing multilingual education, first, teachers need to collaborate with the local community and students so as to identify community expertise and funds of knowledge (González, Moll & Amanti, 2005) and document a wide range of other linguistic, political, cultural and aesthetic epistemologies. The community elders with knowledge of other systems of spirituality, music/​song, storytelling, medicine, ecosystem, plant, food preservation, history, culture and place have space for sharing their expertise/​experiences, and collaborate with teachers in preparing lessons, curricula and instructional material. Since each community has a wide range of funds of knowledge about science, ecology and food, among others, the pedagogies must adopt a context-​specific approach. The stories, songs and epistemologies of the community members are recorded, transcribed and used in teaching different subjects. This process provides teachers with opportunities to understand the linguistic and epistemological worlds of multilingual children (see García, 2009). Including such elements as local literature and stories, histories, traditions and legends, songs and music can offer a transformative approach to develop equitable multilingual pedagogies (Panda, 2012). The inclusion of such elements helps to integrate community knowledge into the classroom and represents the identities and worldviews of the students from diverse communities. One example of decolonizing pedagogy is reported by Hough, Magar and Yonjan-​Tamang (2009). They have analyzed how an Indigenous/​folk approach in Nepal, for example, could create an equal educational space for Tamang ethnic minority students. Rather than adopting national textbooks, the researchers worked with the community members and students to document and use the knowledge of herbal medicines, healing practices, numerical systems and spirituality to teach science, mathematics and environment in an integrated manner. They used folklore, cultural practices, belief systems and local histories to teach language and social studies by inviting community elders and parents to share their knowledge with students. The oral history approach was adopted as a method of documenting and teaching these Indigenous knowledges to students. The language practices in this process were fluid and heteroglossic, involving those associated with what is named Tamang, as well as Nepali. The project team allowed students and teachers to use both Nepali and Tamang to learn contents of teaching and did not modify language practices because they believed that doing so would decontextualize the languaging used in the oral histories (Hough et al., 2009). Most often, however, multilingual education policies pay attention to teaching Indigenous/​ minoritized languages as if it were a curricular subject and adopting a standard language ideology. Because the curricula are developed following national frameworks provided by the ry of Education, they systematically erase the local language practices considered to be non-​standard or dialectical variations (Pradhan, 2019). Rather than engaging non-​linguist speakers in the process of curriculum-​making, linguists/​experts develop materials for teaching Indigenous languages by using a standard language that excludes the beliefs and language practices of Indigenous communities. The efforts to adopt folk linguistics as a guiding principle have been mostly short-​lived. In the US, for example, as we said, developmental maintenance bilingual education programmes organized by Chicanx and Puerto Rican communities for the socio-​economic improvement of their communities disappeared as the Civil Rights era ended (García, 2009). As two-​way dual-​language bilingual programmes have grown, emphasizing the needs of the majority English-​speaking students, some educators and scholars have fought back, opening up spaces to leverage the language practices of the bilingual community (see, for example, CUNY-​NYSIEB, 2020) and to develop the critical consciousness of teachers (Cervantes-​Soon et al., 2017). In Nepal, experimental mother-​tongue-​based multilingual education (MTB-​MLE) was implemented in six districts with 230

Decolonizing Multilingual Pedagogies

Athapariya, Rana Tharu, Tamang, Magar, Santhal, Rajbangshi, Uraun and Maithili communities. The programme adopted a bottom-​up and ‘engaged approach’ (Davis & Phyak, 2017) in which community members and students were key agents who developed curricula, materials and pedagogical practices. Rather than focusing on what linguists think about language, MTB-​MLE was built on the knowledge, beliefs and comments of the people from the local community. And yet, this too was short-​lived because the Ministry of Education’s overall intent was to improve the learning of the dominant languages, Nepali and English. Since national education policies reinforce the ideologies of nationalism and neoliberalism, the agenda of implementing mother-​ tongue education becomes less important in education reform plans (Phyak, 2021). Decolonizing multilingual education must be based on the knowledge and desires of language minoritized communities. The following statement by the former president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, is relevant here: I have been exhorting Africans, and especially the intelligentsia to define themselves so that we, as a people, can devise and implement our own political and socio-​economic programmes of action. We have to meet prevailing global challenges from within our own worldview and proceed to action from our own authentic possibilities based on the culture and competencies of Africans themselves. Khoza, 2013: xi But schools, as instruments of the powerful in the nation-​state, reproduce worldviews and epistemologies that do not match those of minoritized multilingual communities. As Ribeiro (2010, 25) has said: If the school, as an ultimately colonial creation necessitates both the construct of the mother tongue and that of the standard medium, then perhaps there is little room left for maneuvering towards a more non-​hierarchical, empowering multilingualism. One way of working towards this non-​hierarchical, empowering multilingualism lies in including the epistemologies, knowledge systems, histories, stories and artistic expressions of marginalized bilingual speakers. For this, it is important for teachers and policymakers to work with non-​linguist speakers and understand their language practices, beliefs and ideologies of languages.

Leveraging speakers’ translanguaging Multilingual learners and speakers do language with a unitary network of linguistic/​semiotic features which they leverage to make meaning, that is, they engage in translanguaging (García & Li, 2014; Li, 2018; Otheguy, García & Reid, 2015, 2019). Otheguy, García, and Reid (2015) have defined translanguaging as “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages” (p. 283). Bilinguals do not ‘have’ two languages; they ‘do’ language with a unitary language/​semiotic repertoire, a network of features and meanings from which they select those that are more fitting to their situations (Otheguy, García & Reid, 2019). And yet, traditional multilingual pedagogies use different named languages in isolation and prevent multilingual students from leveraging all their resources. In fact, some programmes, such as the dual-​language programmes in the United States have been specifically designed to keep the two languages separate (Howard et al., 2007). This follows the sociolinguistic principle of diglossia, 231

Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García

that is, the compartmentalization of languages that Joshua A. Fishman (1967) proposed as the only way to maintain stable societal bilingualism. Although many critical sociolinguists (for example, Martín-​Rojo, 2017) have shown how it is power and dominance that keeps diglossic compartmentalization of languages, the principle is still followed in bilingual education programmes for minoritized populations. For translanguaging pedagogical practices that honour the students’ unitary repertoire to take root, educators must insist on the unitary nature of the linguistic/​semiotic repertoire, as well as its potential for social and cognitive justice in education. Indigenous communities in Nepal and Peru, and racialized/​minoritized communities in South Africa and the US have been at the forefront of decolonizing multilingual educational practices. For example, recent work undertaken by scholars on learning and teaching in South African classrooms show the potential of teachers to decolonize the linguistic apartheid and leverage more dynamic multilingualism as the core African cultural competence for learning and teaching (Makalela, 2015, 2017; Madiba, 2014; Mwaniki, 2012, 2016; Mkhize, 2018). Teachers developing translanguaging pedagogical practices draw on the African value system of ubuntu, which predates colonialism, as a model for translanguaging theory, practice and pedagogy. Under the notion of ubuntu translanguaging, multilingual South Africans depend on infinite relations of dependency between named languages. For multilingual South Africans, no languaging act is complete with only linguistic features that are said to belong to one language. In this non-​Western decolonial model of language education, practices that are externally described as the use of English and African languages share the same classroom space in all school subjects. In doing so, pedagogical practices respond not to language criteria that has been externally constructed and imposed, but to the language of multilingual people, to their own acts of languaging. In this way, multilingual students can access their full linguistic/​semiotic repertoire, and not just a part. As different ways of languaging are allowed into classroom spaces that were historically reserved for colonial languages, transformations start occurring. Teachers who have previously heard only with what Flores and Rosa (2015) call a “white listening ear”, that is, ways of listening by those, white or non-​white, who have institutional privilege, often see the language practices of minoritized communities as inherently deficient and in need of remediation. But as they start hearing students’ languaging with a different ear, they start understanding how the overlapping of linguistic practices previously heard as different languages interact in translanguaging acts of reading, writing, speaking, listening and signing. Rather than following the prescriptions of any method of teaching a foreign or second language, teachers need to use their own personal and community histories of language experiences as a tool for creating translanguaging school spaces. One specific example from Nepal is the recent work by the Newa Settlement Newa School (NSNS) Campaign of the Newar Indigenous people in the Kathmandu Valley to establish pre-​primary schools that focus on teaching the Newar history, culture, knowledge and place. In these schools, teachers deconstruct the boundaries of languages and speak what are said to be Newar, Nepali and English simultaneously, that is, they engage in translanguaging. Since their textbooks focus on Newar histories, stories and cultural practices, teachers and students find the relevance of using Newar in the classroom. Their textbooks are multilingual (in Newar, Nepali and English) and adopt ‘a flexible translanguaging approach’ (García 2009; García & Li, 2014) to embrace the students’ total linguistic/​semiotic repertoire not only to create an engaging classroom environment, but to recognize the students as multilingual beings (see Phyak, 2021). Like the Newars of the Kathmandu Valley, other Indigenous communities in Nepal such as the Limbu and Tharu are actively involved in creating space for Indigenous languages in schools. In the eastern hills of the country, the Limbu people are collaborating with the local schools to implement multilingual education. They hire local teachers or educate the existing teachers 232

Decolonizing Multilingual Pedagogies

who could speak Limbu to teach different subjects. These Indigenous teachers focus on Limbu history, Mundhum (oral cultural performance of the Limbu people), and their artistic/​aesthetic performances, as the content of teaching. Building on Indigenous folk linguistic practices and epistemologies, teachers encourage students to use all linguistic and other semiotic tools to make sense of the content of teaching. To transform the monolingual separatist language ideology, the Limbu Indigenous teachers allow students to leverage their translanguaging to also address the gap in existing knowledge of Limbu. They embrace translanguaging as an approach to help students understand and connect Indigenous history, place, and culture to their own personal and community lives. The translanguaging practices in the school convert the school into an equitable multilingual space that connects the school with home. As Phyak (2021) has observed, Limbu teachers’ translanguaging practices go beyond “linguicentricism” (Spolsky, 2004) and embrace Indigenous epistemologies, histories, cultural practices and places as a resource for engaging students in a deeper-​learning process. That is, to decolonize multilingual pedagogies teachers must not focus on language per se. The trans-​in translanguaging means to transcend the category of named academic language that schools have produced, as well as transcend the histories constructed by colonialism. Translanguaging is a tool to understand and express epistemologies, histories and cultural practices that have been excluded from traditional multilingual schooling. Schools for minoritized multilingual students are found in different contexts. Multilingual education programmes for Indigenous Nepalis and Peruvians are often located in rural isolated regions. Programmes for racialized bi/​multilinguals in the US and South Africa are often found in urban areas. But there are also schools that serve minoritized students who live in physical borderlands (Anzaldúa, 1987) and cut across geographic boundaries of nation-​states, as well as languages. This is the case of the transfronterizx students in the school in El Paso, Texas, described in the study by de la Piedra and Esquinca (2022). These students go back and forth to Juárez, Mexico, on weekends and school breaks. Although the two cities are close in distance, people cross American and Mexican immigration controls, making the trip much longer. Although the teacher’s science lesson described by de la Piedra and Esquinca (2022) is expected to be solely in English, she uses her students’ linguistic and knowledge resources to teach science. In her classroom, students’ translanguaging is the norm, and through collaborative learning, her students construct their understanding of science. For example, in one lesson about forms of energy, and how materials –​and their molecular structures –​conduct sound, students read extracts and watched videos in English. However, Ms. O checked her bilingual students’ understandings, asked for examples from their everyday lives and especially their experiences with Mariachi music, and followed the students’ translanguaging corriente (ongoing) (García, Johnson & Seltzer, 2017). In so doing, Ms. O recognized her role not only as a language teacher who needed to expand the students’ repertoire, but also as a co-​learner of the rich epistemologies and experiences with which her students made meaning. Her multilingual pedagogy leveraged translanguaging to disrupt colonial understandings of named languages and scientific knowledge, while positioning her transfronterizx students as creative, intelligent individuals with a repertoire of rich linguistic practices (de la Piedra & Esquinca, 2022). The work of CUNY-​ NYSIEB (www.cuny-​nys​ieb.org, 2020; García & Kleyn, 2016) has focused on developing translanguaging pedagogical practices that take into account the funds of knowledge of racialized bilingual communities and disrupt the policies of language separation and monolingualism that are prevalent in their education. In the dominant context of American schooling, it is often problematic to change the ways in which the language allocation policies of strict language separation have been established. The work has consisted of listening to students and educators and attempting to open up translanguaging spaces (Li, 2011) however and wherever 233

Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García

it is possible. For example, Sánchez, García and Solorza (2017) have described the opening up of three types of translanguaging spaces in dual-​language bilingual classrooms –​a translanguaging scaffolding space, a translanguaging documentation space and a translanguaging transformative space. In all these spaces, teachers are encouraged to start not from the bilingual programme’s ‘target language’ (that corresponds to a named language) but from the actual knowledge and languaging of bilingual students, which disrupts the expectation of double monolingualism so prevalent in these programmes.

Developing learners’ critical consciousness regarding the histories and experiences of domination and the role of language To liberate minoritized multilingual speakers from the colonial production of language that has plagued their education, it is important to develop what Brazilian educator Paulo Freire called conscientização. According to Freire, the goal of education is to “perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (1970: 35). Teachers can develop this awareness first, before they can engage their students in this process. The dialogic engagement with students further strengthens critical political awareness of both teachers and students. Phyak (2021) has argued that educators must develop a “critical historical consciousness” to create space for Indigenous and minoritized languages. In the US, critical education bilingual scholars have identified four elements of pedagogical practices that advance the critical consciousness of teachers –​historicizing, interrogating power, critical listening, and experiencing discomfort (Cervantes-​Soon et al., 2017; Heiman, Cervantes-​Soon & Hurie, 2022; Palmer et al., 2014). Historicizing refers to acknowledging the ways in which minoritized communities have been shamed for their language practices in schools over time. In carrying out this practice, educators put front and centre the linguistic terrorism that schools have produced for minoritized students, even in bi/​multilingual programmes. Teachers also could engage students in interrogating power, that is, questioning whose histories, voices, languaging practices and communities are prioritized in education. Teachers need to acknowledge the fact that the legitimacy of languages in modern education is deeply rooted in the history of colonialism and cultural assimilation. In so doing, teachers could bring the diverse knowledge of the community as valid sources of knowledge. Critical listening involves paying close attention to the histories and voices of those who have been historically oppressed. Finally, experiencing discomfort means de-​ centring those with institutional power, whiteness, English and helping students recognize that being ‘nice’ to minoritized students is just not enough. In the US dual-​language education is the preferred bilingual education model at present. Because it includes both language minoritized students learning English as well as those learning the minority language, it has been often used, as we have said, as a tool of gentrification to attract white middle-​class Americans to certain neighbourhoods, by giving them access to learning a language other than English in elementary school. For example, as described in Poza and Stites (2022), Mr. Stites teaches 8th grade social studies in English in one such programme. The school is located in a neighborhood that had been historically Latinx, but in recent years it has been gentrified. The Latinx working-​class residents had to move out due to rising rents, and many now commute to the school. Mr. Stites adapted the unit he was teaching on American expansion to the western territories in the 1800s so that students would reflect on the process of gentrification in their community. Students first analyzed primary and secondary sources, examining changes in land ownership, patterns of colonization and occupation and the removing (and killing) of Indigenous people. At the same time, students 234

Decolonizing Multilingual Pedagogies

were asked to find information on the current pattern of gentrification in their neighbourhood through social media posting, news articles and interviews. Mr. Stites encouraged their students to do their inquiries not in English but using their full language repertoire. He included multilingual materials in the classroom and students had the choice to submit their assignments in the form of video clips of interviews, role-​playing skits, artwork, performances of lyrics of songs and jingles, or written essays, all showing how they were using their entire linguistic/​semiotic repertoire. The historicizing in Mr. Stites’s lesson included collaboratively interrogating power, as well as the development of critical listening of minoritized speakers. In so doing, the learning experience created discomfort, not just for minoritized students who were used to that experience, but also for white English speakers whose understandings of their privilege now led them to initiate action. The classroom space was turned into a space for language and sociopolitical advocacy, as language majority students transformed their views of bilingual Latinx students’ language practices as deficient. In Peru, Zavala (2015) studied a bilingual Quechua–​Spanish teacher in a small Andean urban area who encouraged her students to think critically about language use. During an activity, she asked her students to discuss why Quechua was not taught in schools in the past, and why their parents, despite speaking Quechua with their own parents, decided not to speak Quechua with them. A lively conversation ensued in which students shared how Quechua speakers have been marginalized and silenced. Then, the teacher asked in Quechua and Spanish, “Will we keep feeling ashamed of speaking it?” In unison, some students responded with a ‘no’ in Spanish and others with a ‘manam’ in Quechua. For this teacher, teaching bilingually could not be disconnected from the historical roots of oppression that continues until the present. The teacher also engaged in critical listening with her students to empower them to reaffirm their bilingual identities.

Putting it all together This chapter is not to be read as covering teaching methods and strategies, with steps to solve challenges in multilingual classrooms. This would have reflected the coloniality of knowledge that we are critical about. We have tried then, to communicate principles, and have given examples of how these principles have taken form in diverse contexts. This chapter serves as an open invitation to teachers/​researchers to dialogue on how abyssal thinking (de Sousa Santos, 2007) about language, education and multilingualism erases multilingual students’ ways of being, becoming and knowing. We have argued that decolonizing multilingual education should engage in a process of “epistemological reconstitution” (Quijano, 2007) by using community epistemologies and languaging practices built on particular histories, cultures and places. We reiterate that there is a risk of reproducing colonial ideologies in multilingual education programmes if we do not explore community knowledges and the language practices through which they make sense of their multilingual words. Indeed, there are no fixed sets of rules for decolonizing multilingual education and pedagogical practices. As an unfinished project, decolonizing multilingual education engages us in understanding historical conditions of epistemic violence and valuing heterogeneous epistemologies.

Related topics Chapter 2 Looking at multilingualism from the Global South; Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing; Chapter 13 Indigenous education and multilingualism: global perspectives and local experiences; Chapter 17 Translanguaging pedagogies in the Global South: review of classroom practices and interventions. 235

Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García

Further reading CUNY-​NYSIEB (City University of New York-​New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals). 2021. Translanguaging and Transformative Teaching for Emergent Bilingual Students. Lessons from the CUNY-​ NYSIEB project. London & New York: Routledge. (A description of many of the project components, including the transformation of pedagogical practices. The website of the project, www.cuny-​nys​ieb.org includes pedagogical practices) French, M. 2018. Multilingual pedagogies in practice. TESOL in Context. 28(1): 21–​44. (Based on an ethnographic study of a high school in Australia. Sets down principles to teach multilingual students.) Macedo, D. Ed. 2019. Decolonizing Foreign Language Education. London & New York: Routledge. (Includes chapters on decolonizing language education programmes and its pedagogies.)

References Alexander, N. 1989. Language Policy and National Unity in South Africa/​Azania. Cape Town: Buchu Books. Anzaldúa, G. 1987. Borderlands/​La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Santa Fe: Aunt Lute Books. Cenoz, J. 2009. Towards Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cerrón-​Palomino, R. 2010. El contacto inicial Quechua-​castellano: la conquista del Perú con dos palabras. Lexis. 34(2): 369–​381. Cervantes-​Soon, C., Dorner, L. Palmer, D., Heiman, D., Schwerdtfeger, R. & Choi, J. 2017. Combating inequalities in two-​way language immersion programs: toward critical consciousness in bilingual education spaces. Review of Research in Education. 41: 403–​427. Contreras, C. 1996. Maestros, Mistis y Campesinos en el Perú Rural del Siglo XX: Documento de Trabajo #80. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. CUNY-​NYSIEB (City University of New York-​New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals) 2020. Translanguaging and Transformative Teaching for Emergent Bilingual Students. Lessons from the CUNY-​ NYSIEB Project, London & New York: Routledge. Cusicanqui, S.R. 2012. Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: a reflection on the practices and discourses of decolonization. The South Atlantic Quarterly. 111(1): 95–​109. Davis, K.A. & Phyak, P. 2017. Engaged Language Policy and Practices. London & New York : Routledge. De la Piedra, M.T. & Esquinca, A. 2022. Translanguaging and other forms of capital in dual language bilingual education: lessons from La Frontera. In Transformative Translanguaging Espacios: Latinx Students and their Teachers Rompiendo Fronteras Sin Miedo. M. Sánchez & O. García, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. de Sousa Santos, B. 2007. Beyond abyssal thinking: from global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Review. 30(1): 45–​89. Delavan, M.G., Valdez, V.E. & Freire, J.A. 2017. Language as whose resource?: when global economics usurp the local equity potentials of dual language education. International Multilingual Research Journal. 11(2): 86–​100. Department of Education. 1997. Language in Education Policy 14 July 1997. Pretoria: Department of Education. www.educat​ion.gov.za/​Port​als/​0/​Docume​nts/​Polic​ies/​GET/​Lang​uage​Educ​atio​nPol​icy1​997. pdf Fishman, J.A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia: diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues. 23(2): 29–​38. Flores, N. & Rosa, J. 2015. Undoing appropriateness: raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Education Review. 85(2): 149–​171. Freire, P. 1970. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley/​ Blackwell. García, O., Flores, N., Seltzer, K., Li, W., Otheguy, R. & Rosa, J. 2021. Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: a manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies. 18(3): 203–​228. García, O., Johnson, S. and Seltzer, K. 2017. The Translanguaging Classroom: Leveraging Student Bilingualism for Learning. Philadelphia: Caslon.

236

Decolonizing Multilingual Pedagogies García, O. & Kleyn, T. Eds. 2016. Translanguaging with Multilingual Students: Learning from Classroom Moments. New York & London: Routledge. García, O. & Li, Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education, Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. González, N., Moll, L. & Amanti, C. Eds. 2005. Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hamid, M.O., Nguyen, H.T.M. & Baldauf Jr, R.B. 2013. Medium of instruction in Asia: Context, processes and outcomes. Current Issues in Language Planning. 14(1): 1–​15. Heiman, D., Cervantes-​Soon, C. & Hurie, A. 2022. ‘Well good para quién?’: disrupting two way bilingual education gentrification and reclaiming space through a critical translanguaging pedagogy. In Transformative Translanguaging Espacios: Latinx Students and their Teachers Rompiendo Fronteras sin Miedo. M. Sánchez & O. García, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Heugh, K. 2015. Epistemologies in multilingual education: translanguaging and genre –​companions in conversation with policy and practice. Language and Education. 29(3): 280–​285. Hornberger, N.H. 2005. Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. Modern Language Journal. 89(4): 605–​609. Hornberger, N.H. 2009. Multilingual education policy and practice: ten certainties (grounded in Indigenous experience). Language Teaching. 42(2): 197–​211. Hough, D.A., Thapa Magar, R. B., & Yonjan-​Tamang, A. 2009. Privileging indigenous knowledges: empowering multilingual education in Nepal. In Social Justice through Multilingual Education. D. Hough, R.B. Magar & A. Yonjan-​Tamang, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Howard, E.R., Christina, D., Lindholm-​Leary, K. & Sugarman, J. 2007. Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Khoza, R. 2013. Let Africa Lead: African Transformational Leadership for 21st Century Business. Johannesburg: Vezubuntu. Kvietok Dueñas, F. 2019. Youth Bilingualism, Identity and Quechua Language Planning and Policy in the Urban Peruvian Andes, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Li, Wei. 2011. Moment analysis and translanguaging space: discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics. 43(5): 1222–​1235. Li, Wei. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics. 39(1): 9–​30. López, L.E. 2003. ¿Dónde estamos con la enseñanza del castellano como segunda lengua en América Latina? In Abriendo la Escuela. Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas. I. Jung & L.E. López, Eds. Madrid: Morata Proeib Andes. López, L.E. 2020. What is educación intercultural bilingüe in Latin America nowadays: results and challenges. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 42(10): 955–​968. Madiba, M. 2014. Promoting concept literacy through multilingual glossaries: a translanguaging approach. In Multilingual Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in South Africa. L. Hibbert & C. van der Walt, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makalela, L. 2015. Moving out of linguistic boxes: the effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education. 29(3): 200–​217. Makalela, L. 2017. Bilingualism in South Africa: reconnecting with Ubuntu translanguaging. In Bilingual and Multilingual Education. O. García, A. Lin & S. May, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Martín-​Rojo, L. 2017. Language and power. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. O. García, N. Flores & M. Spotti, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mena, M. & García, O. 2020. ‘Converse racialization’ and ‘un-​marking’ language: the making of a bilingual university in a neoliberal world. Language in Society. 50(3): 343–​364. Mignolo, W. & Walsh, C. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ministerio de Educación del Perú. 2016. Educación intercultural bilingüe. Retrieved 24 March 24 2023 from https://​umc.min​edu.gob.pe/​educac​ion-​interc​ultu​ral-​bilin​gue/​ Mkhize, D. 2018. The language question at a historically Afrikaans university: access and social justice issues. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 36(1): 13–​24. Mwaniki, M. 2012. Language and social justice in South Africa’s higher education: insights from a South African university. Language and Education. 26(3): 213–​232.

237

Prem Phyak, Maite T. Sánchez, Leketi Makalela and Ofelia García Mwaniki, M. 2016. Translanguaging as a class/​lecture-​room language management strategy in multilingual contexts: insights from autoethnographic snapshots from Kenya and South Africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 34(3): 197–​209. Ndhlovu, F. & Makalela, L. 2021. Decolonising Multilingualism in Africa. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ndlovu-​Gatsheni, S.J. 2015. Decoloniality as the future of Africa. History Compass. 13(10): 485–​496. Ndlovu-​Gatsheni, S.J. 2019. Provisional notes on decolonizing research methodology and undoing its dirty history. Journal of Developing Societies. 35(4): 481–​492. Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo. 1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Language of African Literature. London: James Currey. Otheguy, R., García, O. & Reid, W. 2015. Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: a perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review. 6(3): 281–​307. Otheguy, R., García, O. & Reid, W. 2019. A translanguaging view of the linguistic system of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics Review. 10(4): 625–​651. Palmer, D.K., Martínez, R.A., Mateus, S.G. & Henderson, K. 2014. Reframing the debate on language separation: toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual language classroom. The Modern Language Journal. 9 (3): 757–​772. Panda, S. 2012. Alipur sign language: a sociolinguistic and cultural profile. In Sign Languages in Village Communities: Anthropological and Linguistic Insights. U. Zeshan & C. de Vos, Eds. Berlin: De Gruyter. Phyak, P. 2018. Translanguaging as a pedagogical resource in English language teaching: a response to unplanned language education policies in Nepal. In International Perspectives on Teaching English in Difficult Circumstances. K. Kuchah & F. Shamin, Eds. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Phyak, P. 2021. Language education policy in Nepal and the denial of the right to speak in Indigenous languages. Melbourne Asia Review Edition 7. Poza, L. & Stites, A. 2022. ‘They are going to forget about us:’ translanguaging and student agency in a gentrifying neighborhood. In Transformative Translanguaging Espacios. M.T. Sánchez & O. García, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pradhan, U. 2019. Simultaneous identities: ethnicity and nationalism in mother tongue education in Nepal. Nations and Nationalism. 25(2): 718–​738. Preston, D. 2002. What is folk linguistics? Målbryting, 6: 13–​23. Quijano, A. 1991. Colonialidad y modernidad/​racionalidad. Perú Indígena. 29: 11–​21. Quijano, A. 2000. Coloniality of power, ethnocentrism, and Latin America. NEPANTLA. 1(3): 533–​580. Quijano, A. 2007. Coloniality and modernity/​rationality. Cultural Studies. 21(2): 168–​178. Rajendram, S. 2021a. The affordances of translanguaging as a pedagogical resource for multilingual English language classrooms in Malaysia. In Research on Teaching and Learning English in Under-​Resourced Contexts. K.M. Bailey & D. Christian, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. Rajendram, S. 2021b. The cognitive-​conceptual, planning-​organizational, affective-​social and linguistic-​ discursive affordances of translanguaging. Applied Linguistics Review. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​appli​ rev-​2020-​0075 Republic of South Africa. 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa: Act 108 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printers. Ribeiro, F.S. 2010. Complexities of languages and multilingualism in post-​ colonial predicaments. In Educational Challenges in Multilingual Societies: LOITASA Phase Two Research. D. Desai, M. Qorro & B. Brock-​Utne, Eds. Cape Town: African Minds. Ruelas Vargas, D. 2021 Origen y perspectivas de las políticas de la Educación Intercultural Bilingüe en el Perú: utopía hacia una EIB de calidad. Revista Historia de la Educación Latinoamericana. 23(36): 205–​225. Sánchez, M.T. García, O. & Solorza, C. 2018. Reframing language allocation policy in dual language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal. 41(1): 37–​51. Skutnabb-​ Kangas, T. 2015. Language rights. In Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education. W. Wright, S. Boun & O. García, Eds. Malden, MA: Wiley. Skutnabb-​ Kangas, T., Phillipson, R., Mohanty, A.K. & Panda, M. Eds. 2009. Social Justice through Multilingual Education, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trapnell, L. & Zavala, V. 2013. Dilemas educativos ante la diversidad. Siglo XX-​XXI. Volumen 14 de La Historia del Pensamiento Educativo Peruano. Lima: Derrama Magisterial. Tupas, R. 2015. Inequalities of multilingualism: challenges to mother tongue-​based multilingual education. Language and Education. 29(2): 112–​124.

238

Decolonizing Multilingual Pedagogies Yadava, Y.P. .2007. Linguistic diversity in Nepal: perspectives on language policy. In International Seminar on Constitutionalism and Diversity in Nepal. 1–​18. Zavala, V. 2015. It will emerge if they grow fond of it’: translanguaging and power in Quechua teaching. Linguistics and Education. 32: 16–​26. Zavala, V. 2018. Language as social practice: deconstructing boundaries in intercultural bilingual education. Trabalhos em Lingüística Aplicada. 57(3): 1–​26. Zavala, V. & Brañez, R. 2017. Nuevos bilingüismos y viejas categorías en la formación inicial de docents. Revista Peruana de Investigación Educativa. 9: 61–​84. Zavala, V. & García, O. Forthcoming. Una educación lingüística crítica para profesores de español en contextos de hablantes minorizados. In The Routledge Handbook of Spanish for Specific Purposes. B.A. Lafford, L. Sánchez-​López, A. Ferreira Cabrera & E. Arnó Maciá, Eds. London & New York: Routledge.

239

16 OPENING (UP) SPACES FOR MULTILINGUAL LEARNING AND TEACHING PRACTICES IN SOUTH AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION A Decolonial Perspective Kate le Roux and Pinky Makoe

Introduction It is typical of many post-​colonial education systems to have a former colonial language entrenched as the language of instruction and its hegemonic positioning unmarked and normative. Focusing on higher education in South Africa (SA), this chapter is concerned with understanding and disrupting unequal relations of power between English, the former colonial language that continues to dominate, and Indigenous languages spoken by the majority of African speakers yet often invisible in higher education systems in this context. Much has been written about the valorization of English as the medium of education in universities, in the post-​colonial and post-​apartheid eras, and how it serves to silence and exclude the majority of students who are multilingual in African languages from participating in and accessing quality higher education (e.g. Bangeni & Kapp, 2017; Bock & Stroud, 2021). Yet, the question of language in higher education cannot be isolated from schooling, wherein proficiency in English is valued, enabling for those aspiring to access university education; and multilingualism in African languages is conceived as lacking academic value as well as inhibiting prospects of further studies and participation in a newly democratic nation, in a globally connected world in which English has currency. This linguistic injustice is (re) produced in a context in which the importance of multilingualism in education –​for learning, identity formation and knowledge building –​has been recognized for many years. Indeed, in line with the South African Constitution, language in education policy from school to university purports to recognize multilingualism, and to support the development of African languages as languages of learning, teaching, and research. However, as we discuss in this chapter, the notion of ‘multilingualism’ is (re)produced in particular historical and geopolitical relations, and is thus contested (García & Lin, 2018; Makoni & Pennycook, 2007). In South African policy and practice, multilingualism is generally conceived 240

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-19

Learning and Teaching Practices in South African Higher Education

using a monoglossic perspective, with named languages conceptualized as fixed, bounded and independent entities. And multiple named languages are located hierarchically within a monolingual, anglonormative framework, that is, particular forms of ‘standard’ English are used to define what it means to be educated and proficiency in English is assumed to be the norm; while lack of proficiency in English and multilingualism are viewed as a deficiency, a problem (McKinney, 2016). Thus, at all levels of educational practice in SA, students’ related knowledge systems, and cultural and linguistic repertoires often struggle to find space, and English prevails as the sole language of instruction in widely diverse linguistic contexts. This linguistic injustice constitutes multiple related injustices in education. Firstly, it realizes ontological injustice, since language and culture are what makes us human (wa Thiong’o, 1986), and excluding African languages denies students opportunities to participate in education as humans (Ramugondo, 2022). Secondly, it realizes epistemic injustice, since learners are denied opportunities to harness their own languages toward knowledge contributions, again a capacity that is central to being (Kerfoot & Bello-​ Nonjengle, 2023). Furthermore, as argued by Hurst and Mona (2017: 145), this is also a social injustice: the perpetuation of linguistically structured inequalities in education enabled by monolingual (Anglonormative, in particular) and monoglossic ideologies subjugates the language practices of “the very students that South African education policy is currently aiming to prioritise”. Thus, substantial and enduring inequities in education opportunities, and access and success into and through both school and higher education remain unreversed in the democratic era. The dominant ideologies about language as described briefly here and discussed in detail in the next section, are located within Anglo-​Euro-​centric language ideologies and Western epistemes of coloniality. We argue that to disrupt such narratives (‘disinvent’, following Makoni & Pennycook, 2007) toward linguistic justice in SA higher education, we need to think outside of the Western episteme − from the ‘border’ (Mignolo in Delgado et al., 2000) –​and ‘reinvent’ using decolonial thought with a particular focus on language ideologies. By language ideologies we refer to “the sets of beliefs, values and cultural frames that continually circulate in society, informing the ways in which language is conceptualised and represented as well as how it is used” (Makoe and McKinney, 2014: 659). Then, having described our theoretical approach, we use the key ideas to understand the background and context of historical conditions that (re)create unequal power relations in language in education in SA. We then focus on three case studies, each working from within a specific South African university context, that advocate for multilingual pedagogies in formal university classroom interactions. These pedagogies seek to break away from the limitations of colonial ideologies and normative English-​only practices, and open spaces to leverage students’ linguistic repertoires for epistemic access, identity affirmation and co-​construction of knowledge.

Theoretical framework To understand why English, the former colonial language, continues to dominate in SA, the notion of ‘coloniality’ as described by Maldonado-​Torres (2007: 243) is productive: long-​standing patterns of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, but that define culture, labor, intersubjective relations, and knowledge production beyond the strict limits of colonial administrations. Thus, coloniality survives colonialism. It is maintained alive in books, in the criteria for academic performance, in cultural patterns, in common sense, in the self-​image of peoples, in aspirations of self, and so many other aspects of our modern experience. In a way, as modern subjects we breathe coloniality all the time and every day. 241

Kate le Roux and Pinky Makoe

Central to this chapter is the fundamental role of language in these enduring power relations of coloniality, including monoglossic language ideologies (Fanon, 1986; Glissant, 1997; wa Thiong’o, 1986). These ideologies continue to shape language policy and practice in education, despite efforts toward addressing linguistic inequities. For example, it is argued that, while post-​Second World War notions of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘cosmopolitanism’, and subsequently ‘superdiversity’ and ‘heteroglossia’, may have intended to recognize linguistic diversity, they only create an illusion of equality (García & Lin, 2018; Ndlhovu, 2016; Prinsloo & Krause, 2019). This, since they are subsumed within Anglo-​Euro-​centric monoglossic ideologies in which different ‘monolingualisms’ stack up hierarchically in relation to the hegemonic language. Thus, as argued by Ndhlovu (2018: 118), the monolingual/​multilingual dichotomy evidenced in post-​colonial contexts “misdirects and misrepresents the notion of language diversity”. For example, García and Li (2018) identify different forms of multilingualism, such as, ‘elite multilingualism’ for authoritative literate (reading and writing) multilingualism versus ‘Indigenous multilingualism’. Gramling (2016), quoted in May (2019: 124), points out that the grip of (elite) monolingualism remains an inherent feature of social and political organization: whether we opt to call it a myth, a pathology, a paradigm, a relic, or a sham, monolingualism is woven into modernity’s most minute and sophisticated political structures, and it is clearly not yet inclined to be waved off the stage by a university professor, not even by a ‘multilingual turn’ in one or another discipline. With this understanding of coloniality, we use ‘decoloniality’ for longstanding ways of thinking, knowing and being from the ‘border’ of the dominant Western episteme. While diverse, decolonial perspectives are united by a focus on understanding the workings of power in the entanglement of peoples over 500 years of coloniality. Crucially, decoloniality also follows an agenda of dismantling hierarchies of coloniality and re-​imagining epistemes and ontologies, that is, “shifting the geography and biography of knowledge –​who generates knowledge and from where” (Ndlovu-​Gatsheni, 2013: 14). Pursuing this agenda is not an act of “disconnect and separation” (Mbembe, 2021: 89), but toward “pluriversality and new humanism” (Ndlovu-​ Gatsheni, 2015: 491). Focusing on language, Makoni (2013) argues that if we understand notions of ‘language’ and ‘discrete languages’ as historically situated and socially constructed, then Indigenous languages can be viewed as Western ‘inventions’ imposed on colonial subjects. Thus, advocacy for Indigenous languages may seek to challenge coloniality, but it is itself a ‘re-​inscription’ of these hierarchies. Rather, we need to ‘delink’ (Mignolo, 2007) from power relations of superiority and inferiority descriptive of coloniality, and ‘reinvent’ the notion of language by thinking from the ‘border’. In particular, reinventing involves a shift from “fixity to fluidity”(Makalela, 2016: 193) of languages and epistemologies, focusing on how people have communicated and continue to communicate (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007). We argue that such a shift is a necessary step towards disrupting existing hierarchies of language that serve to exclude rather than include. Next, we describe how these hierarchies are realized in the South African context, thus sketching the context in which the cases studies are located.

Language in society, schooling and higher education in South Africa Colonial trade and conquest in what is now South Africa, by the Portuguese, Dutch and then English, starting in the 16th century, was founded on related racial, ethnic, social, economic, 242

Learning and Teaching Practices in South African Higher Education

spatial, knowledge, educational and language hierarchies. For British imperial aims, this included using the denotational codes of ‘standard’ English –​presented as monoglossic, and masking its multilingual origins –​ as a lens to inscript fluid ways of using language by local populations as named, written ‘African’ languages (García & Lin, 2018). These colonial era divisions were even further entrenched spatially, legally and institutionally during apartheid in the second half of the 20th century. This included constructing clear boundaries and differences in opportunities to learn what knowledge and in what language. It included resourcing to formalize the colonial era creole language –​a historical mix of Dutch, with Portuguese, Indonesian, Malay and local Khoisan influences –​as a named language, ‘Afrikaans’, again informed by a monoglossic ideology. The move to formal democracy in the early 1990s saw attempts − constitutionally and legally − to disrupt the historical legacy of language hierarchies. Language rights and a notion of multilingualism were promoted in society and education, with 11 named languages given official status: Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, and Xitsonga. Less than 10% of South Africans report using English at home (Statistics South Africa, 2019). Most children start formal education already bi/​multilingual in the sense of using a wide linguistic repertoire, and most school classrooms are highly multilingual. School language in education policy may appear progressive on paper: allowing some language choice by schools, and proposing an ‘additive bilingualism’ model with ‘home language’ instruction, as well as opportunities to learn an additional language in grades 1 to 3 (Makoe & McKinney, 2014). Yet, in practice, English is valorized and the early exit model of ‘bilingual’ education after grade 3 means that most students are, from grade 4, required to learn (and are assessed) in English. Thus, the majority of students learn school content subjects in a language in which they are not proficient, with implications for their educational pathways through and beyond school. While teachers may harness their own and students’ multilingual repertories to support learning, this practice is not mentioned in policy and commonly does not receive official approval (Makoe & McKinney, 2014). Makoe and McKinney (2014) argue that this reality of the majority of South African school students being disconnected from funds of knowledge, and cultural linguistic repertoires that they are conversant in and can draw on as resources for learning, is not just a ‘gap’ between policy and practice. Rather, it is on account of the (re)production of colonial-​and apartheid-​era monoglossic language ideologies. These ideologies underpin practices at schools where one language is ‘pitted against another’ and every effort is made to avoid cross-​contamination between named languages (Makalela, 2015: 15). Despite scholarship that unambiguously shows that pedagogies informed by these ideologies do not cater for the learning needs of multilingual students (Makalela, 2015), the majority of students in SA are often put under pressure to make sense of the world and of who they are through a monolingual, anglonormative lens. Since the 1990s, access to higher education has expanded and increased. A more diverse student population has implications for what knowledges, ways of knowing, being and using language are brought to higher education, and indeed to which universities. Yet, the question of language in higher education needs to be understood within the school language context, as described above, where access to using home language for learning, and also access to using English for learning are inequitable. The first post-​apartheid national language policy for higher education was gazetted in 2002 (Ministry of Education, 2002), and it is in the context of this policy that the work reported in the three cases in this chapter was conducted. This policy promotes the development and use of African languages, but identifies these as medium-​to long-​ term goals, given the human and financial resource constraints. In the short term, meanwhile, universities are required to support students to learn in the languages of colonialism and apartheid, 243

Kate le Roux and Pinky Makoe

that is, English and Afrikaans. Overall, this policy does not signal a disruption of the enduring monoglossic and anglonormative ideologies, and an ‘elite’ notion of multilingualism (le Roux, Bangeni & McKinney, 2021). Each public university (of which there are currently 26 institutions) has geopolitical, historical legacies that shape how it has responded to 2002 policy. For example, Makalela and McCabe (2013) note that, during apartheid, historically ‘white’ universities adopted monolingual (either English or Afrikaans) policy and practice. Post apartheid, policy and practice changed the most at universities where Afrikaans was previously dominant, specifically toward bilingual English–​Afrikaans, in the interests of preserving Afrikaans. This bilingual approach took on different forms at different universities (Carstens, 2022): separate classes conducted in either English or Afrikaans; one class with English or Afrikaans as medium of instruction and simultaneous translation of one; only one of the two languages, depending on lecturer, and simultaneous translation. Makalela and McCabe (2013) argue that at historically ‘black’ universities which had, during apartheid, been created along ethnic lines according to language and race, moved to prioritizing English, downplaying the African languages that had been used as a mechanism to divide and control. Yet there is something “profoundly wrong” (Mbembe, 2016: 32) when the “one game in town” (Mignolo 2011: xii) with respect to language and knowledge, a game developed to serve the needs of colonialism, endures well into formal democracy in SA.

Three cases of a decolonial and language ideology lens in pedagogy in universities We now review three cases, in the form of articles reporting research on language practice and pedagogies in different universities, post apartheid. Each case was realized in a specific South African university, within the ambit of the 2002 national language policy for higher education, with students experienced in the societal and schooling context described. Our case selection is informed by our interest in how a decolonial and language ideology lens from the political South might be used to ‘delink’, disrupt the limitations of the language ideologies of global coloniality toward linguistic and related ontological, epistemic and social justice. Specifically, we explore how and to what extent pedagogical practices challenge dominant power relations and make space to leverage students’ linguistic repertoires for academic development and to affirm students’ identities. Space does not allow us to discuss other works located in the range of South African university contexts that explore ways to decolonize curriculum by modeling multilingual teaching, learning and assessment practices in mainstream classrooms. Some such cases include Antia and Dyers (2019), Mendelowitz, Ferreira and Dixon (2023), Ramadiro (2022) and Ramani and Joseph (2006).

Linguistic third spaces for surfacing non-​dominant language and knowledge resources Situated in a historically ‘white’, privileged, English-​medium university with a multilingual student body, Abdulatief, Guzula and McKinney’s (2021) writing focuses on interventions with two groups of students registered for the postgraduate certificate in education: for primary school level (grades 1 to 3); and for high school science and mathematics teachers. Informed by the notion of (de)coloniality and language ideologies as described in our theoretical framework, the interventions aimed to change the dynamic of power relations in education spaces where monoglossic and anglonormative ways of being and doing continue to be reproduced. Working 244

Learning and Teaching Practices in South African Higher Education

in an education system in which “the use of indigenous language resources has become so marginalised”, Abdulatief et al. (2021: 137) argue that decolonizing requires creating ‘linguistic third spaces’ (following Flores & García, 2013; Gutiérrez, 2008; Soja, 1996). These are interactional spaces characterized by multiple, hybrid language and literacy practices that are generally considered “by epistemological referees to be incompatible, incombinable” (Soja, 1996: 5). For Abdulatief et al. (2021), hybridity involves working strategically with macro-​and micro-​level power relations. On the one hand, critical language work makes explicit named languages in order to surface the dominant language ideologies and to legitimate resources other than the ‘standard’ language. On the other hand, translanguaging pedagogies are a means to implicitly use students’ full linguistic repertoires dynamically as meaning-​making resources in the classroom. Next, we illustrate what this looks like in each of the interventions. The intervention with prospective primary school teachers took place in four workshops in a module on language multilingualism and multiliteracies education. The lecturer (Guzula) aimed to model for the prospective teachers a dynamic, translanguaging classroom pedagogy informed by a heteroglossic language ideology. Abdulatief et al. (2021) describe the lecturer as having a ‘multilingual repertoire’, and use students’ descriptions of their language backgrounds to broadly classify the student group as a mix of English/​isiXhosa and English/​Afrikaans bilinguals, and monolingual English students. In the first lecture, Guzula introduced the notion of language ideologies as tools for thinking about language use, providing the space to surface and trouble the dominant monoglossic and monolingual, anglonormative language perspectives prevalent in South African society and education. Then, in an activity centred on the storytelling genre in the oral mode, the students were asked to provide isiXhosa and Afrikaans words for some of the given English words. Thus, in this third space, Guzula used named languages typical of a monoglossic ideology to surface typically marginalized language resources and knowledges. By giving legitimacy to these resources and knowledge, Guzula created the opportunity for translanguaging in a small-​group multimodal, multigenre and multilingual activity: students used songs and rhymes in posters and oral presentations, with the use of isiXhosa and Afrikaans a requirement. An exploratory analysis of one group’s poster and presentation suggests that the third space pedagogy in the four workshops not only made space for students’ varied linguistic repertoires and positioning as knowers, but also challenged dominant power relations. Since some language resources (such as isiXhosa) and knowledges were given legitimacy for the first time in the learning space, some students found a voice as knowledgeable. Yet it seems that the critical language awareness and task requirements may have led to other students experiencing discomfort with their language history, for example, their English/​Afrikaans bilingualism. The intervention with prospective African language-​speaking high school science and mathematics teachers involved translingual workshops in which the lecturer (Abdulatief, described as an English/​Afrikaans bilingual) aimed to model the use of multiple languages as a resource for learning. Workshop activities included performing practical experiments, creating multilingual and multimodal glossaries, writing scientific reports and visiting a local science centre. The exploratory analysis of the glossaries activity illustrates well the notion of linguistic third space in practice. This activity required students to explore the use of African language translation activities for science learning. While the translanguaging pedagogy of the workshop promoted the use of flexible, dynamic language amongst the participants, the activity itself led to deep engagement by students in critical discussions about the politics of scientific knowledge in English. Thus, the lecturer created opportunities to highlight the hegemonic monolingual, anglonormative ideologies that shape thinking about African and scientific language and classroom practice in science classrooms. The approach also surfaced the varied African language resources within the group 245

Kate le Roux and Pinky Makoe

of prospective teachers, and how power relations might shape what languages come to be used in the science classroom. Taken together, the two small-​scale interventions described by Abdulatief et al. (2021) illustrate how the creation of linguistic third spaces not only opens opportunities to understand hegemonic language ideologies, but also to reposition multilingualism as the norm in English dominant classrooms. Working strategically with the micro-​and macro-​power relations in this way supports the use of language practices usually excluded in formal learning spaces, providing opportunities for students from non-​dominant groups to contribute to knowledge and as knowers in the process.

Translanguaging pedagogy for critique and linguistic activism The case of practice researched by Hurst and Mona (2017) is a first-​year course on texts in the humanities at a historically ‘white’, privileged, English-​medium university. The course is offered in a four-​year, extended degree programme. Seeking to redress historical and ongoing inequities, this university admits into a four year programme, students (those classified as ‘black African’ and ‘coloured’ in the former political dispensation) with lower admission scores than those in the three-year degree. Indeed, it is programmes such as these that student activism calling for ‘decolonization’ of the academy at the university from 2015 pinpointed as (re)producing stereotypes of some students. The course aims to introduce students to the critical analysis and argumentation skills considered important for the study of academic texts in the humanities, and prior to 2015, was conducted exclusively in and using texts in English. Thus, the course is a prime example of one that has the potential to inflict the ‘colonial wound’ and to discriminate against certain students through language, a social injustice as noted by Hurst and Mona (2017). Thus, from 2015, Hurst and Mona introduced into the course, opportunities to critique the hegemony of English in South African academic spaces and to encourage linguistic activism through enabling other languages. In the article, Mona is identified as a course lecturer, and having fluency in ten of the official SA languages. Hurst is described as the course convenor and a course lecturer, and although speaking a range of European languages, relied on English for spoken communication in SA. In the revised course, the focus on both critique and action in their practice was informed by decoloniality, specifically following Mignolo (2009), the need to reinscribe ‘border’ thinking and languages as legitimate epistemically in order to challenge the dominance of ‘Eurocentrist’ modernist views of the world. It was also informed by related thinking on language as a right, and social justice toward a common good, cultural diversity, and democratic participation (Cumming-​Potvin, 2009) as requiring both redistribution and recognition (Fraser 1997). Hurst and Mona (2017) propose translanguaging (informed by heteroglossia), in particular ubuntu translanguaging, that emphasizes the interdependence of language systems for meaning-​making (following Makalela, 2015). Hurst and Mona (2017) describe a suite of related pedagogic practices adopted in the course, for example, translanguaging variously by lecturers and students –​in oral and written modes –​in lectures, tutorials, and online interaction spaces; the discussion of texts in various modes, genres and languages, including decolonial texts that explicitly critique knowledge and linguistic hierarchies; assignments that require critical analysis of the hegemony of English, and opportunities for students to submit these in languages of their choice, and to use concept glossaries. By analyzing their own lecturer reflection, lecture recordings, student submissions and course evaluations, the researchers note that English was dominant in explanations and discussions of theoretical concepts, in the lecture in particular and in students’ submissions as the course progressed in time. Yet they argue that their pedagogy recognized diverse experiences and languaging practices, thus 246

Learning and Teaching Practices in South African Higher Education

encouraging participation by those traditionally most disadvantaged, and extending the discussions and theories in the course. This research challenges arguments that such decolonial work cannot be done without extensive resources and teaching staff who share language backgrounds with all students. And Hurst and Mona (2017) recommend how such approaches could be further strengthened, for example, by using tutors with multilingual language resources; ‘sensitizing’ (145) monolingual students to the multilingual nature of the wider context; and exploring how to combat the tendency to draw on English for the discussion of abstract theoretical concepts. Yet, this article also illustrates the challenges of attempting to disrupt dominant power relations by operating within the very institutional structures that give these meaning and legitimacy. For example, students reported experiencing a disconnect between the opportunities offered in this course and other courses and the institution itself, and the authors identify the need for the demographics of the academic staff to be in line with the multilingual context of the university.

Translanguaging pedagogy for comprehending academic texts in English Yafele’s (2021) study is located in a first-​year course forming part of Strategic Communication Management and Public Relations diploma programmes in the faculty of humanities at an historically ‘white’ university. In the transition from apartheid, this institution changed from Afrikaans to English medium instruction. The second semester intervention reported by Yafele aimed to use fluid multilingual languaging practices to improve students’ comprehension of conceptual knowledge in academic texts in English, potentially challenging the anglonormativity of the learning space. Using an overarching sociocultural perspective of learning as social (following Vygotsky 1978), Yafele (2021) draws ‒ as relevant for the specific university context ‒ on scholarship that views students’ cultural and linguistic repertoires as resources for learning. This includes funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992); culturally relevant pedagogy (Gay, 2018); and translanguaging (e.g. García, 2009; Makalela, 2016), informed by a heteroglossic perspective of language (Bakhtin, 1981). The reading intervention involved a multilingual lecturer and students identified as sharing at least three of the five South African languages spoken by the lecturer, with English, isiZulu, isiXhosa, siSwati, isiNdebele and Sepedi most common. These students were also considered ‘at risk’ with respect to academic performance (based on first semester performance). The course readings –​in English –​focused on strategic communication topics, such as communication theory, verbal and non-​verbal communication, intercultural communication and so on. Reading skills valued in the course included analyzing texts, clarifying and elaborating on the text ideas, making claims and justifying interpretations. Although the course readings were in English, the actual reading process, that is, the three phases of previewing, viewing and reviewing a text (following Freeman & Freeman, 2000) were conducted using a translanguaging pedagogy. This approach aimed to support students’ meaning-​making through the fluid use of multilingual resources, written and oral modes, and genres (e.g. reading annotations and notes, article summaries, proverbs), in individual student work, student pair and small-​group work, and interactions with the lecturer. For example, in a small-​group activity to preview a course reading, students were required to identify the main topic as well as key themes, arguments and concepts in the text. Students were encouraged to draw on their diverse language repertoires in the explorative verbal talk about the English text. While using fluid languaging talk around the meaning of the text, they could also draw on multilingual glossaries to explore the meaning of key concepts named in English, for example, ‘miscommunication’, and ‘noise’. To encourage engagement and understanding, the 247

Kate le Roux and Pinky Makoe

lecturer also encouraged students to use proverbs as “a familiar pathway to the ‘strange’ academic rhetoric” (Yafele, 2021: 415). Yafele’s (2021) research on the intervention involved the analysis of observations of the reading activities and semi-​structured individual and focus group student interviews. The participating students’ performance was also measured using pre-​and post-​tests, and compared to a group of students who did not experience the translanguaging approach. The research suggests that the translanguaging approach enabled students to bring diverse language and knowledge resources to what was traditionally a monolingual, anglonormative academic space. This not only afforded student engagement with the reading texts, but improved students’ reading comprehension and conceptual understanding.

Conclusions All the cases reviewed in this chapter seek to challenge the (re)production of dominant monoglossic and monolingual, anglonormative language ideologies in particular multilingual university spaces, and discuss the epistemic, ontological and social justice implications for multilingual students. The authors report instances of linguistic activism in practice, that is, a suite of pedagogies that aim to ‘delink’ from dominant language ideologies. Rather than “disconnect[ing] and separat[ing]” (Mbembe, 2021: 89) from the historical, geopolitical context, this activism takes the form of shifting the departure point and moves towards a heteroglossic ideology and multilingualism as the norm. Then, adopting a suite of pedagogic practices, they act strategically to both critique dominant language hegemonies, and to work fluidly with multiple named languages, modes and genres to shift what knowledge is brought to the academic project, who is recognized as knower, and both in what language. In essence, the interventions reconfigure language and knowledge hierarchies that exist in the academic space by “shifting the geography and biography of knowledge –​who generates knowledge and from where” (Ndlovu-​Gatsheni, 2013: 14). Making a shift within university spaces that remain steeped in policies, methods and pedagogical applications shaped by linguistic hierarchies and inequality toward academic practices that aim to integrate and reposition students’ linguistic, cultural knowledges as valid sources of learning is a necessary step to deconstruct hegemonic anglonormative narratives. However, shifting within the constraints of the very institutional structures that give these narratives meaning and legitimacy is a real challenge. While it may be argued that more recent language policy, specifically the new national framework for language in higher education (Department of Higher Education, 2020), makes more space to move toward such shifts, concerns have been expressed that this framework does not, in its wording, signal significant disruption of the hegemonic ideologies. Yet the cases discussed in this chapter illustrate how lecturers/​researchers have indeed worked in the ‘borders’ (in Mignolo’s terms 2009), consciously creating ‘third spaces’ that include critique of the hegemonies, validation of multilingualism as a resource, and offer opportunities for students to translanguage, maximizing different elements of named languages and semiotic resources. While the three cases depart from a similar premise, for example heteroglossic, multilingual pedagogies, to ‘delink’ from monocentric orientations of coloniality, they do not separate or treat languages as bounded entities in a way that ignores English, but take a holistic, inclusive view of language to problematize dominant language hegemonies. This echoes Li ’s (2022: 180) assertion that “translanguaging is not simply about allowing languages other than English into the classroom context; it is not additive, but fundamentally reconstitutive of the power structures between named languages, knowledge systems, and pedagogic practices”. Respecting and valuing students’ diverse and dynamic multilingual practices is important for moving forward towards 248

Learning and Teaching Practices in South African Higher Education

linguistic justice, equality of different cultural and knowledge systems as well as to lay the foundation for decolonial education.

Related topics Chapter 1 Lessons for decolonization from pre-​colonial translingualism; Chapter 2 Looking at multilingualisms from the Global South; Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​ semiotizing; Chapter 14 Multilingualism and languages of learning and teaching in post-​colonial sub-​Saharan Africa; Chapter 15 Decolonizing multilingual pedagogies.

Further reading McKinney, C. & Christie, P. Eds. 2022. Decoloniality, Language and Literacy: Conversations with Teacher Educators. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mendelowitz, B., Ferreira, A. & Dixon, K. 2023. Language Narratives and Shifting Multilingual Pedagogies. English Teaching from the South. London: Bloomsbury. Ndhlovu, F. & Makalela, L. 2021. Decolonising Multilingualism in Africa: Recentering Silenced Voices from the Global South. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

References Abdulatief, S., Guzula, X. & McKinney, C. 2021. Delinking from colonial language ideologies: Creating third spaces in teacher education. In Language and Decoloniality in Higher Education: Reclaiming Voices from the South. Z. Bock & C. Stroud, Eds. London: Bloomsbury. 135–​158. Antia, B.E. & Dyers, C. 2019. De-​alienating the academy: Multilingual teaching as decolonial pedagogy. Linguistics and Education. 51: 91–​100. Bakhtin M.M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. In M. Holquist, Ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bangeni, B. & Kapp, R. 2017. Negotiating Learning and Identity in Higher Education: Access, Persistence and Retention. London: Bloomsbury. Bock, Z. & Stroud, C. 2021. Language and Decoloniality in Higher Education: Reclaiming Voices from the South. London: Bloomsbury. Carstens, A. 2022. Translanguaging as a vehicle for transitioning from school to university: The roles of language repertoires and language attitudes in opening up translanguaging spaces. In Multilingual Classroom Contexts; Transitions and Transactions. C. van der Walt & V. Pfeiffer, Eds. Stellenbosch: SUN PReSS. 163–​186. Cumming-​Potvin, W. 2009. Social justice, pedagogy and multiliteracies: Developing communities of practice for teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 34(3): 82–​99. Delgado, L.E., Romero, R.J. & Mignolo, W. 2000. Local histories and global designs: An interview with Walter Mignolo. Discourse. 22(3): 7–​33. Department of Higher Education and Training. 2020. The language policy framework for public higher education institutions (Gazette No 43860). Pretoria: DHET. Fanon, F. 1986 The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press. Flores, N. & García, O. 2009. Linguistic third spaces in education: teacher’s translanguaging across the bilingual continuum. In Managing Diversity in Education: Languages, Policies and Pedagogies. D. Little, C. Leung & P. van Avermaet, Eds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 243–​256. Fraser, N. 1997. Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. London & New York: Routledge. Freeman, D.E. & Freeman, Y.S. 2000. Teaching Reading in Multilingual Classrooms. Portsmouth: Heinemann. García, O. 2009. Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local. A. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson & T. Skutnabb-​ Kangas, Eds. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. 128–​145.

249

Kate le Roux and Pinky Makoe García, O. & Lin, A.M. 2018. English and multilingualism: A contested history. In The Routledge Handbook Of English Language Studies. P. Seargeant, A. Hewings & S. Pihlaja, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 77–​92. Gay, G. 2018. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Glissant, É. 1997 [1991]. Poetics of Relation. Trans. B. Wing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Gramling, D. 2016. The Invention of Monolingualism. New York: Bloomsbury. Gutiérrez, K. 2008. Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly. 43(2): 148–​164. Hurst, E. & Mona, M. 2017. “Translanguaging” as a socially just pedagogy. Education as Change. 21(2): 126–​148. Kerfoot, C. & Bello-​Nonjengele, B. 2023. Towards epistemic justice: constructing knowers in multilingual classrooms. Applied Linguistics. 44(3): 422–​484. Le Roux, K., Bangeni, B. & McKinney, C. 2021. Language policy for equity in university STEM education in post-​colonial contexts: conceptual tools for policy analysis and development. In Multilingual Education Yearbook 2021: Policy and Practice in STEM Multilingual Contexts. A.A. Essien & A. Msimanga, Eds. Cham: Springer. 195–​213. Li, Wei. 2022. Translanguaging as a political stance: implications for English language education. ELT Journal Volume. 76(2): 72–​182. Makalela, L. 2015. Translanguaging as a vehicle for epistemic access: cases for reading comprehension and multicultural interactions. Per Linguam. 31(1): 15–​29. Makalela L. 2016. Ubuntu translanguaging: an alternative framework for complex multilingual encounters. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 34(3): 187–​196. Makalela, L. & McCabe, R.M. 2013. Monolingualism in a historically black South African university: a case of inheritance. Linguistics and Education. 24(4): 406–​414. Makoe, P. & McKinney, C. 2014. Linguistic ideologies in multilingual South African suburban schools. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 35(7): 658–​673. Makoni, S.B. 2013. An integrationist perspective on colonial linguistics. Language Sciences. 35: 87–​96. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2007. Disinvesting and reconstituting languages. In Disinvesting and Reconstituting Languages. S. Makoni & A. Pennycook, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 1–​41. Maldonado-​Torres, N. 2007. On the coloniality of being: contributions to the development of a concept. Cultural Studies. 21(2–​3): 240–​270. May, S. 2019. Negotiating the multilingual turn in SLA. The Modern Language Journal. 103: 122–​129. Mbembe, A. 2016. Decolonising the university: new directions. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education. 15(1): 29–​45. Mbembe, A. 2021. Out of the Dark Night: Essays on Decolonization. New York: Columbia University Press. McKinney, C. 2016. Language and Power in Post-​Colonial Schooling: Ideologies in Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Mendelowitz, B., Ferreira, A. & Dixon, K. 2023. Language Narratives and Shifting Multilingual Pedagogies: English Teaching from the South. London: Bloomsbury. Mignolo, W. 2007. Delinking: the rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-​ coloniality. Cultural Studies. 21(2–​3): 449–​514. Mignolo, W. 2009. Coloniality: the darker side of modernity. In. Contemporary Artists Researching Modernity and Modernism. S.Breitwisser, Ed Barcelona: Catalog of the Exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art. 39–​49. Mignolo, W. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ministry of Education. 2002. Language Policy for Higher Education. Pretoria: Ministry of Education. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D. & Gonzalez, N. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice. 31(2): 132–​141. Ndhlovu, F. 2016. A decolonial critique of diaspora identity theories and the notion of superdiversity. Diaspora Studies. 9(1): 28–​40. Ndhlovu, F. 2018. Language, Vernacular Discourse and Nationalisms: Uncovering the Myths of Transnational Worlds. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Ndlovu-​Gatsheni, S.J. 2013. Why decoloniality in the 21st century? The Thinker. 48: 10–​15. Ndlovu-​Gatsheni, S.J. 2015. Decoloniality as the future of Africa. History Compass. 13(10): 485–​496.

250

Learning and Teaching Practices in South African Higher Education Prinsloo, M. & Krause, L.S. 2019. Translanguaging, place and complexity. Language and Education. 33(2): 159–​173. Ramadiro, B. 2022. Implementing multilingual teacher education: reflections on the University of Fort Hare’s bi/​multilingual Bachelor of Education degree programme. Education as Change. 26(1): 1–​21. Ramani, E. & Joseph, M. 2006. The dual-​medium BA degree in English and Sesotho sa Leboa at the University of Limpopo: success and challenges. In Focus on Fresh Data on the Language of Instruction Debate in Tanzania and South Africa. B. Brock-​Utne, Z. Desai & M. Qorro, Eds. Cape Town: Creative Minds. 4–​18. Ramugondo, E. 2022. Closing remarks. Colloquium on New Language Policy Framework For Public Higher Education Institutions (NLPFPHEIS) in South Africa: Establishing Common Ground. University of Cape Town. Soja, E.W. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-​and-​Imagined Places. Oxford: Wiley. Statistics South Africa. 2019. General household survey 2018. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Socio-​cultural Theory. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. wa Thiong’o, N. 1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. Oxford: James Currey. Yafele, S. 2021. Translanguaging for academic reading at a South African university. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 39(4): 404–​424.

251

17 TRANSLANGUAGING PEDAGOGIES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH Review of Classroom Practices and Interventions Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris

Introduction Despite the existence of successful bi/​multilingual education practices elsewhere and growing acknowledgement in academic circles of the role of home languages in education, the policy and practice in many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America reveal the wide use of colonial languages, mostly English, as a medium of instruction with the use of home languages limited only to the first few years of schooling. The heavy reliance on English in education has contributed towards growing dropout rates and low learning achievements (Clegg & Simpson, 2016; Milligan & Tikly, 2016; Probyn, 2015). For example, in South Africa, although 11 official languages receive government support, education is provided mainly through English and Afrikaans (Clegg & Simpson, 2016; Makalela, 2015). In Ethiopia, increased demands for English proficiency after reforms in the mid-​2000s saw English gain further grounds at the expense of the development and use of Ethiopian languages (Heugh, 2010). The official language policies, usually dictating either a national or colonial language as medium of instruction, are in sharp contrast to the fluid and flexible multilingual repertoires and practices of learners outside the classrooms’ walled-​in environments. The early existing policies, where home languages are used as medium for the first three years of education, have created ‘separate’ bilingualism in education with one language used in early primary classrooms and usually English in the rest of the school system (Clegg & Simpson, 2016). As a result, transitions from home language to English (or other foreign or national language) medium of instruction have proven challenging as there is “a large gap between learner English language ability and the English language demands of the curriculum” (Clegg & Simpson, 2016: 362). Particularly in Africa, in addition to contributing to attrition rates, English medium instruction “acts as a barrier to engagement with the curriculum” and “impacts on educational quality” (Milligan & Tikly, 2016: 278). Moreover, it aggravates the already teacher-​dominated classroom discourse with little input coming from learners. Lack of confidence in English language abilities leads teachers to “teach ‘defensively’ ”, i.e. avoid topics that linguistically challenge them (Clegg & Simpson, 2016: 363). 252

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-20

Translanguaging Pedagogies in the Global South

Many have, therefore, argued for “the inclusion of learners’ first language” in English or other dominant language classrooms in Africa, Asia and Latin American countries (Clegg & Simpson, 2016; Milligan & Tikly, 2016; Heugh 2010; Alidou et al., 2006; Probyn, 2019; Makalela, 2019; Maciel & Ferrari, 2019). One of the innovations suggested to achieve inclusion of learners’ first languages in classrooms is adopting translanguaging strategies or pedagogies (Probyn, 2019; Makalela, 2019), which have the potential to boost both learning and learners’ cultural identity (García, 2012).

Translanguaging pedagogies Translanguaging refers to the use of more than one language in the classroom to support learning and increase learner activity and, unlike code-​switching, translanguaging aims at sustaining bi/​multilingualism (García & Lin, 2016). Translanguaging strategies are based on the assumption that there is “interdependence of skills and knowledge across languages” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010: 103). The pedagogical benefits “include increasing inclusion, participation, and understandings of pupils in the learning processes; developing of less formal relationships between participants; conveying ideas more easily; and accomplishing lessons” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010: 106). This has led researchers to place “considerable confidence” in the positive outcome of bilingual instructional strategies and bilingual education. Translanguaging pedagogies are particularly relevant in post-​colonial settings. The conceptualization of language as fluid, with no clear boundaries or territorial and group demarcations (García & Lin, 2016; Otheguy., et al., 2015; Li, 2018) and heteroglossic as opposed to monoglossic perspectives in language use are not uncommon in post-​colonial contexts. The focus on classroom interactions and practices, therefore, can prove useful in linking these practices to “ideologies that pervade language choice and language policy” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010: 104). Translanguaging pedagogies are well placed to boost learning, raise critical awareness and promote action (García & Lin, 2016; Canagarajah & Dovchin, 2019). However, broader social structural issues that go beyond language use also need to be addressed (Blommaert, 2005), as translanguaging alone is not expected to solve problems of inequity in multilingual communities. Translanguaging pedagogies can be broadly discerned into either spontaneous or intentional translanguaging. Following Li’s (2018) elaboration, Li and Lin (2019) argued that translanguaging “deliberately … [breaks] the artificial and ideological divides between indigenous versus immigrant, majority versus minority, and target versus mother tongue languages, …[and] empowers both the learner and the teacher, transforms the power relations, and focuses the process of teaching and learning on making meaning, enhancing experience, and developing identity” (211). Such deliberate action is usually designed and follows teacher training. Teachers may translanguage spontaneously to support learning and learners’ opportunity to grasp content. On the other hand, however, use of local languages in classrooms is sometimes resisted by teachers, learners and parents due to negative attitudes towards these languages (Li & Lin, 2019; Vaish, 2019). Teacher induction that precedes planned translanguaging interventions aims to address this resistance and aims to bring translanguaging, often a covert classroom practice, to the open in a planned use of language resources that promotes “cooperation, creativity, criticality, and accommodation” in classrooms (Creese & Blackledge, 2019: 812). The interventions target development of languages by designing activities (e.g. vocabulary contrast) alternately carried out in two or more languages. The teacher inductions are usually shaped to “offer teachers a hands-​on experience as agents of change” (Makalela, 2019: 242) and allow them “gain ideological clarity” (Fallas Escobar, 2019: 302). Translanguaging classroom practices, whether planned or spontaneous, have 253

Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris

the potential to “boost social and economic development of … nations” (Alidou et al., 2006: 7). Translanguaging pedagogies can contribute to curbing dropout rates and boost student motivation for learning (Clegg & Simpson, 2016; Milligan & Tikly, 2016; Probyn, 2015). This review examines translanguaging studies from the Global South, from countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. However, definitions of south and north or the directions of ideas moving from one side to the other is not always a straightforward issue. Heugh (2015: 280) pointed to the “epistemological disjuncture” as cycles of looking towards and away from the North for “answers to troubling questions and dilemmas” persisted over the decades. The mismatches between policies and practices borrowed from the north to address issues in the South (see also Chaka, 2020) and the realities of the contemporary south are said to be particularly evident in “the tension between rarefied views of language as hermetically sealed entities found in language policies and practices that emerged from the late-​19th-​century Europe on the one hand, and a recognition of the more fluid use of language in multilingual settings in Africa on the other hand” (Heugh, 2015: 281).

Method Literature search proceeded with looking for citations of translanguaging studies from the Global South in papers from widely read authors (e.g. García & Lin 2016; Blackledge & Creese 2010). This was followed by a keyword search in Google Scholar which generated hundreds of studies on translanguaging. Although it became obvious that ‘translanguaging in the Global South’ may not generate the necessary results, the search results from Google Scholar were narrowed using words such as Asia, Afric, and even country names such as South Africa, India, etc. Additional papers were accessed through the academia.org alert system. By the end of this process, a substantial number of journal articles, book chapters and essays were accessed. Inclusion in the review was based on the following considerations: a) the study is on translanguaging in educational contexts (i.e. mainly classroom-​based but may also include discussions of translanguaging within education language policy); b) the study context has to be in the Global South broadly defined as countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America where colonial legacy remains prominent in the discussions of educational issues; c) the review deliberately included studies in non-​English dominant contexts which may not traditionally be grouped in the Global South label. Studies from the Global North and others which might not fit the selection criteria are still used in the discussion of the findings of the review study. The review period was influenced by a study from Poza (2017:105) where the term ‘translanguaging’ was said to have “entered much wider circulation in publications in the 21st century, particularly in the period from 2009 to 2014,” although there were studies of bilingual strategies earlier that employed other terms such as flexible bilingualism, code-​meshing and metrolingualism. Based on Poza’s review work (2017), our review covered the period starting from 2009 and gathered studies published as late as 2020. Through this process, 17 studies were included in the review from a wide range of contexts, namely from South Africa (9 studies), other parts of Africa (4), Asia (3), Latin America (1). Although these cases from three continents constituted the main sources of data, there were other studies from non-​English-​dominant contexts, such as Singapore (Vaish & Subhan, 2014; Vaish, 2018; Vaish, 2019), Hong Kong (Wu & Lin, 2019), Israel (Schwartz & Asli, 2014) and Puerto Rico (Mazak & Herbas-​Donoso, 2014), which were excluded from the main analysis but retained for comparative purposes. Six studies carried out translanguaging interventions in classrooms, nine

254

Translanguaging Pedagogies in the Global South

studies use qualitative methods of observation, interviews and workshops and two studies relate translanguaging with policy documents on bi/​multilingual education. The majority of the studies focus on English as a medium of instruction in the classroom while the other studies acknowledge and promote local languages in the classrooms. Translanguaging practices by definition include other languages than the dominant medium of instruction, thus, the studies mention around 20 local languages that are used in delivering multilingual lessons. Table 17.1 provides details of the studies included in the review. Analysis follows issues related to the research problem: the nature of translanguaging practices or pedagogies in the Global South (e.g. spontaneous or planned), the impact of translanguaging practices and recommendations forwarded, and how the studies tackled some of the salient features of translanguaging (e.g. the political agenda in translanguaging or its unitary conception of language repertoires). These issues served as predetermined codes but the analysis was still open to any themes arising after coding of the qualitative data generated from the review (e.g. compatibility of translanguaging with local realities, world views, etc.).

Results The results of the review are discussed under the general headings of definitions of translanguaging evident in the studies reviewed, the translanguaging pedagogic practices described in the studies, the visibility of local languages, interpretive theories adopted, assessments in translanguaging pedagogies and the scale of the intervention studies and other related issues.

Defining translanguaging A rich description of definitions and conceptualizations of translanguaging can be recognized in many of the studies under review. Translanguaging is “all instances of code-​switching and translation as systematic, conscious and planned ways of communication in the classroom for purposes of learning concepts as well as the target language, and for teacher-​student negotiation for meaning and communication” (Mukhopadhyay, 2020: 3). For Takaki, in a study in Brazil that employed authentic materials on migration, “translanguaging, as a set of practices, implied having students read the advert in English and discuss it in Portuguese, drawing on their semiotic repertoires while validating their intersubjectivities and reconstructing their identities” (Takaki, 2019: 170). For Childs, translanguaging is assumed to include a “range or continuum of practice including oral to written, receptive to expressive, and encouraging the movement of understandings of one language to inform understandings of another” (Childs, 2016: 25). Guzula et al. (2016: 211), in a translanguaging intervention study in South Africa, adopting the perspective that “learner capabilities and capacities are enabled when a heteroglossic orientation to language practices and meaning-​making is taken up”, underlined the potential of translanguaging and trans-​semiotic practices “to enhance children’s simultaneous development of language and literacy in both isiXhosa and English, while also disrupting the existing power and status gap that exists between the two languages, ultimately disrupting Anglonormativity” (223). The inclusion of linguistic and semiotic elements in the definition allowed the study to include a wide variety of translanguaging strategies: allowing learners’ critical voice, semiotic resources such as gestures and body movement, translation from English to local languages, translanguaging as a tool to ensure maximum inclusion and participation, ensuring use of children’s prior knowledge, use of both languages in spoken and written form.

255

newgenrtpdf

Table 17.1 Details of studies reviewed SN

Focus of study

Type of study

Sample

Languages involved

Context

1

Adamson (2020); Tanzania

Learners negotiating Workshops, focus group their language discussions, interviews environments & ‘social-​ embeddedness’ of language beliefs & use

146 learners (2 schools)

Kiswahili and English

Secondary schools in urban and rural contexts

2

Asfaha (2020); Eritrea

Critique of LPP from translanguaging perspectives

Review of language policy discourse

Nine local languages; English

National language policy and practice

3

Bagwasi (2017); Botswana

Critique of LPP from translanguaging perspective

Critical review of policy

English, Setswana; other local languages

National language policy and practice

4

Charamba (2020); Zimbabwe

Translanguaging in science lessons

Planned intervention

English (MI); chiShona (HL)

Classroom in rural school

5

Childs (2016); South Africa

Translanguaging through poetry, photography

Observation of translanguaging

English; no home language (HL) mentioned

Teacher education; primary classrooms

6

Guzula Use of full linguistic and et al. (2016); semiotic repertoires in South Africa meaning-​making

Planned translanguaging intervention

30 to 60 Grade 3–​6 isiXhosa, English children in the literacy club; 15 Grade 11 learners in mathematics class

after-​school literacy club (Grades 3–​6 learners); mathematics holiday programme for Grade 11 (rural)

7

Heugh Translanguaging in et al. (2017); multilingual system-​ South Africa wide assessments

Review of literature, longitudinal data; case study of multilingual assessment

Longitudinal data; 75,000 Afrikaans, isiXhosa, Grade 8 learners English assessed in languages & mathematics

National (longitudinal data); the Western Cape Province (assessment trials)

22 boys; 10 girls; aged 14 & 16 years

Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris

256

Author (year); country

Makalela (2015a); South Africa

Effectiveness of translanguaging in teaching an additional African language to learners

Intervention: strategies of translanguaging; Control: monolingual strategies

9

Makalela (2015b); South Africa

Translanguaging and its influence on attitudes & reading comprehension

10

Makalela (2019); South Africa

ubuntu translanguaging in classroom discourse

11

257

English, Sesotho, Sepedi, isiZulu and Afrikaans

University pre-​ service teacher education

Intervention: translanguaging Case 1: 24 university in improving HL learners; & English reading Case 2: 60 Grade 6 comprehension learners (English & HL-​Sepedi)

Case 1: Sepedi, isiZulu, siSwati, isiXhosa, isiNdebele, English Case 2: English and Sepedi

Case 1: University teacher education Case 2: Primary school

Intervention: translanguaging Observation of grade 3 & its impact on lesson (25 learners); comprehension and teacher interview (one identity teacher)

Sepedi and English

Remote rural area school

Mukhopadhyay Translanguaging in ESL (2020); classroom India

Exploring the purpose of translanguaging in ESL classrooms

A single teacher is observed in class

Telugu, Hindi, English

Public primary school (urban)

12

Ngcobo Enable participants et al. (2016); to self-​reflect on South Africa translanguaging approach

Reflect on use of multiple languages in summary writing

38 African language-​ speaking learners

isiZulu (L1) and English University (English (L2) academic literacy course)

13

Phyak (2018); Nepal

Interviews and informal interactions with teachers, parents, learners; observations

10 teacher interviews; 10 classroom observations in 2 schools

English, Nepali

Rural public primary schools

14

Probyn (2015); Use of HL & English South Africa to improve learner’s opportunity to learn science

Classroom observation; teacher interview

8 Grade 8 teachers; focus on one teacher

isiXhosa (HL); English (MI)

Township and rural schools

Critique of language policy; how learners’ linguistic and cultural resources contribute in teaching English

60 pre-​service teachers (30 intervention; 30 control)

(Continued)

Translanguaging Pedagogies in the Global South

8

newgenrtpdf

Table 17.1 (Continued) Author (year); country

Focus of study

Type of study

Sample

15

Probyn (2019); How languaging practices South Africa construct or constrain opportunity to learn science

16

17

Observation; teacher interview

8 science teachers in eight isiXhosa and English schools

Township and rural schools

Rahmawansyah Reasons for and benefits Teacher and student (2019); of using translanguaging interview; classroom Indonesia in EFL classes observation

One teacher; 10 learners

English, Indonesian, Konjo

EFL classroom

Takaki, (2019); “activate the students’ Brazil critical translingual and multimodal repertoires” (p.167)

14 learners

Portuguese, English

Public secondary school

Workshop on translingual and multimodal practices

Languages involved

Context

258

Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris

SN

Translanguaging Pedagogies in the Global South

In a translanguaging intervention in science lessons from South Africa, Probyn (2015) compared code-​switching and translanguaging and argued that “learners might be left with misconceptions and gaps in their understanding of the science content that the reactive and relatively brief code-​ switching seemed unlikely to fully resolve” (227). In comparing the code-​switching of many of the teachers with translanguaging practices of one teacher in the English science lessons, Probyn noted that the latter used far more isiXhosa for communicating science content (32% of words spoken) than the other teachers and he seemed to work with both languages in a more balanced and structured way –​more in line with the notion of ‘pedagogical translanguaging’ and the productive use of languages as suggested by García (2012). Probyn, 2015: 227 The definitions of translanguaging in the studies reviewed range from the restrictive perspective that refer to mixing of codes involved in bilingual communicative interactions to the more extended definitions that incorporate not only the languages but also the language varieties and registers involved and recognize the multimodality of the interactions and the power and identity issues inherent in them. The studies assumed external (e.g. translanguaging in assessments measuring performance) and insider perspectives (e.g. analyzing the psychological and social implications of translanguaging to participants).

Translanguaging pedagogies The main focus of the review study was classroom use of translanguaging. In this section we start with outlining the translanguaging strategies revealed from the review, the strategies adopted in teaching science and the implications of translanguaging to assessment.

Translanguaging strategies in classrooms In a translanguaging intervention in Zimbabwe, learners were allowed use of both English and chiShona in the lessons “to ask questions, respond to questions, or when seeking clarity of concepts” and as the lessons progressed “learners became relaxed and confident in using both languages interchangeably and would constantly ask the teacher to explain concepts in their home language” (Charamba, 2020: 7). Notes and worksheets were given in both English and chiShona and learners would “read the concepts or explanations in English and their equivalency in chiShona” (Charamba, 2020: 8). In an intervention in South Africa, some of the translanguaging strategies used in teaching an additional African language to university pre-​service teachers include “contrastive elaboration, which allows students to criss-​cross between languages, to extend meanings beyond the language of input, and to enhance deeper understanding of concepts” (Makalela, 2015a: 206). In the same intervention, in group discussions, brainstorming and writing discussion notes were done in any of these languages, and reporting to the whole class was done through the target language (Sepedi) “with allowances for less confident students to choose alternation of home languages and English” (Makalela, 2015a: 206). Learners also read texts in their home languages and re-​told stories in the target language. One of the questions that can be raised here is what happens when the teacher does not speak the L1 of learners. In the study from Zimbabwe, this was resolved by “allowing learners to work in 259

Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris

collaborative groupings using chiShona to decode a text presented in English language” and collaboratively work using their common language to produce a text in the target language (Charamba, 2020:12). When the teacher was not familiar with the L1 of the learners, in an intervention using mathematics support camp in a rural setting in South Africa, a novel idea of using a facilitator was observed. The class was conducted by “an English home language-​speaking teacher and an isiXhosa-​English bilingual learning facilitator” with the latter’s need clearly created in response to “the differences between the rural, amaXhosa, teenage lifeworld of the learners, and the urban, South African, adult lifeworld of the teachers” (Guzula, 2016: 219). The teacher and facilitator worked together in the classroom “negotiating the floor spontaneously between them” and usually “the teacher led the class, usually speaking English, and the learning facilitator supported her and the learners in various ways, usually speaking isiXhosa”(Guzula, 2016: 219). Another issue in translanguaging strategies relates to the issue of varieties of languages. In the literature distinction is made between the language of everyday conversation and the language of the classroom. Charamba (2020: 11) noted: the language of everyday conversation can be described as relatively simple and concrete which is often supported by non-​verbal communication … [the] language of the classroom on the other hand tends to require more complex grammar structures … more technical vocabulary, and more abstract use of language often with far less paralinguistic support. Charamba, 2020: 11 Moreover, translanguaging can also involve registers. For example, use of the mathematics register and register meshing was observed when a learner made use of “most familiar register –​a ‘Xhosa-​for-​mathematics’ ” register and “elements of mathematical English and everyday Xhosa ... through register-​meshing to express his thinking” (Guzula et al. 2016: 222).

Translanguaging in science lessons In an English medium, science literacy education context in Zimbabwe, where English is second language for 80% of the learners, Charamba (2020) studied how Form 1 (year 8) learners in rural schools benefitted from translanguaging practices. The study found out that use of instructional materials written in home languages and allowing translanguaging practices in the classroom affect learners’ performance in science tests, creates a comfortable learning environment for all learners, and provides them with a reflective space to think about how language stratification has excluded African languages that are deemed inferior from the classroom, hence from accessing scientific knowledge” Charamba, 2020: 1 The intervention in the study, which was given for 35 minutes three times a week, involved use of English and chiShona by both teachers and learners in classroom science lessons. Science learning through a second language, usually English, is assumed to burden learners. Even when learners’ home language is used, a specific register may be required, as mentioned above with ‘Xhosa-​for-​mathematics’ register. Therefore, in translanguaging science lessons shifts are done at different levels: “from the learners’ home language to English; and from everyday language and understanding of the world, to scientific understandings and discourse” (Probyn, 2015: 220). The challenges learners face in such science classrooms arise from the use of a second 260

Translanguaging Pedagogies in the Global South

language and the adoption of a “discourse of science” which is “lexically dense” and contains technical words which are unfamiliar to the learner. In addition, everyday words have specialized scientific meanings (e.g. table, current, force); the passive voice and nominalization are frequently used; and there are a range of written and visual genres (e.g. tables, diagrams, procedures, information reports, explanations, etc.) that learners need to master. Probyn, 2015: 219

Translanguaging in assessment Non-​ English-​ speaking learners in English medium classrooms are not only disadvantaged in classroom content discourse but are equally disadvantaged in content assessments done through the language of English. This is evident in findings where learners in English medium lessons performed better on “language-​free science items such as pictorial questions, graphs or short questions with simple language” than items containing longer segments in English language (Charamba, 2020: 4). Therefore, translanguaging could offer a solution. Charamba, for example, in a study in Zimbabwe, administered pre-​tests in the language of instruction in the school (English) and post-​test in both the home language and the medium of instruction (English and chiShona). The author offered an example of a question in two languages: “What is the major function of lungs during respiration? (English)./​Basa guru remapapupakufemanderei? (chiShona)” (Charamba, 2020: 9). Translanguaging strategies are also helpful in conducting large-​scale and high-​stake assessments. Based on a study on multilingual assessment conducted in 2006 in South Africa and longitudinal data from the same country, Heugh et al. (2017) made a case for system-​wide assessment based on learners’ familiar linguistic repertoires. The dual focus in the study involved analysis of a century-​ long bilingual, Afrikaans and English, assessment data and an experiment of trilingual assessment using 75,000 Grade 8 students in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Heugh et al. (2017) argued that, although it is difficult to arrange multilingual assessment, “it is possible, viable, can reduce inequity, and can be advantageous to all students” (198). The authors argued that it is also possible to discuss these multilingual assessment practices in translanguaging perspectives. They found out that “bilingual and multilingual students make use of translanguaging during system-​ wide assessment, and that this offers promising prospects for multilingual assessment elsewhere” (Heugh et al., 2017: 198). However, in their conclusion, the authors warned that “[a]‌lthough the multilingual assessment discussed above did not achieve complete parity and equity for students from African language backgrounds, it did make significant progress in reducing the degree of linguistic inequity” (Heugh et al., 2017: 213).

Scale and impact of translanguaging interventions As it can be gathered from the translanguaging studies reviewed here, the studies are generally of two types. The first group include experimental interventions that aimed at boosting learning by introducing translanguaging strategies in classroom deliberations. The second group of studies are mainly qualitative examinations of spontaneous translanguaging observed in classrooms with potential to affect learning and develop critical thinking and positive bilingual self-​image. In addition, there are studies that use translanguaging perspectives to critique national language, language in education policies and practices. 261

Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris

Results from translanguaging interventions are usually reported quantitatively: The group exhibited improved academic performance in the post-​test, with a pass rate of 68.8% and a mean of 60%. The lowest score obtained in the post-​test was 4 out of 15 with the highest score being 13 out of 15. The difference in the means of the two tests (pre and post) was 33.3%. Including and using bilingual learners’ minority language at school does not obstruct or delay the development of a majority language … instead a well-​developed minority language is viewed as facilitating the learning of a society’s majority language. Charamba, 2020: 12 Although the effects of translanguaging on reading proficiency were not significant, the mixed method study by Makalela in South Africa revealed that “translanguaging strategies are effective in increasing the vocabulary pool of multilingual speakers” and as interviews with study participants showed “breaking boundaries between a range of linguistic resources in multilingual classrooms affords the students a positive schooling experience and affirms their multilingual identities” (Makalela, 2015a: 215). Mukhopadhyay (2020), in a single teacher study, examined “teacher’s understanding of the translanguaging approach and its application in class in a systematic and planned manner and also captures her thoughts on the usefulness of this approach and why it works for her students” (3). Despite this small sample size, the study resorts to analysis of percentages of languages used. In describing observed teacher’s use of languages, 51% of the time the teacher used English, 10% Telugu and 36% language mixing, with the rest where no language was used or recorded (Mukhopadhyay, 2020: 5). Similar quantification was used in analysis of a study of eight teachers and their classrooms by Probyn: The languaging practices of teachers and learners were quantified according to a word count, and the patterns and functions of their practices, in order to draw some conclusions about the pedagogic value of these practices and how they might contribute to the opportunity to learn science in the observed classrooms. Probyn, 2015: 222 The decision to focus on one teacher for further observation was based on these quantifications of the languages used in the classroom. The teacher focused, for example, “used more isiXhosa than English (53% isiXhosa and 47% English), whereas the other teachers used far more English than isiXhosa, ranging from 87% English … to 100% English” (Probyn, 2015: 223). Many of the authors of these studies acknowledge the limited scale of these studies and accordingly point out the need to do further research. For example, Probyn noted that “[w]‌hile these small-​scale translanguaging research initiatives open up possibilities, there is need for further development, trialling and consolidation of planned, systematic and sustainable translanguaging pedagogies that can be incorporated into mainstream teacher education” (Probyn, 2019: 232–​233). An exception to these perhaps is the longitudinal examination of data from historical bilingual assessments in South Africa and trilingual assessments prepared by Heugh et al. in 2006. These two large scale studies generated results that suggest that bilingual assessments do contribute toward lowering inequities and that learners use translanguaging in tackling multilingual

262

Translanguaging Pedagogies in the Global South

system-​wide assessments. However, the authors warn that equity may not be guaranteed through the deployment of multilingual assessments. Equity, it is argued, is “related to access to the portals of power, whether these are political, academic or in the upper echelons of the economy” (Heugh et al., 2017: 212).

Challenges to translanguaging pedagogies The review has revealed some of the challenges to the implementation of translanguaging pedagogies in classrooms. In many of the studies mentioned above, only few of the teachers that researchers had interacted with were reported to have the skills or the readiness to engage in translanguaging practices in the classroom. For Probyn (2015; 2019) out of the eight classroom teachers observed only one was sufficiently engaged in translanguaging. On the other hand, teachers and learners may have negative attitudes towards using the home language of learners outside the prescribed language of instruction, usually English (Charamba, 2020). The traditional views of languages as bordered and fixed, which many teachers share, may also hinder the implementation of translanguaging practices. On the other hand, practical problems of time pressures (Childs, 2016) may challenge implementation of translanguaging. In a South African study, the teacher who did not share her learners’ home language was supported by a teacher assistant who did share learners’ home language. At one time the teacher abruptly interrupted the conversations of the learners and the teacher assistant being conducted in the home language of learners (Guzula et al., 2016). On the other hand, learners feel left out if they do not speak L1 of other learners in their classrooms (Ngcobo et al., 2016). Teaching inclusive of home language and assessment using home and school languages is a dilemma when home language is not written or codified. The undisputed position of English in the educational context in the Global South is evident in all these studies as they mostly deal with how other local languages, through translanguaging, might aid the development of written and spoken and academic English. This position of English affects use of local languages as there are views that regard use of African languages as hindering the development of English language (Ngcobo et al., 2016).

Analytical frames employed by the studies reviewed A number of theories and concepts were employed by different authors in analyzing translanguaging data. Some of these include humanizing pedagogies (Childs, 2016), capabilities (Adamson, 2020, ubuntu (Makalela, 2015a; 2015b; 2019) and superdiversity (Asfaha, 2020). Childs (2016) asks how “using emancipatory and inclusive language practice such as translanguaging” could be employed “as a means of providing a more humanizing experience in the classroom” (25). A humanizing pedagogy, as defined by Bartolomé (1994 as quoted in Childs, 2016: 27) “values the students’ background knowledge, culture, and life experiences, and creates learning contexts where power is shared by students and teachers”. The author contrasts this with a dehumanizing pedagogy where the home language is not accepted and used in class, learners’ linguistic resources are belittled and their usefulness in classrooms is denied. The multiple languages, varieties of languages and writing histories and diversity of scripts, in short the diversity of diversity in contexts of studies (e.g. Asfaha, 2020) under review here raise the question of which level of diversity is expected to be reflected in translanguaging classrooms. From the non-​dominant English context of Singapore, Vaish noted that a “gap in the area of translanguaging research is how to deal with super-​diversity of linguistic backgrounds in the classroom” (Vaish, 2019: 280). 263

Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris

In analyzing translanguaging practices in South Africa, Makalela (2015b) used ubuntu, an African “worldview of interconnectedness where one language or culture is incomplete without the other”, to understand the “constant disruption of orderliness and simultaneous recreation of fluid communicative practices that are concomitant with this ancient value system” (28). Adamson (2020), on the other hand, urged for reframing the language of instruction debate as an issue of disconnection and exclusion of capabilities perspective. Adamson argued that learners “value multiple different ‘beings’ and ‘doings’ simultaneously” and monoglossic ideologies and practices force them to “make choices and trade-​offs between different ‘beings’ and ‘doings’ that they value” (Adamson, 2020: 2).

The dominance of English and the (in)visibility of local languages As can be observed in Table 17.1, many languages are used in the translanguaging interventions and studies that have been reported here. In most of them a minimum of two (home language and English) and sometimes six languages are studied. These are clearly indicated and their use in class is usually acknowledged through classroom discourse data. However, their use is usually associated with the development of the language of instruction, commonly English. Similar attention to English can also be found in studies from non-​dominant English contexts such as Singapore, where reading skills in English are targeted in the Learning Support Programme (Vaish, 2019). An exception here is the study by Makalela (2015b) where an African home language is the target of learning and English plays a supportive role. Other languages (outside the target and supporting languages) are rarely mentioned and the lack of visibility is rarely seen as problematic. In an English lesson, the teacher and learners move between English and Nepali to make sense of difficult English content and the use of the national language, Nepali, and exclusion of other local languages is treated as unproblematic. Although most students in this class are from different ethnic minority communities such as Limbu, Rai and Magar, all of them have acquired bilingual language competence –​Nepali and their mother tongue –​in their own family. However, these students dominantly speak Nepali, the country’s official language, in the community and have learned Nepali language literacy skills in school (Phyak, 2018: 59). Although the majority of the studies aimed at building up English proficiency or understanding of (science) content (these were sometimes assessed at the end of the interventions), sometimes the focus of the study may not be on building proficiency in English or local home languages but on developing deeper understanding of languaging strategies and bi/​multilingual identities. For example, Ngcobo et al. (2016) focused on “students’ reflection on some of the biliteracy and translanguaging activities rather than on their academic impact and language fluency in conducting the set tasks” (18). Participants valued both the home and L2 languages as having their own roles and translanguaging has contributed “to the development of lifelong skills” that will enable learners in “their daily lives and in their professions… . to advocate empowerment for linguistically marginalized members of their society” (Ngcobo et al., 2016: 21). The authors claimed that the “value of translanguaging in preparing the future workforce so that it can efficiently and equally serve members of a multilingual society was strongly supported in this study and in previous studies” (Ngcobo et al., 2016: 23).

Translanguaging perspectives in critiquing Language Policies and Practices Some of the studies reviewed used the translanguaging perspective to critique the national language policies and practices (LPP) in their respective countries, e.g. Bagwasi (2017) in Botswana, 264

Translanguaging Pedagogies in the Global South

and Asfaha (2020) in Eritrea. In an analysis of the language-​in-​education policy and practice in Botswana from a translanguaging perspective, Bagwasi (2017) argued the separation and division of languages in policy and practice barely deserves to be called multilingualism and the author labelled it as “counter multilingualism”. The author concluded “multilingualism should not be viewed as an existence or use of a set of autonomous languages but rather as interconnectivity and integration of languages in communicative tasks” (Bagwasi, 2017: 13). As the status quo denies learners their “bilingual potential and abilities”, the author recommends the adoption of a translanguaging approach which will allow Botswana learners and teachers to be more tolerant towards other languages, allow them to make use of the wide range of linguistic resources and practices that are available to them, basically, allow them to utilize, experience, and live their bilingualism in the classroom [and which ultimately] will enhance inclusion, confidence and participation of all citizens. Bagwasi, 2017: 14 In a similar appraisal of the language policy and practice in Eritrea through current conceptualizations of language, language use and diversity, Asfaha (2020) problematized the naming and enumeration of the country’s nine languages in policy discourses and suggested the deployment of translanguaging perspective to language use in educational settings.

Conclusions The review has described an array of translanguaging pedagogies across different socio-​educational settings. The positions held by the authors revealed translanguaging is subscribed for its potential to support learning, enhance self-​image and develop critical thinking in multilingual communities where language hierarchies have favoured the dominant national or foreign languages. The varieties of translanguaging strategies might prove useful for similar studies in the future. Although translanguaging pedagogies have been clearly described as holding great potential in education, there is little in terms of conclusive and large-​scale data, at least in the studies reviewed. As the strategy addresses not only learning but identity and power relations issues, looking for hard evidence through rigorous experimental designs may be a slightly misplaced methodological expectation and may be more appropriately dealt with linguistic ethnography. The review has highlighted a number of important issues that need further attention in research and practice. The use of theoretical frames of ubuntu translanguaging and superdiversity has directed our attention to the interconnected (and yet accommodative to different contexts) nature of the multilingual environments of the Global South. In a sea of commonalities, differences become non-​consequential although not irrelevant. These differences do not stand in the way of sharing a common understanding or meaning and in fact this becomes the overriding purpose or necessity of interaction, for example, in a marketplace, and to achieve it or to respond to the necessity, participants resort to translanguaging. Not to try hard to translanguage may force participants to lose their insider status. Therefore, leveraging these out-​of-​school practices of multilingual communities carries pedagogical potential. On the other hand, the studies have highlighted the need for boosting teacher education through translanguaging in multilingual contexts. Makalela (2015b) described a pre-​service teacher programme that requires teachers to learn additional language(s) before they move to the schools. This is a clear example of how teacher education can be used to prepare pre-​service teachers 265

Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris

to the superdiversity of their communities outside the university campus and to the potentials of translanguaging to support learning and promote interconnectivity among speakers of different languages. This and other studies reviewed pointed to the sensitization of learners in translanguaging classrooms to the linguistic and structural inequities in their communities and to how they, through their readiness to use and accept multilingual strategies, can contribute towards creating a more harmonious multilingual society.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Catalina Amengual Ripoll –​research assistant and MA student for Management of Cultural Diversity –​for her help in gathering and analyzing the large array of resources at our disposal.

Related topics Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​ semiotizing; Chapter 15: Decolonizing multilingual pedagogies.

Further reading Heugh, K., Prinsloo, C., Makgamatha, M., Diedericks, G. & Winnaar, L. 2017. Multilingualism(s) and system-​wide assessment: a southern perspective. Language and Education. 31(3): 197–​216. Li, Wei & Lin, A. M.Y. Eds. 2019. Translanguaging classroom discourse. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​4). Milligan, L.O. & Tikly, L. Eds. 2016. English as a medium of instruction in post-​colonial contexts: moving the debate forward. Comparative Education. 52(3).

References Adamson, L. 2020. Language of instruction: a question of disconnected capabilities. Comparative Education. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​03050​068.2020.1812​236 Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-​Utne, B., Diallo, Y.S., Heugh, H. & Wolff, E.H. 2006. Optimizing Learning and Education in Africa –​ The Language Factor: A Stock-​taking Research on Mother Tongue and Bilingual Education in Sub-​Saharan Africa. Paris: Association for the Development of Education in Africa. Asfaha, Y.M. 2020. Multilingual language policy discourses and superdiversity at the peripheries: exploring language policy and practice in Eritrea. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. DOI: 10.1080/​ 17447143.2020.1771346. Bagwasi, M.M. 2017. A critique of Botswana’s language policy from a translanguaging perspective. Current Issues in Language Planning. 1(8)2: 199–​214. DOI: 10.1080/​14664208.2016.1246840. Blommaert, J. 2005. Situating language rights: English and Swahili in Tanzania revisited. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 9(3): 390–​417. Canagarajah, S. & Dovchin, S. 2019. The everyday politics of translingualism as a resistant practice. International Journal of Multilingualism. 16(2): 127–​144. Chaka Chaka 2020. Translanguaging, decoloniality, and the Global South: an integrative review study. Scrutiny 2. 25(1): 6–​42. DOI: 10.1080/​18125441.2020.1802617. Charamba, E. 2020 Translanguaging: developing scientific scholarship in a multilingual classroom. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 41(8): 655–​672. DOI: 10.1080/​01434632.2019.1625907. Childs, M. 2016. Reflecting on translanguaging in multilingual classrooms: harnessing the power of poetry and photography. Educational Research for Social Change. 5(1): 22–​40. Clegg, J. & Simpson, J. 2016. Improving the effectiveness of English as a medium of instruction in sub-​ Saharan Africa. Comparative Education. 52(3): 359–​374. Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal. 94(i): 103–​115.

266

Translanguaging Pedagogies in the Global South Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. 2019. Translanguaging and public service encounters: language learning in the library. The Modern Language Journal. 103(4): 800–​814. Fallas Escobar, C. 2019. Translanguaging by design in EFL classrooms. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​ 4): 290–​305. García, O. 2012. Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In Translanguaging: A CUNY-​NYSIEB Guide for Educators. C. Celic & K. Seltzer, Eds. New York: City University of New York-​New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals (CUNY-​NYSIEB) www.cuny-​nys​ieb.org. García, O. & Lin, A.M.Y. 2016. Translanguaging in bilingual education. In Bilingual and Multilingual Education (Encyclopedia of Language and Education). O. García & A.M.Y. Lin, Eds. Dordrecht: Springer. 5. Guzula, X., McKinney, C. & Tyler, R. 2016. Languaging-​for-​learning: legitimising translanguaging and enabling multimodal practices in third spaces. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 34(3): 211–​226. Heugh, K. 2010. Productive engagement with linguistic diversity in tension with globalised discourses in Ethiopia. Current Issues in Language Planning. 11(4): 378–​396. Heugh, K. 2015. Epistemologies in multilingual education: translanguaging and genre –​companions in conversation with policy and practice. Language and Education. 29(3): 280–​285. Heugh, K., Prinsloo, C., Makgamatha, M., Diedericks, G. & Winnaar, L. 2017. Multilingualism(s) and system-​wide assessment: a southern perspective. Language and Education. 31(3): 197–​216. Li, Wei. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics. 39(1): 9–​30. https://​ doi.org/​10.1093/​app​lin/​amx​039. Li, Wei & Lin, A.M.Y. 2019. Translanguaging classroom discourse: pushing limits, breaking boundaries. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​4): 209–​215. Maciel, R.F. & Ferrari, L.F. 2019. Miradas situadas sobre translenguaje en una escuela en la frontera Brasil-​ Bolivia. Revista Raído. 13(33). Makalela, L. 2015a. Moving out of linguistic boxes: the effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education. 29(3): 200–​2017. Makalela, L. 2015b. Translanguaging as a vehicle for epistemic access: cases for reading comprehension and multilingual interactions. Per Linguam. 31(1): 15–​29. Makalela, L. 2019. Uncovering the universals of ubuntu translanguaging in classroom discourses. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​4): 237–​251. Mazak, C.M. & Herbas-​Donoso, C. 2014. Translanguaging practices and language ideologies in Puerto Rican university science education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies. 11(1): 27–​49. Milligan, L.O. & Tikly, L. 2016. English as a medium of instruction in post-​colonial contexts: moving the debate forward. Comparative Education. 52(3): 277–​280. Mukhopadhyay, L. 2020. Translanguaging in primary level ESL classroom in India: an exploratory study. International Journal of English Language Teaching. 7(2): 1–​15. Ngcobo, S., Ndaba, N., Nyangiwe, B., Mpungose, N. & Jamal, R. 2016. Translanguaging as an approach to address language inequality in South African higher education: summary writing skills development. Critical Studies in Teaching & Learning. 4(2): 10–​27. Otheguy, R., García, O. & Reid, W. 2015. Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: a perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review. 6(3): 281–​307. Phyak, P. 2018. Translanguaging as a pedagogical resource in English language teaching: a response to unplanned language education policies in Nepal. In K. Kuchah, F. Shamim Eds., International Perspectives in Teaching English in Difficult Circumstances. https://​doi.org/​10.1057/​978-​1-​137-​ 53104-​9_​3. Poza, L. 2017. Translanguaging: definitions, implications, and further needs in burgeoning inquiry. Berkeley Review of Education. 6(2): 101–​128. Probyn, M. 2015. Pedagogical translanguaging: bridging discourses in South African science classrooms. Language and Education. 29(3): 218–​234. Probyn, M. 2019. Pedagogical translanguaging and the construction of science knowledge in a multilingual South African classroom: challenging monoglossic/​post-​colonial orthodoxies. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​4): 216–​236. Rahmawansyah, S. 2019. Translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in EFL classroom. ELT-​ Lectura. 5(2): 139–​146. Schwartz, M. & Asli, A. 2014. Bilingual teachers’ language strategies: the case of an Arabic-​Hebrew kindergarten in Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education. 38: 22–​32.

267

Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Massimiliano Spotti and Khalid Idris Takaki, N.H. 2019. Towards translanguaging with students at public school: multimodal and transcultural aspects in meaning making. Calidoscópio. 17(1): 163–​183. Vaish, V. 2018. Translanguaging pedagogy for simultaneous biliterates struggling to read in English. International Journal of Multilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/​14790718.2018.1447943. Vaish, V. 2019. Challenges and directions in implementing translanguaging pedagogy for low achieving students. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​4): 274–​289. Vaish, V. & Subhan, A. 2014. Translanguaging in a reading class. International Journal of Multilingualism. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​14790​718.2014.948​447 Wu, Y.A. & Lin, A.M. 2019. Translanguaging and trans-​semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: whole-​body sense-​making in the flow of knowledge co-​making. Classroom Discourse. 10(3–​ 4): 252–​273.

268

18 LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND THE COVID-​1 9 GLOBAL PANDEMIC Kathryn Henderson, Zhongfeng Tian, Bedrettin Yazan, Fabiana Stalnaker and Madhavi Usgaonker

Introduction The COVID-​19 pandemic disrupted education and educational systems worldwide as a result of national lockdowns and closure of schools. Based on the scale and magnitude of the impact of the COVID-​19 pandemic, it is being considered the largest disruption of education systems in history. According to a UN education report, nearly 1.6 billion learners in more than 190 countries and all continents have been affected with school closures affecting 94% of students worldwide and 99% in low-​and lower-​middle-​income countries (United Nations, 2020). As such, all forms of language education including bilingual and multilingual programmes across the globe were impacted as well as the teachers, parents and students they serve. This chapter considers the consequences of the COVID-​19 pandemic on language teaching and learning. Centring students in language education contexts is important given that bi/​multilingual learners are often also marginalized in other ways (e.g. race, social class and poverty). However, many of the issues for language education are consistent with the impact COVID-​19 had on any educational institution, namely the emergency transition to distance learning and the myriad of consequences this caused for all education stakeholders. It is also noteworthy that global communication, specifically the dominance of English for global communication, has impacted the spread of health information with serious consequences for multilingual communities necessitating mobilization of linguists for emergency translation (Ahmad, 2020; Li et al., 2020). In other words, the disruption of language education parallels a global reinforcement of linguistic hierarchies and English dominance (Piller et al., 2020). While multilingual crisis communication is not the focus of this chapter, it connects to language teaching and learning with considerable implications for the future of language education, particularly minoritized and marginalized language practices. This chapter will present major themes of the impact of COVID-​19 on education with consideration and discussion for language learning and teaching specifically. The global educational crisis is recognized by international agencies including the United Nations and the World Bank. Initiatives are in place to address some of the greatest challenges the pandemic has surfaced. For example, the World Bank, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-21

269

Kathryn Henderson et al.

Fund (UNICEF) partnered to try and help educational recovery in 2021 (The World Bank, 2021). The partnership prioritized the re-​opening of schools for complete or partial in-​person instruction, support to catch up on lost learning and teacher preparation to incorporate digital technology into teaching (The World Bank, 2021). This chapter considers how diverse language education contexts were impacted by the COVID-​19 pandemic including the inequities and disparities that have occurred within and across countries around the world. The educational responses and initiatives are ongoing and will forever impact language education moving forward which is discussed in the implications and conclusion section at the end of the chapter. One aim of the chapter is to provide a global perspective on the impact of COVID-​19 on bilingual and multilingual education. A global perspective is challenging because, “when things go global, they don’t stay the same things, they morph and acquire new features, dimensions, effects” (Blommaert, 2020: 2). In countries with more top-​down driven responses (e.g. China and Turkey) the impact of COVID-​19 on bi/​multilingual education was more government controlled and regulated. In other countries, including the United States, the response was more bottom-​up and locally mediated. Furthermore, the nature of language education differs country by country. For some countries, bilingual and multilingual education is part of the national curriculum. In the case of China, trilingual education including Mandarin, an ethnic minority language, and English represents one common curriculum for ethnic minority groups in K-​12 educational contexts (Feng & Adamson, 2015). This is similar to India which does not mandate a bilingual education programme or policy, but rather a three-​language formula that has been in existence since 1957 (Koul & Devaki, 2000; Skutnabb-​Kangas, 2000). At the primary level of education, the regional language is introduced and taught as a school subject in the first four to five years of school. This is then followed by teaching a second language that the student gets to choose from a list of languages offered at the school. Hindi in non-​Hindi-​speaking areas and a language other than Hindi in Hindi-​speaking areas is introduced as a subject in the third or fourth year of school for a child. Evidence has shown that in Indian schools, the English language has pushed the other regional languages and native mother tongues to a lower educational level and level of social status (Koul & Devaki, 2000). In other countries, language education is geared towards a specific population (e.g. immigrants) where one subject is taught for one period of the day, or as an elective. Bilingual education in parts of Brazil, similar to other countries including Mexico, serves two very different communities. One group includes children and youth from marginalized and minoritized groups such as Indigenous, immigrants and deaf communities. The other group includes children and youth from a high socio-​economic level who learn an additional language to better enhance and maintain their advantageous position in society (Megale, 2019). Collectively, the authors speak nine languages (Cantonese, English, Hindi, Konkani, Mandarin, Marathi, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish). Each author based on their background and linguistic expertise was tasked with exploring sources of information on the impact of COVID-​19 on bilingual and multilingual education across diverse sources (e.g. newspapers, blogs, government documents, scholarly articles, etc.). While the authors remained open and inclusive to any useful resources, based on author subjectivities and transnational identities, there was a focus on sources from Brazil, China, India, Mexico, the United States and Turkey. Drawing on a global perspective and recognizing the vast diversity of language education structures in different countries, the rest of the chapter will discuss three themes found across diverse bi/​multilingual education contexts connected to the COVID-​19 pandemic: a) transition to distance learning, b) issues of equity and disparities, and c) unique impact on key stakeholders. Our themes are not mutually exclusive, but rather overlap and connect. 270

Language Education and the Covid-19 Global Pandemic

Distance learning Bi/​multilingual education and language education are part of the structured schooling process in individual country contexts. The fact that the COVID-​19 pandemic led schools to stop normal education provisions meant that millions of learners around the world were denied access to language education practices. Language education embedded within the broader context of schooling in each context has been disrupted to a large extent, varying across countries. In this crisis situation, making the opportunities of learning available through distance education practices was the main response in many countries. However, no country was entirely prepared to make this shift to distance learning (Aguilera-​Hermida, 2020). Depending on the infrastructure in place prior to the pandemic, countries chose to respond to this crisis of education with three different methods in order to curtail the impacts of school closures on student learning (World Bank Brief, 2020). Those three methods were (1) radio, (2) television broadcasting, and (3) the internet-​based platforms that have been used variably across the globe. For example, UNESCO shares continent-​based data on the use of radio and TV as distance learning platforms. Africa has predominantly relied on “either TV or radio (70%), some combining both (34% of countries), while Europe and North America seems to be using less radio than other regions, yet very active in deploying TV-​based distance education programmes” (UNESCO, 2020a). Although access to computers and internet connectivity are mostly taken for granted in the Global North, the pandemic conditions made more discernible the disparities between countries in terms of access to computer technologies and connectivity (Hall et al., 2020). Around 826 million students (half of the student population in the world) who were impacted by school closures due to the pandemic do not have access to a computer at home, according to a recent study by the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) and the Teacher Task Force. Around 706 million students lack internet access and 56 million live in areas not covered by mobile networks. UNESCO, 2020a Additionally, in the regions where internet access is available, the connectivity is not stable. This is mainly why radio and TV-​based distance learning has been dominant especially in the initial response to the school closures. However, this response was not free of challenges, either. The following is reported for countries that chose radio and TV-​based educational provisions: • The non-​availability of educational content in audio-​visual formats, • Difficulties of countries to produce content in quantity and quality in short time, • The absence of pre-​existing partnerships for the design and broadcasting of the educational content, • The need for communication and collaboration between education specialists and the professionals of the audio-​visual sector for the production of educational programmes, and • The lack of the knowhow and expertise in monitoring and evaluation of learning (UNESCO, 2020a). To illustrate, Turkey is one of the countries which utilized TV as its first mode of distance learning to address the crisis and maintain the education of K-​12 students, while the higher education institutions tended to use internet tools. Distance learning in Turkey’s K-​12 schools was supported by a World Bank project which provided a loan in June 2020, to create a better infrastructure for 271

Kathryn Henderson et al.

the modes of distance learning in Turkey, especially the internet and electronic devices (World Bank Press Release, 2020). With this fund, Turkey’s Ministry of National Education (MoNE) focused on the following three goals: emergency connectivity and IT infrastructure for education in emergencies, digital content for safety and quality, and institutional capacity for education technology resilience (World Bank Press Release, 2020). When face-​to-​face education was suspended in March 2020, the MoNE established the Education Informatics Network (EIN; Eğitim Bilişim Ağı, EBA). This network included two types of resources for distance learning. First, EIN created a web portal on which students, teachers, and parents could access educational resources, such as written educational content and video-​recordings of classes. On this portal (secured by unique login information), students could also locate physical support centres where they could access electronic devices and internet connection. All students were offered 8GB free internet connection every month from all GSM providers (UNHCR, n.d.). Second, MoNE’s EIN also collaborated with Turkish Radio and Television (TRT), the state-​owned broadcasting corporation, to establish three TV channels (primary, middle school and high school) which broadcast class videos throughout the day from 8:00 to 21:30 by providing and repeating content for different grade levels. During the weekend, these channels broadcast the repeats of the classes from the weekdays. EIN provisions were later improved for students with visual impairment and hearing impairment, although the advocacy groups for these two groups of students have continuously voiced concerns about accessibility. Moving forward, distance learning has certainly become part of new possibilities in educational contexts across the globe, but these possibilities are not without their challenges. First, the schools are still not equipped with the technologies to provide distance learning opportunities for all learners. Over two-​thirds of primary schools globally (73%) had access to electricity, which is critical to support ICT; this ranges from 31% in sub-​Saharan Africa to 55% in Southern Asia and 100% in Central Asia. Access to school computers is not universal in most middle and low income regions, varying from 96% in Central Asia to 20% in Southern Asia. World teachers’ day fact sheet, 2020: 8 Within those critical constraints of resources, multilingual students particularly are the ones who suffer from access issues. Second, when schools switch to distance education, learning is expected to occur at home, but this expectation assumes that all students have access to technologies to receive the instruction remotely. This access issue will continue to be part of distance education realities. Third, teachers tend to be asked to migrate their instruction to distance education with little to no support. Considered at the global scale, teachers have received varying levels of training or preparation for distance education and their access to resources is another dire issue in the times of COVID-​19 school closures. For instance, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) tools and internet were provided to teachers in 42% of all countries, from 67% in Europe and Northern [sic] America and 56% in Latin America and the Caribbean to 22% in Eastern and South-​eastern Asia and only 6% in sub-​Saharan Africa, which includes Cabo Verde, Eswatini, Ghana, Kenya and Senegal. World teachers’ day fact sheet, 2021: 7 Fourth, there is the issue of monolingualization of teaching and learning through distance provisions (e.g. radio, TV, online) (Mondragon et al., 2022). In countries where English is the 272

Language Education and the Covid-19 Global Pandemic

medium of instruction (EMI) and students are unfamiliar with English, classroom contact is usually the place where unofficial bi/​multilingual mediation of monolingual English learning materials takes place. Without opportunities for face-​to-​face engagement, many students only have access to learning materials in an unfamiliar language.

Issues of equity and disparities Issues of equity and disparities amidst COVID-​19 school shutdowns and transition to distance learning were immediately on educators and scholars’ radars across the globe at the onset of the pandemic. The consensus is that while disparities have always existed, the COVID-​19 pandemic worsened certain issues of equity in language education and made others more visible. As Hornberger (2021: 73) noted: for those of us engaged in issues of marginalised multilingual populations and globalisation, oppression and mobility, the changes wrought by Covid-​19 have been matters of degree rather than type. In language policy and planning (LPP), for example, the ongoing global pandemic exacerbates but does not initiate longstanding concerns around the ways language education policies and practices worldwide shape and sustain societal and global inequalities across linguistic and social identities, from Indigenous to diasporic, immigrant and refugee populations, from colonised to post-​colonial societies, from enslaved to conquered peoples, from ethnic to racialised communities, and on and on. Despite the heroic efforts of local and global educators and language education advocates, disparities persisted and worsened throughout the pandemic. This section will consider three equity issues that resonate across language learning contexts: a) formal/​school educational loss of bilingual and multilingual students, b) disparate access to technology and linguistic materials, and c) anti-​Asian racism and anti-​immigration sentiment.

Formal/​school educational loss There were disparities in the amount of educational time lost across countries and different populations of language learners. Learning loss due to the pandemic is being considered by researchers across contexts (Kuhfeld & Tarasawa, 2020), however it is clear that poor countries and vulnerable populations including linguistically marginalized and/​or minoritized children were (and continue to be) disproportionately negatively impacted. In Brazil, bilingual students were deprived of any sort of instruction for seven months, during phase 1 of the COVID-​19 pandemic (Tavares et al., 2021). Many factors contributed to challenges to bilingual education in Brazil including not having clear instructions to guide how to teach bilingual learners online nor how to implement an effective online lesson, without mentioning the rush and pressure put on teachers to cover the content and have students pass the tests. Snapshots into Indigenous language instruction during the COVID-​19 pandemic including Zapotec in Oaxaca, Kichwa in Ecuador and Maya in the Yucatán peninsula illustrate formal educational loss, and the general low priority of Indigenous language instruction amidst health, economic and political turmoil (Hornberger, 2021: 91–​2). One pressing concern is bilingual and multilingual students who will not return to school following the extensive school disruptions, school closures and negative economic impact due to the COVID-​ 19 pandemic. Without access to school, women and girls are particularly susceptible to increased domestic abuse, gender-​based violence, arranged marriage and youth pregnancy, all of which 273

Kathryn Henderson et al.

contribute to girls and women not continuing their education (UNESCO, 2020b). Ongoing research will reveal long-​term negative effects of the loss of formal schooling caused by the COVID-​19 particularly for linguistically marginalized and minoritized populations.

Disparate access to technology and linguistic materials Visible and noteworthy issues of equity surfaced for internet-​based learning for bilingual and multilingual learners. One of the greatest visible disparities at the onset of the pandemic was access to technology across countries and diverse communities. As reported in the Global Education Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2020b: 59): In OECD countries, 1 in 20 students, and almost 1 in 10 of those attending disadvantaged schools, lack an internet connection at home. The latter share rises to 1 in 4 in Chile, 1 in 2 in Turkey and almost 3 in 4 in Mexico (OECD 2020). Not all internet connections are strong enough to download data or take part in video calls. In Italy, while 95% of households are connected, 1 in 4 have a connection below 30 Mbps, lower than required to download and stream education content. agCom, 2020 Furthermore, consistent across platforms was a disparity in linguistic resources for linguistically marginalized and minoritized communities. In a separate analysis exploring data from an UNESCO–​UNICEF–​World-​Bank joint questionnaire, less than 40% of all countries and less than 20% of low-​income countries designed learning materials for speakers of minority languages to support learners following the onset of the pandemic in March 2020 (UNESCO, 2020b: 62). India is an illustrative case with a visible digital divide and superdiversity within language communities. One government response in India promoted internet-​based distance learning. In India, during the pandemic lockdown e-​learning mode, each online learning session ranged from one hour to six hours in grades K-​12 with a focus on taking attendance, teacher lecture and instructions for independent assignments (Doucet et al., 2020). In such an online enterprise reflecting emergency remote teaching as opposed to online learning (Hodges et al., 2020), there is limited scope for building upon the performative competence of all multilingual learners. At the same time, less than one-​fourth of people in Indian households have internet access (Parul, 2020). The majority of the students residing in small towns or remote suburban areas do not have devices or internet connectivity (Sahoo et al., 2021). Thus, the resources and attention to e-​learning did not serve the majority of the population. The visible inequity of access to technology was seen across all countries. In South Africa, Abdulatief et al. (2020) wrote, “We are shocked by the failure of provincial guidelines to fully recognize the limited material resources, as well as the living conditions of the majority of South African children and their families.” In response, the collective urged educational leaders to move away from a standardized curriculum-​driven ‘one-​size fits all’ approach. The significant gap in access to technology between economically and linguistically privileged and disadvantaged groups is a global equity issue of language learners.

Anti-​Asian racism and anti-​immigration sentiment Anti-​Asian racism and anti-​immigration sentiment worsened across the globe with the pandemic impacting bi/​multilingual education, particularly for Asian and Asian immigrant populations of 274

Language Education and the Covid-19 Global Pandemic

students. Immediately following the onset of the pandemic, there were multiple reports of racism and violence towards people who appear Asian (Gao & Liu, 2021; Gregory, 2020; Guo & Guo, 2021; Mostoles, 2020; Tan et al., 2021; Zhang, 2020). A study exploring the impact of the coronavirus pandemic through semi-​structured interviews with 25 Chinese American immigrant mothers with infants predominantly living in New York City found increased material hardship and stress including heightened family hardship, in part due to anti-​Asian racism (Duh-​Leong et al., 2021). Anti-​Asian racism included both overt and covert microaggressions. One mother commented on people choosing to stand in a longer line at the grocery store to not be near her. This anti-​Asian racism impacted bi/​multilingual students across education contexts. In the United States, journalists reported Asian American students not attending school in fear of anti-​Asian racism and violence (Balingit et al., 2021). In Australia, journalists spoke with Asian Australian students who experienced increased bullying and name calling (Handley, 2020). Amidst the rise in Anti-​Asian racism, educators and education groups organized to advocate for instruction specifically addressing anti-​Asian racism, racist rhetoric and biased language (Brown, 2020; Hsieh, 2022; Tambascia, 2020). Anti-​Asian acts during the pandemic often intersected with anti-​immigration sentiment and were not limited to Asians. The xenophobic backlash connected to the coronavirus pandemic follows a pattern of increased xenophobia connected to historical disease outbreaks (Noel, 2020). Increased hate speech towards minority and immigrant groups was documented across contexts including, for example, the Muslim community in Sri Lanka and India, the African community in China, and the Rohingya refugee community in Malaysia (Human Rights Watch, 2020). One major group of multilingual students who needed further attention during school closures were children from families who fled the civil war in Syria. EIN provisions on the web portal and TRT channels were not accessible to those multilingual students. In their study on that topic in Turkey, Celik and Kardas Isler (2020) found that Syrian refugee students had numerous challenges, many of which converged on the issue of Turkish-​only delivery. The fact that all EIN resources were provided in Turkish, the national official language of schooling in Turkey, prevented students with refugee backgrounds from understanding the content and completing the assignments and activities in this distance learning platform. In Celik and Kardas Isler’s study, participants said they did not understand EIN content since they did not have anyone in their family who spoke Turkish ‘well’ enough. They also reported that they did not have any actual space to watch the EIN-​TRT broadcasts because they were part of larger families. Some other participants remarked that reaching out to their teachers and starting a line of communication was almost impossible for themselves and their parents/​caregivers because they were Arabic speakers, and they did not feel confident in speaking Turkish. Yet others shared that they needed to watch the EIN videos on their parents’ phones as they did not own a TV or did not have internet connection at home.

Unique impact on diverse stakeholders The massive shift to distance learning and the worsening situation of equity and disparity issues brought by the COVID-​19 pandemic has had a profound impact on diverse stakeholders –​ teachers, students, and caretakers –​in bi/​multilingual education. On one side, teachers, students and caretakers, especially those from bilingual minoritized communities globally and locally, have experienced different physical and mental challenges due to the lack of readiness and resources for distance learning; on the other side, they have also shown unsurpassed innovations and resilience in their unfamiliar terrains: online teaching and home/​remote learning (Ortiz et al., 2021). The unique impact on different stakeholders will be highlighted and elaborated respectively in this section. 275

Kathryn Henderson et al.

Teachers As Henderson, Ortega and Palmer (2021: 88) pointed out, The COVID-​19 pandemic has taken bilingual education –​and public education in general –​ into an entirely new and unprecedented time. Amidst this new and shifting reality of online bilingual instruction, the role of the teacher has not changed: teachers are at the heart of navigating this uncharted terrain. Undoubtedly, bilingual teachers have always engaged in the important work of providing an equitable learning environment and being an advocate for language-​minoritized students and families. However, they are playing a greater central role with more responsibilities to ensure sustainable communication and teaching and learning with families and students in the time of crisis. This was a formidable task with tremendous challenges. For example, many teachers from different countries, such as China, Turkey, India and the US, have reported that they felt under-​prepared for utilizing technology or had limited knowledge base and experience with edtech tools in remote teaching (Newton, 2020). While learning to teach online in a survival mode themselves (especially at the beginning of the pandemic), bilingual teachers meanwhile had to support families from marginalized backgrounds (migrant families, families of limited means, rural families, and so forth) to troubleshoot technological issues, such as finding access to hardware and the internet, offering guidance on navigating certain digital platforms, and providing translations of some instructions. Henderson et al. (2021: 87) documented the ‘extra work’ that one bilingual teacher in an American Spanish–​English dual-​language bilingual education (DLBE) programme had to take on in distance learning: for families whose home language is not English, “bilingual teachers have yet another ‘new hat’ or role: serving as IT in Spanish” because all the apps, instructions, and even how-​to videos about these apps are in English only. Other major challenges, reported by bilingual teachers from Brazil and the US, included lack of student engagement, teacher/​student isolation, shortage of bilingual materials and resources, and decreased time in bilingual instruction causing students not to reach the proposed goals for that academic year and required by the institutions (Carius, 2020; Lopez, 2021). Despite the challenges, teachers have demonstrated their resilience and adaptability in online teaching, seizing the time of COVID-​19 pandemic to gradually shift their teaching practices from crisis management to innovation, transformation and reimagining bi/​multilingual education in a virtual environment. In China, with the top-​down support from the Ministry of Education which launched an initiative called ‘Ensuring learning undisrupted when classes are disrupted’ (Huang et al., 2020) and beefed up two existing virtual platforms (and other edtech tools) –​‘Empower Learning’ (www.xuexi.cn/​) and ‘Edcloud’ (www.edu​yun.cn/​), teachers were able to work in teams more effectively online, select and share materials (such as exemplar lesson videos) with students, and maintain timely communication with parents (Ning & Corcoran, 2020). In Hong Kong, primary and secondary English language teachers engaged in both school and teacher-​initiated professional development to develop innovative teaching strategies to adapt quickly to remote teaching, such as integrating game-​based learning platforms (such as Kahoot!) to promote student engagement in synchronous online lessons, utilizing online survey tools (such as Google Forms) to conduct formative assessments asynchronously, and using learning management systems (such as Google Classroom) to disseminate and collect student work (Moorhouse & Wong, 2021; Wong & Moorhouse, 2021). Similar pedagogical and technological innovations have also been found in the US and furthermore, many states and districts are proposing a new working schedule to 276

Language Education and the Covid-19 Global Pandemic

increase collaboration time and opportunities for teachers, e.g. a four-​day teaching week, with a fifth day for collaborative planning among teachers (Darling-​Hammond & Hyler, 2020). In addition, teacher education programmes at American universities have taken different initiatives to strengthen pre-​and in-​service teachers’ competence to better serve bilingual minoritized communities. For example, teacher candidates at Stanford University discussed multiple ways (such as using language translation apps) to stay connected with bilingual students and families and address their academic development as well as socioemotional wellbeing (Darling-​Hammond & Hyler, 2020), and the Monterey Institute for English Learners (MIEL) at California State University Monterey Bay has created a resource page on their website for bilingual teachers, including links to online children’s books in Spanish, Spanish podcasts for young children and other curricula material in different content areas and in many other different languages (García-​Mateus, 2020).

Students and caretakers Within educational contexts that engaged in emergency online teaching and learning caused by the COVID-​19 pandemic, certain groups of students were particularly vulnerable to negative educational consequences and experiences (Aguilera-​Hermida, 2020; Cioè-​Peña, 2022; Pillay et al., 2021). A qualitative study exploring the educational experiences of newcomer youth in Canada during the transition to online learning between March and June of 2020 revealed that newcomer needs were not addressed or met adapting to online learning, and, rather, exacerbated existing educational inequalities (Pillay et al., 2021). The lack of virtual teaching experience and strategies, clear guidelines, technical support, unequal access to computers and digital tools made it challenging for bi/​multilingual teachers to teach and keep students engaged across contexts. An exploratory, cross-​sectional quantitative study examining students’ engagement in online learning collected 1,009 student surveys in four countries (US, Mexico, Peru and Turkey) and found that student self-​efficacy was a moderator for engagement in all four countries. Each country had different factors that impacted online student engagement highlighting the need to understand context-​specific factors for successful online learning (Aguilera-​Hermida, 2020). With all of the challenges for diverse groups of bi/​multilingual students to engage in online learning, research is beginning to explore the impact and consequences of the COVID-​19 pandemic on bi/​multilingual students’ academic achievement. Research exploring English learners’ testing, proficiency, and growth during the three school years revealed an overall downward trend in student proficiency and growth in 2021, as compared to 2019 and 2020. The report found, “The impact of the pandemic on ELs’ test scores varied by grade and domain, with the relatively larger declines recorded in elementary and middle school grades (first and sixth grades), and in the domain of Speaking” (Sahakyan & Cook, 2021). With the ongoing impact of the COVID-​19 pandemic caused by COVID-​19 variants at the time of the writing of this chapter, lasting impacts are still being discussed and examined. An additional area of concern for bi/​multilingual students in diverse educational contexts are issues related to mental health. One study reported that bi/​multilingual learners in Brazil were unfamiliar with or disliked online learning, and faced issues such as isolation, social distance, lack of interaction and anxiety (Carius, 2020). Similarly, research has found that the COVID-​19 pandemic has caused PTSD (1 in 5 students) and depression symptoms (1 in 14 students) among Chinese children aged 7 to 15 years (Ma et al., 2021). Furthermore, many of the students who spend much of their time on virtual platforms do not receive feedback from the teachers and are unable to discuss and interact with their peers. This leads to online exploitation and vulnerability to cyberbullying and other risks, and not all children have the knowledge or skills necessary to 277

Kathryn Henderson et al.

keep them safe from such online risks (Pockrel & Chettri, 2021). And, as has been noted, the most vulnerable bi/​multilingual students are susceptible to dropping out. According to Liberali and Megali’s (2016) study in Brazil, low-​income students are already the most likely to drop out of school especially in a tough situation such as the impacts of the COVID-​19 pandemic. The mental burden due to COVID-​19 lockdowns and uncertainty across countries affected not only teachers and bilingual learners, it also deeply impacted the lives of students’ caretakers with some evidence pointing to commonalities in family experiences across countries including challenges with quarantining and both positive and negative experiences with children (Toran et al., 2021). Caretakers of bilingual learners in Brazil were affected by school closures, unemployment, financial strains and lack of childcare (Oliveira et al., 2021). Women who were primarily responsible for their children were overwhelmed by work and childcare activities. A study conducted by Oliveira et al. (2021) showed that due to the restrictive measures during the pandemic, children and adolescents in Brazil were less physically active, became more bored and developed sleep problems and anxiety as a result of their limited social interactions and lifestyle changes. Results of this study also showed that a large percentage of caretakers felt unprepared or not qualified to help their children move forward academically during the pandemic due to their own education limitations or lack of time. Immigrant agencies and advocacy groups in the United States have tried to spread information about the disproportionately negative impact of COVID-​19 on immigrant families and communities. These communities face higher rates of COVID-​19 for a complex web of factors including inequitable access to healthcare and vaccines and experience hardship at higher rates as the result of loss of income, housing and food security (Breiseth, 2020). Amidst tremendous hardship and systemic inequities, there is some scholarship that is documenting student and parent resilience and even some unanticipated positive learning outcomes. One study in the United States examining data of two matched groups of Mandarin–​ English bilingual children (ages 4 to 8 years, n =​ 38) from pre-​COVID and post-​COVID found multiple benefits for home language development (Sheng et al., 2021). A separate study in China explored the impact of COVID-​19 on inter-​generational learning. Approximately a third of elementary children in China live with their grandparents and this study showed co-​learning between the generations including increased understanding between generations, closer relationships and increased health knowledge, life skills and values (Lyu et al., 2020).

Implications and conclusion To conclude this chapter on the impact of COVID-​19 on bi/​multilingual education, there is a recognition of the ongoing struggle, an acknowledgement of the need for more research and a commitment to moving forward with a pluralist vision of bi/​multilingual education for linguistically minoritized and marginalized communities. At the time of writing, recent surges of coronavirus variants are shutting down schools. Safety and precautionary measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus are impacting school attendance. Schools previously engaged in distance learning that are back in person are needing to address unprecedented psychological and social emotional repercussions caused to the many bi/​multilingual students who are out of their normal schedules. Language educators across the globe are burnt out and depleted by the ongoing and monstrous task of providing language instruction for diverse learners amidst increased racism and xenophobia. Bi/​multilingual students are dropping out of schools. The linguistic hierarchy with the lack of educational materials and health information in minoritized or marginalized languages is being reinforced. Amidst bi/​multilingual educational communities, there is struggle, exhaustion and desperation. 278

Language Education and the Covid-19 Global Pandemic

One need amongst the educational community is additional research on the coronavirus pandemic and bi/​multilingual education utilizing a variety of research methods. First, there is not enough research on this topic because it is still very new. This chapter highlighted multiple ways the coronavirus impacted bi/​multilingual learners, but there is a critical need for additional research that explores issues of equity and the long-​standing impact on language education. Furthermore, the majority of articles published on COVID-​19 and its impact on bi/​multilingual education employed a survey design. There is a need for additional qualitative and ethnographic work to capture the testimonials of educational stakeholders who worked, taught, innovated and persisted through the coronavirus pandemic. There are researchers focused on the academic learning loss and its long-​ term impact. This research must be balanced with research focused on social-​emotional development and ongoing issues of equity for marginalized and minoritized communities that have long existed but were heightened during the coronavirus pandemic. COVID-​19 seems to have paved a way for educational innovations across contexts and mediums by educators and advocates of bilingual and multilingual learners. As Ortiz, Fránquiz, and Lara (2021: 1) reflected, “As nations restore themselves from this global health crisis, teachers, parents, and students need all of us to chart a vision of education that emerges stronger, is more equitable and inclusive, and embraces innovative and humanizing pedagogies.” As educators push forward across the globe, find pockets of hope and create implementation spaces for bi/​multilingual instruction, educators must document, collaborate, spread the pluralist vision and collectively heal.

Related topics Chapter 9 Indigenous language and education rights; Chapter 13 Indigenous education and multilingualism: global perspectives and local experiences; Chapter 25 Multilingualism during disasters and emergencies.

Further reading Doucet, A., Netolicky, D., Timmers, K. & Tuscano, F.J. 2020. Thinking about pedagogy in an unfolding pandemic (An Independent Report on Approaches to Distance Learning during COVID-​19 School Closure). Education International and UNESCO. https://​issuu.com/​edu​cati​onin​tern​atio​nal/​docs/​2020​_​res​earc​h_​co​ vid-​19_​eng. Hornberger, N.H. 2021. Ideological and implementational spaces in COVID-​ era language policy and planning: perspectives from indigenous communities in the Global South. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices. 2(1): 71–​97. Piller, I., Zhang, J. & Li, J. 2020. Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: language challenges of the COVID-​19 pandemic. Multilingua. 39(5): 503–​515.

References Abdulatief, S., Guzula, X., Kell, C., Lloyd, G., Makoe, P., Masola, A., McKinney, C., Molate, B. & Tyler, R. 2020. Why it can’t be education as usual. Bua-​lit collective. www.pheph​aufu​nde.org.za/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ ads/​2020/​09/​Why-​it-​cant-​be-​educat​ion-​as-​usual-​Daily-​Maver​ick.pdf. AgCom. 2020. Broadband Map. Authority for Communications Guarantees. [online] https://​maps.agcom.it. Aguilera-​Hermida, A.P. 2020. College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-​19. International Journal of Educational Research Open. 1: 100011​. Ahmad, R. 2020. Multilingual resources key to fighting COVID-​19. Language on the Move. www.langua​ geon​them​ove.com/​multi​ling​ual-​resour​ces-​key-​to-​fight​ing-​covid-​19/​. Balingit, M., Natanson, H. & Chen, Y. 2021. As schools reopen, Asian American students are missing from classrooms. The Washington Post. www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​educat​ion/​asian-​ameri​can-​stude​nts-​home-​ sch​ool-​in-​per​son-​pande​mic/​2021/​03/​02/​eb705​6bc-​7786-​11eb-​8115-​9ad​5e9c​0211​7_​st​ory.html

279

Kathryn Henderson et al. Blommaert, J. 2020. COVID19 and globalization. Researchgate. www.resea​rchg​ate.net/​publ​icat​ion/​ 33978883​0_​CO​VID1​9_​an​d_​Gl​obal​isat​ion. Breiseth, L. 2020. How COVID-​19 is impacting ELL and immigrant families. Colorín Colorado. www.colo​ rinc​olor​ado.org/​covid-​ell. Brown, T.B. 2020. Educators take a stand against coronavirus racism. NEA News. www.nea.org/​adv​ocat​ing-​ for-​cha​nge/​new-​from-​nea/​educat​ors-​take-​stand-​agai​nst-​coro​navi​rus-​rac​ism. Carius, A.C. 2020. Between confinement and remote classes: early childhood education in Brazil in COVID-​ 19 times. International Journal of Development Research. 11(7): 48972–​489725. Celik, S. & Kardas Isler, N. 2020. Göç mağduru Suriyeli öğrencilerin COVID-​19 salgını sürecindeki öğrenme deneyimleri [Learning experiences of Syrian refugee students during the outburst of COVID-​19 pandemic]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi. 49(1): 783–​800. Cioè-​Peña, M. 2022. Computers secured, connection still needed: understanding how COVID-​19-​related remote schooling impacted Spanish-​speaking mothers of emergent bilinguals with dis/​abilities. Journal of Latinos and Education. 1–​15. Darling-​Hammond, L. & Hyler, M.E. 2020. Preparing educators for the time of COVID … and beyond. European Journal of Teacher Education. 43(4): 457–​65. Doucet, A., Netolicky, D., Timmers, K. & Tuscano, F.J. 2020. Thinking about pedagogy in an unfolding pandemic (An independent report on approaches to distance learning during COVID-​19 school closure). Education International and UNESCO. https://​issuu.com/​edu​cati​onin​tern​atio​nal/​docs/​2020​_​res​earc​h_​co​ vid-​19_​eng. Duh-​Leong, C., Yin, H.S., Yi, S.S., Chen, S.L., Mui, A., Perrin, E.M., Zhao, Q. & Gross, R.S. 2021. Material hardship and stress from COVID-​19 in immigrant Chinese American families with infants. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 1–​10. Feng, A. & Adamson, B. 2015. Contested notions of bilingualism and trilingualism in the People’s Republic of China. In The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education. W.E. Wright, S. Boun & O. García, Eds. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gao, Q. & Liu, X. 2021. Stand against anti-​Asian racial discrimination during COVID-​19: a call for action. International Social Work. 64(2): 261–​264. García-​Mateus, S. 2020. Supporting bilingual students during pandemic. Monterey Herald. www.mon​tere​ yher​ald.com/​2020/​07/​11/​sup​port​ing-​biling​ual-​stude​nts-​dur​ing-​pande​mic/​. Gregory, A. 2020. Coronavirus: man racially abuses woman then knocks her friend unconscious after she confronts him. The Independent. www.inde​pend​ent.co.uk/​news/​uk/​crime/​coro​navi​rus-​rac​ism-​uk-​china-​ epide​mic-​bir​ming​ham-​west-​midla​nds-​pol​ice-​a9343​216.html. Guo, S. & Guo, Y. 2021. Combating anti-​Asian racism and xenophobia in Canada: toward pandemic anti-​ racism education in post-​COVID-​19. Beijing International Review of Education. 3(2): 187–​211. Hall, T., Connolly, C., Grádaigh, S.Ó., Burden, K., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Bottema, J., Cazemier, G., Hustinx, W., Evens, M., Koenraad, T., Makridou, E. & Kosmas, P. 2020. Education in precarious times: a comparative study across six countries to identify design priorities for mobile learning in a pandemic. Information and Learning Sciences. 121(5/​6): 433–​442. Handley, E. 2020. When children are targets of racism, what can schools do to combat Coronavirus-​fuelled bullying? ABC News. www.abc.net.au/​news/​2020-​05-​24/​rac​ism-​child​ren-​what-​can-​scho​ols-​do-​com​bat-​ coro​navi​rus-​bully​ing/​12260​430?nw=​0&r=​HtmlF​ragm​ent. Henderson, K.I., Ortega, E. & Palmer, D. 2021. “I’m kind of a rebel here”: documenting the greatest challenges of bilingual teachers during a pandemic. Multilingual Educator. 86–​88. www.goc​abe.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ ads/​2021/​03/​ME_​2​021-​FINAL.pdf. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. & Bond, A. 2020. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause. https://​er.educa​use.edu/​artic​les/​2020/​3/​the-​dif​fere​nce-​betw​een-​ emerge​ncy-​rem​ote-​teach​ing-​and-​onl​ine-​learn​ing. Hornberger, N.H. 2021. Ideological and implementational spaces in COVID-​ era language policy and planning: perspectives from indigenous communities in the Global South. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices. 2(1): 71–​97. Hsieh, B. 2022. Countering Asian-​American Invisibility in Schools. www.ascd.org/​el/​artic​les/​cou​nter​ing-​ asian-​ameri​can-​invis​ibil​ity-​in-​scho​ols. Huang, R., Tlili, A., Chang, T.-​W., Zhang, X., Nascimbeni, F. & Burgos, D. 2020. Disrupted classes, undisrupted learning during COVID-​19 outbreak in China: application of open educational practices and resources. Smart Learning Environments. 7(1): 1–​15.

280

Language Education and the Covid-19 Global Pandemic Human Rights Watch. 2020. Covid-​19 fueling anti-​Asian racism and xenophobia worldwide national action plans needed to counter intolerance. Human Rights Watch. www.hrw.org/​news/​2020/​05/​12/​covid-​19-​fuel​ ing-​anti-​asian-​rac​ism-​and-​xen​opho​bia-​worldw​ide#. Idoiaga Mondragon, N., Orcasitas-​Vicandi, M. & Roman Etxebarrieta, G. 2022. Impact of emergency eLearning in a multilingual context with a minority language: how has the absence of school affected the use of Basque, English, and Spanish in the Basque context? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 25(10): 1–​18. Koul, O. N and Devaki, L. 2000. Multilingual education in India: concept and strategies. In Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. O.N. Omkar & L. Devaki, Eds. Mysore: CIIL. Kuhfeld, M. & Tarasawa, B. 2020. The COVID-​19 slide: what summer learning loss can tell us about the potential impact of school closures on student academic achievement. Collaborative for Student Growth Brief. www.nwea.org/​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2020/​05/​Collab​orat​ive-​Brief_​Covi​d19-​Slide-​ APR20.pdf. Li, Y., Rao, G., Zhang, J. & Li, J. 2020. Conceptualizing national emergency language competence. Multilingua. 39(5): 617–​623. Lyu, K., Xu, Y., Cheng, H. & Li, J. 2020. The implementation and effectiveness of intergenerational learning during the COVID-​19 pandemic: evidence from China. International Review of Education. 66(5): 833–​855. Liberali, F.C. & Megale, A. 2016. Elite bilingual education in Brazil: an applied linguist’s perspective. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal. 18(2): 95–​108. Lopez, B. 2021. Texas struggled to teach students learning English before COVID-​19. The pandemic made it worse. The 74. www.the74​mill​ion.org/​arti​cle/​texas-​strugg​led-​to-​teach-​stude​nts-​learn​ing-​engl​ish-​bef​ore-​ covid-​19-​the-​pande​mic-​made-​it-​worse/​. Ma, Z., Idris, S., Zhang, Y., Zewen, L., Wali, A., Ji, Y., Pan, Q. & Baloch, Z. 2021. The impact of COVID-​19 pandemic outbreak on education and mental health of Chinese children aged 7–​15 years: an online survey. BMC Pediatrics. 21(1): 1–​8. Megale, A. 2019. Educação Bilíngue no Brasil. In Educação Bilíngue no Brasil. A. Megale, Ed. São Paulo: Fundação Santillana. Moorhouse, B.L. & Wong, K.M. 2021. The COVID-​19 pandemic as a catalyst for teacher pedagogical and technological innovation and development: teachers’ perspectives. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 42(1): 1–​16. Mostoles, T. 2020. An Asian American author talks about racism in the pandemic. The New York Times. www. nyti​mes.com/​2020/​06/​24/​us/​asian-​ameri​can-​rac​ism-​coro​navi​rus-​kelly-​yang.html. Newton, D. 2020. Most teachers say they are ‘not prepared’ to teach online. Forbes. www.for​bes.com/​ sites/​dere​knew​ton/​2020/​03/​26/​most-​teach​ers-​say-​they-​are-​not-​prepa​red-​to-​teach-​onl​ine/​?sh=​5500e​ bb47​f2c. Ning, A. & Corcoran, B. 2020. How China’s schools are getting through COVID-​19. EdSurge. www.edsu​rge. com/​news/​2020-​04-​20-​how-​china-​s-​scho​ols-​are-​gett​ing-​thro​ugh-​covid-​19. Noel, T.K. 2020. Conflating culture with COVID-​19: xenophobic repercussions of a global pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2(1): 100044–​100044. Oliveira, T.D., Costa, D., Alvim-​Soares, A., de Paula, J., Kestelman, I., Silva, A., Malloy-​Diniz, L. & Miranda, D. 2021. Children’s behavioral problems, screen time, and sleep problems’ association with negative and positive parenting strategies during the COVID-​19 outbreak in Brazil. Child Abuse & Neglect. 105345–​105345. Ortiz, A.A., Fránquiz, M.E. & Lara, G.P. 2021. Loss or rebirth? bilingual educators and communities during the time of COVID. Bilingual Research Journal. 44(1): 1–​5. Parul, 2020. How Covid-​19 pandemic affects the Indian education system? Inventiva. www.invent​iva.co.in/​ stor​ies/​parul/​how-​covid-​19-​pande​mic-​affe​cts-​the-​ind​ian-​educat​ion-​sys​tem/​. Pillay, T., Ghahari, S., Xavier, M.S., Wali, H., James, S., Sani, M.H. & Alexander, L. 2021. The necessity of community collaborations in supporting newcomer student learning: lessons learned from the COVID-​19 pandemic. Beijing International Review of Education. 3(2): 131–​155. Piller, I., Zhang, J. & Li, J. 2020. Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: language challenges of the COVID-​19 pandemic. Multilingua. 39(5): 503–​515. Pokhrel, S. & Chhetri, R. 2021. A literature review on impact of COVID-​19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future. 8(1): 133–​141.

281

Kathryn Henderson et al. Sahakyan, N. & Cook, H.G. 2021. Examining English learner testing, proficiency, and growth: before and throughout the COVID-​19 pandemic. WIDA Research Report No. RR-​2021-​1 .https://​wida.wisc.edu/​sites/​ defa​ult/​files/​resou​rce/​Rep​ort-​Examin​ing-​Engl​ish-​Lear​ner-​Test​ing-​Prof​icie​ncy-​Gro​wth.pdf. Sahoo, K.K., Muduli, K.K., Luhach, A.K. & Poonia, R.C. 2021. Pandemic COVID-​19: an empirical analysis of impact on Indian higher education system. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. 24(2): 341–​355. Sheng, L., Wang, D., Walsh, C., Heisler, L., Li, X. & Su, P.L. 2021. The bilingual home language boost through the lens of the COVID-​19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology. 12. Skutnabb-​Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. 2000. Rights to Language: Equity, Power, and Education: Celebrating the 60th Birthday of Tove Skutnabb-​Kangas. L. Erlbaum Associates. Tambascia, T.P. 2020. Combating anti-​Asian racism in the classroom. USC Rossier. https://​ross​ier.usc.edu/​ magaz​ine/​fall-​win​ter-​2020/​combat​ing-​anti-​asian-​rac​ism-​in-​the-​classr​oom/​. Tan, X., Lee, R. & Ruppanner, L. 2021. Profiling racial prejudice during COVID-​19: who exhibits anti​Asian sentiment in Australia and the United States? The Australian Journal of Social Issues. 56(4): 464–​484. Tavares, M.T.G., Pessanha, F.N. de L. & Macedo, N.A. 2021. Impactos da pandemia de Covid-​19 na educação infantil em São Gonçalo/​RJ. Zero-​a-​Seis. 23: 77–​100. Toran, M., Sak, R., Xu, Y., Şahin-​Sak, İ.T. & Yu, Y. 2021. Parents and children during the COVID-​19 quarantine process: experiences from Turkey and China. Journal of Early Childhood Research. 19(1): 21–​39. UNESCO. 2020a. Learning through radio and television in the time of COVID. UNESCO. https://​en.une​sco. org/​news/​learn​ing-​thro​ugh-​radio-​and-​tel​evis​ion-​time-​covid-​19. UNESCO. 2020b. Global education monitoring report 2020: inclusion and education: all means all. UNESCO. https://​unes​doc.une​sco.org/​ark:/​48223/​pf000​0373​718. United Nations. 2020. Policy brief: education during COVID-​19 and beyond. United Nations. www.un.org/​ deve​lopm​ent/​desa/​dspd/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​sites/​22/​2020/​08/​sg_​pol​icy_​brie​f_​co​vid-​19_​an​d_​ed​ucat​ ion_​augu​st_​2​020.pdf. Wong, K.M. & Moorhouse, B.L. 2021. Digital competence and online language teaching: Hong Kong language teacher practices in primary and secondary classrooms. System. 103. World Bank Brief. 2020. Remote learning during COVID-​19: lessons from today, principles for tomorrow. The World Bank. www.worldb​ank.org/​en/​topic/​edut​ech/​brief/​how-​countr​ies-​are-​using-​edt​ech-​to-​supp​ort-​ rem​ote-​learn​ing-​dur​ing-​the-​covid-​19-​pande​mic. World Bank Press Release. 2020. Responding to COVID-​19 and looking beyond: Turkey invests in safer schooling and distance education with the World Bank support. The World Bank. www.worldb​ank.org/​ en/​news/​press-​rele​ase/​2020/​06/​25/​res​pond​ing-​to-​covid-​19-​and-​look​ing-​bey​ond-​tur​key-​inve​sts-​in-​safer-​ school​ing-​and-​dista​nce-​educat​ion-​with-​the-​world-​bank-​supp​ort. World Bank Brief. 2021. Mission: recovering education in 2021. The World Bank. www.worldb​ank.org/​en/​ topic/​educat​ion/​brief/​miss​ion-​rec​over​ing-​educat​ion-​in-​2021. World teachers’ day fact sheet. 2020. World teachers’ day fact sheet. UNESCO. http://​uis.une​sco.org/​sites/​ defa​ult/​files/​docume​nts/​world_​t​each​ers_​day_​fact​_​she​et_​2​020.pdf. World teachers’ day fact sheet. 2021. World teachers’ day fact sheet. UNESCO. https://​teach​erta​skfo​rce.org/​ sites/​defa​ult/​files/​2021-​10/​2021%20Wo​rld%20T​each​ers%27%20Day%20f​act%20sh​eet%20EN%204​ Oct%202.pdf. Zhang, J. 2020. Racism hinders the fight against COVID-​19. Language on the Move. www.langua​geon​them​ ove.com/​rac​ism-​hind​ers-​the-​fight-​agai​nst-​covid-​19/​.

282

PART IV

Multilingualism in social and cultural change

19 MULTILINGUALISM, THE NEW ECONOMY AND THE NEOLIBERAL GOVERNANCE OF SPEAKERS Luisa Martín Rojo

Sociolinguistics, the current economy and forms of governance In recent decades, the new economy has emerged as fertile ground for linguistic research, deriving its significance from the very nature of the social transformations taking place. Within this frame, scholars of critical sociolinguistics have examined how language, and multilingualism in particular, has become an integral part of ‘the new economy’, also referred to as late or global capitalism. At the core of this economy is a distinct set of practices that define capitalism and have shaped the sociolinguistic order. The ways in which languages are currently managed and understood reflect the processes traditionally involved in capitalist economies, such as profit-​seeking, commodity trading, the general commodification of all goods, services and social relations, the creation of ‘free’ markets in goods and services, the institution of wage-​labour and the oppression of labour to prevent workers/​speakers intervening in labour markets in their own interests and, at heart, the private ownership of capital. Furthermore, as studies in critical sociolinguistics have highlighted, the role of language is crucial within current forms of globalized capitalism, which are far removed from the industrial era and are characterized by tertiarization, outsourcing, heightened productivity, flexibility and flows of people, goods and capital. Within this frame, therefore, as tellingly observed by Alexandre Duchêne and Monica Heller (2012), multilingualism is both a commodity and a process, and plays a significant role in new economies, processes and relations. For example, in an economic process such as touristification, language proficiency is a form of capital. Thus, “the market becomes multilingual due to strategic decisions based on ‘rational’ economic choices: languages are sold in this market but at the same time they give an added value in terms of authenticity, exoticism, or ‘uniqueness’ ” (Duchêne & Heller, 2012: 373–​374). Furthermore, language skills, whose value on the market can be calculated in the same way as that of other goods or services, are also commodified in what has become known as the “language industry” (Heller, 2011: 27). Following this logic, languages, and multilingualism in particular, have been studied in relation to the social transformation produced within new economies, such as geographical expansion, the weakening of nation states, increased mobility, the spread of technologies, migration and diaspora,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-23

285

Luisa Martín Rojo

the touristification and gentrification of metropoles and the emergence of language industries. In this regard, new concepts have been introduced in sociolinguistic studies, among which commodification (Heller, 2010a) has aroused much debate, regarding what exactly is meant by this term and whether the phenomenon it designates can even be considered new (McGill, 2013; Block, Gray & Holborow, 2012; Block, 2018). According to Pujolar (2018: 465), this concept rests upon the complex imbrications of language and the economy, which have largely been associated with the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Other Bourdieusian concepts, such as language as a resource, the linguistic market and the notions of value and legitimate variety, have also been incorporated into sociolinguistic theory and practice (see section 2 for a further discussion of these questions). Simultaneously, new methods have been introduced, such as critical sociolinguistic ethnography, which focuses on how different social processes, such as social exclusion and inequality, are realized through situated linguistic practices, while paying attention to the voices of participants in these contexts. From this perspective, the role of languages has been investigated in diverse fields, including tourism (see, among others, Heller, Jaworski & Thurlow, 2014; Heller, Pujolar & Duchêne, 2014; Pietikainen & Kelly-​Holmes, 2013; Gao, 2012), the labour market (see, for example, Gunnarsson, 2013; Flubacher, Duchêne & Coray, 2018; Lorente, 2018; Roberts, 2010), education (Codó & Patiño-​Santos, 2014; Jaspers & Madsen, 2016; Martín Rojo, 2010; Pérez-​Milans, 2013; Prego & Zas, 2019; and see, Duchêne, Moyer & Roberts, 2013, for different institutions), service provision (Codó 2008; Márquez & Martín Rojo, 2011), call centres (Duchêne, 2009; Sabaté, 2014; Rahman, 2009) and non-​governmental organizations (Garrido, 2018). Research has also been developed in connection with other processes such as globalization (Blommaert, 2010) and colonialism (Heller & McElhinny, 2017; Makoni & Pennycook, 2006), which unfortunately we will not be able to cover in this chapter. Likewise, given the extent and diversity of research in this field, the present study focuses on examples of research carried out on the field of the language industry, i.e. language teaching and learning, and translation and interpreting. In addition, this chapter focuses on a complementary issue that has become increasingly prominent in sociolinguistic research, namely what role language plays in the way societies are governed within neoliberalism. Neoliberalism has been viewed as an economic ideology that undermines the welfare state, rejects any commitment to full employment and promotes tax cutting and market deregulation. However, under current conditions of capitalism, neoliberalism has become much more than an economic policy or even ideology, evolving into a form of governance that benefits or can be used to defend the interests of financial capital, and that extends the logic of the market throughout public and private life. Principles such as globalization, free markets, deregulation, quality, quantification, freedom, flexibility and competition now permeate virtually all areas of social behaviour, including education, work, human rights, culture, the media, urban planning, migration, public administration, security and health. These principles also affect language policies and speakers’ trajectories and practices. It is a form of government that seeks to reorder social reality, by disseminating an ideal of society as a kind of universal market (rather than a polis, a civil sphere or a kind of family), and that revises the status of human beings, viewing them not as individual bearers of inalienable rights and duties, but as producers of profit and loss. A major feature of this pro-​capitalist form of governance is that it extends the logic of the market throughout public and private life, including areas such as border control, privacy, education, consumption and subjectivities (see Martín Rojo & Del Percio, 2019, and Urla, 2019a for a detailed introduction to the concept). Neoliberalism seeks to ensure market freedom and to minimize the presence of the State. Another feature of this form of government is that it affects the ‘population as a whole’, shaping subjectivities, inducing

286

The New Economy and the Neoliberal Governance of Speakers

people to see themselves as successful or unsuccessful in terms of being profitable, and to use commercial logic to position themselves within the labour market. Given these two features, to understand how neoliberalism works we must consider not only commodities and markets, but also institutions, social groups, classes and the subjects that, within neoliberalism, are governed by the same principles as businesses, and whose linguistic conduct (behaviour) is shaped by these principles. According to the logic of neoliberalism, language is not merely a tool for communication and understanding, or just an element of capital in an economic process (such as touristification), in addition, it is an asset that allows speakers to achieve their goals, to access and participate in contexts that may be termed multilingual (even if they do not fully merit this description, as in many cases the ‘multilingualism’ is limited to the use of English together with the national language in question). In consequence, multilingualism, whether comprehensive or the ‘English plus the national language’ variety, is often signalled and celebrated in areas where English is not an official language. Bilingual and trilingual schools are created, parents are encouraged to make their children multilingual from the earliest possible age, and families and institutions invest heavily in language teaching and certification programmes. However, in many cases, the goal underlying this emphasis is not for individuals to learn languages and thus communicate better, but to enable them, subsequently, to compete more strongly in the job market. Thus, the processes of subjectivization of speakers, linked to the conceptualization of language as a personal asset, have thus become an object of study. New approaches and methodological tools are being developed for this purpose. Thus, this approach is related to recent contributions in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology to the study of governmentality by authors such as Urla (2012a), who focuses on language policies; Flores (2013), Urciuoli (2010) and Park (2021) on education and language learning and teaching; Barakos (2016) in private sector businesses; Urciuoli (2008) and Dlaske, Barakos, Motobayashi and McLaughlin (2016) in the domain of work; Del Percio (2016) on the activities of non-​governmental organizations (NGOs); Rampton (2014; see also Charalambous et al., 2015), on security and securitization; and McIlvenny, Klausen and Lindegaard (2016) in discourse studies, among others. In this chapter, I discuss how sociolinguistic research has been influenced by the extension of capitalist processes and neoliberal forms of government. We first examine the market and commodification and its role in the economy (section 2), and then explore how languages have come to play a key role in neoliberal forms of governance, and how language management contributes to the creation of self-​entrepreneurial speakers (section 3). Finally, Section 4 summarizes the main conclusions drawn from this research focus.

Language, value production and the market in (post)nationalism Studies of the impact of new economies on our understanding of language and on how individuals interact with languages have shown that many current discourses about language foreground issues such as capital accumulation, profits, and social mobility. According to Pujolar, researchers believe that these new discourses emerge because the overall economic system is changing, that we have entered a phase called post-​industrial capitalism or late capitalism in which linguistic performance is more central to processes of production than it used to be. Pujolar, 2018: 486–​487

287

Luisa Martín Rojo

In this respect, Duchêne and Heller evoke the tropes of ‘pride’ and ‘profit’ to account for this shift (2012: 8), substantively connecting the first to specific interests in the construction of national markets, and under late capitalist conditions mingling and reconfiguring it with the addition of ‘profit’. According to Pujolar, the latter trope posits two main ways in which language can be presented as an economic asset: (a) as a component or property of a product, and (b) as an embodied capacity of individuals (i.e. as a skill). Regarding the first of these, Heller argues that “in much contemporary work, language is not only an integral, if not the only, part of the work process; it is also frequently the work product” (2010a: 350). Language industries, which include advertising, translation and language teaching, exemplify how the product of labour may be considered linguistic. In relation to part (a), some authors have criticized the supposed novelty of this role of language within manufacturing and service processes, emphasising the traditional importance of dexterity and literacy within the work process (see, for example, Holborow, 2015:21 and Block, 2018). In relation to part (b) above, the treatment of language as a technical skill under current capitalistic conditions is of greater interest in this chapter, since this element is especially relevant to the current economic system and to the governance of speakers (see section 3). When language skills enter the market, they acquire an exchange value that converts them into symbolic capital: in other words, when a speaker’s competences and skills are certified and accountable, access to the labour market is facilitated. Symbolic capital, thus, becomes economic capital (the concept of convertibility is crucial in Bourdieu’s approach; Bourdieu, 1986/​2011). Each of the above main ways in which language can be presented as an economic capital leads to the rather controversial concept of commodification, which in Pujolar’s words, refers to the process whereby any object, tangible or intangible (such as languages and language skills) is constructed as an element that can be brought into a process of economic exchange or accountability, be it through straightforward purchase (I pay, I get it), or through more complex forms of asset management. Pujolar, 2018: 485 Thus, language is seen as an economic resource, that is, something that can be appropriated in such a way as to create economic value for those who have access to it. Pujolar’s definition is clear and useful, although (unlike Marxist tradition) it doesn’t fully illustrates how language commodification takes place within capitalistic productive process, that is, under circumstances of capital investment in the means of production and via the exploitation of wage labour. This commodification approach has, in fact, been criticized from orthodox Marxist positions, giving rise to a debate of considerable practical interest, addressing two significant questions: (i) how does commodification take place in a context other than that of industrial capitalism, in which commodification refers to the products of human labour? For example, can commodification also involve abstract notions such as language or the cultural heritage? (ii) how can language become the work product itself, rather than just part of the commodification process? As far as both questions are concerned, the main contribution of Marxists’ critiques is to point out that this kind of research cannot ignore the effects of commodification on workers, i.e. that whenever there is commodification, be it of a product in the industrial age or of a human skill, such as language in late capitalism, the effects of exploitation and alienation it produces must be taken into account. It is therefore understandable that research on the commodification of language in the labour market has paid more attention to these processes than those who have worked on commodification in the language industries, and have been more successful in overcoming this criticism. 288

The New Economy and the Neoliberal Governance of Speakers

Thus, in the labour market, language can be easily understood as part of the commodification process, as part of an economic transaction in exchange for work and services. Following Rydell and Hanell (2022), the language competence is connected to work in at least two ways: language competence may be viewed as an occupational prerequisite (language for work); or the workplace may be where language learning takes place (work for language). The ‘language for work’ confirms the trend noted by Marx towards greater specialization and the increased division of labour, conducted to increase productivity or efficiency, and thus profitability. Workers continue to sell their labour on the free market, however, as part of the evolution of the nature of employment in capitalist societies, the emphasis on ‘hard skills’ has shifted to one on ‘soft skills’, i.e. from ‘the technical requirements of the job’ to a ‘cluster of personality traits’, which includes facility with language (see Urciuoli, 2008, p. 215 for a deep insight into this shift). Language skills (and/​or prospective language learning) are required and sometimes even marketed by labour agencies and employers, even in the case of low-​skill activities such as domestic work (Rydell & Hanell, 2022) or the construction industry (Lorente, 2018; Strömmere, 2020; Kraft 2019) within a global labour market characterized by migration and flexibilization. A context relevant to the notion of ‘work for language’ is that of political discourse regarding the workplace as a site for language learning and integration (Lindberg & Sandwall, 2017). ‘Work for language’ is also relevant in the au pair system, a form of linguistic and cultural exchange whereby a young person comes from another country to live with a family, receiving board and keep in exchange for light domestic services, including childcare. In the case of ‘language industries’, language is not only involved in the process, but is also the ‘work product’ which is commodified (Heller, 2010b: 350); in this case, language is treated as a discrete, and measurable and material entity that can be moulded, through a strict regulation. Call centres allow us to illustrate this process and in these examples of off-​shoring, feminizing and racializing labour, the shifts from an emphasis on production of material goods to production of information and communications-​mediated services is attested. Language is then subjected to Taylorist regimes of regulation as have other forms of work, which involve developing strict rules for how the work is to be conducted and then deploying tight managerial control to make sure that the rules are abided by. As Heller (2010a) explains, workers are expected to follow standardized scripts, and at the same time, perform a variety of services for a variety of customers at a variety of times (see Rahman, 2009; and Duchêne, 2009). Thus, as part of material transformation, particular aspects and features of language are objectified and produce a number of outcomes for speakers and for languages (Sankar & Cavanaugh, 2012). Pujolar analyses another language industry, a private language school in Barcelona that offers courses in the country where the language is (allegedly) spoken, usually during vacation periods. In Pujolar’s words, language in this case seems to be completely commodified, appearing both as a symbolic capital and also as a product that is bought and sold. What could be called edutainment (educational entertainment), also labelled language tourism, is an outcome of new consumerist trends in education whereby educational products are encoded as components of specific lifestyles –​in this case an enjoyable experience by the sea. These programmes are often advertised with photographs of groups of young people on the beach, enjoying the sun, in a situation of apparent leisure, but are actually ‘sold’ as an opportunity to maximize the gain from the language learning process. In this context, language becomes part of the process of capital accumulation and market deregulation with the effect that schools compete to offer language services, promising the acquisition of linguistic skills and competences, using this as a branding strategy for their market activity. In terms of Block’s critique of how commodification is understood, these examples of language industry raise doubts that language and language skills, in this context, are actually a commodity. 289

Luisa Martín Rojo

Under a Marxist approach, “as an exchange value, a commodity is always regarded as a result” (Marx, 1904 [1859]: 34; cited by Block, 2018) with a value commensurate with the ‘cost of its production’. Block then poses the question: what is the production cost of language? Certainly, in industrial capitalism (following Marx’s definition), commodities are the product of human labour and have a price of production and a different one of exchange. However, in the case in point, what is sold are abstractions or better intangible assets (language skills), phenomena (communication) and events (leisure activities), in this case, distinguishing between the capitalists (the language schools profiting from language teaching), the producers (the teachers) and the consumers (the students who pay for these services). We argue that these products are constituted as such within the interrelated social relations emergent and/​or present in production, distribution, exchange and consumption. Marxist critique, which emphasizes the role of workers in the production of commodities, highlights how commodification cannot be separated from the notions of alienation and exploitation. As shown by Bruzos (2017), the teachers working in this kind of language industry face negative consequences, such as lack of legitimacy, job insecurity, low salaries and dissatisfaction. Thus, alienation and exploitation are prevalent in language tourism. In the next section, other impacts on the population will be discussed, affecting how speakers perceive themselves and their employment opportunities. Language teachers often experience de-​professionalization and employment precarity, in a similar way to that revealed by Karrebæk and Kirilova in a forthcoming study of the effect of the State (in this case, Denmark) outsourcing its central responsibilities and assignments to commercial enterprises in critical areas, for example that of court interpreting. Whereas the court is a public institution and responsible for the rule of law, interpreting is a business, and a ‘professional interpreter’ today is usually defined as a person who is paid to provide interpreting services. In this field, too, alienation and exploitation are prevalent when public services are outsourced to private companies, governed by business logic and resulting in the commodification of language and language skills. In consequence, there is often a redistribution of resources as professional interpreters become freelancers or are replaced by them. Hence, job security and long-​term engagement are lost and an intermediary extracts wealth from the chain of production without adding value. This case is illustrative of the neoliberal principle according to which capitalist logic should govern not only companies and enterprises, but also public institutions and services. This logic is apparent in the recurrent use of entrepreneurial key words such as ‘quality’, ‘efficiency’, ‘innovation’, ‘quality’ and ‘flexibility’ (Martín Rojo & Del Percio, 2019: 13). The outsourcing of court interpretation services alienates the interpreters concerned, who lose societal recognition and whose language and legal skills are likely to be devalued. These skills and expertise are important elements of professional identity, and the reduced hourly rates that often follow the outsourcing of court interpretation services is a sign of the loss of recognition experienced by these professionals; interpreters’ protests and demands focus not only on their professional identity but also on socio-​economic justice. As in the case of language teaching, Karrebæk and Kirilova’s research shows that the neoliberalization of public services goes beyond unbridled commodification, also incorporating technologies aimed at tightening the governance of workers and their practices and impacting on ways of understanding the self. This issue is directly relevant to the effects on speakers of the neoliberal dimension, as discussed in the following section.

The neoliberal governance of speakers Many current studies in sociolinguistics are examining how neoliberalism has come to be much more than an economic policy, evolving into a form of governance which extends the logic of 290

The New Economy and the Neoliberal Governance of Speakers

the market throughout public and private life, permeating virtually all areas of social behaviour, including education, work, human rights, culture, the media, urban planning, migration, public administration, security and health. The main research focus today is how these principles impact on the ways in which citizens, and then also speakers, are governed, thus affecting language policies and speakers’ trajectories and practices. It is this colonization of all spheres of life that shows how neoliberalization is more than a kind of unbridled commodification, more than the triumphant reign of an ideology of the free market. It often also brings with it technologies for governing conduct and particular ways of understanding the self. Jacqueline Urla (2012a; 2012b) foreshadowed this line of research in her analysis of shifts in discourse and in practices of language advocacy. Specifically, she examined what led minority language planners to align themselves with the values and practices of radical business management. Her ethnographic research on the Basque language revival movement in Spain shows that, by the late 20th century, business methods based on Total Quality Management (TQM) had been incorporated into language planning. TQM, sometimes referred to simply as ‘Quality’, is a managerial strategy aimed at increasing competitiveness. It is based on fundamental principles of neoliberalism, such as the assumption that workers are more productive when they are ‘empowered’ to take responsibility for the quality and quantity of their output. To this end, they are assisted by systems of competitive goal setting, teamwork, awards and periodic assessment. Urla concluded that the revitalization of language is not just the outcome of a nationalist project, but that the principles that govern this process respond to a logic of intervention in the social sphere that calls for experts, and to a view of language as an object to be governed and as a social field of technical intervention (Urla, 2019b). Following Urla and other seminal works, sociolinguistics has moved on to address other cases in which neoliberal rationalities shape experiences and conflicts in the context of language. A collection of essays presented in 2019 (Martín Rojo & Del Percio, 2019) further advanced understanding in this field, including governmentality as an additional element in the analysis of neoliberalization. Governmentality is defined as the ‘art or practice of government’ in a broad sense, referring not only to political structures or to the management of States, but also to the ways in which the conduct of individuals or groups might be directed, for example the government of children, of souls, of communities, of the sick, etc. (Foucault, 2007: 126 and ss.). To govern, in this sense, is to control the possible field of action of others (Foucault 2002: 341), linking the ideals of neoliberalism –​ profitability, competitiveness, flexibility and mobility –​ to self-​created ones. According to Foucault, this form of government associates both types of ideals, such that individuals behave in accordance both with economic principles (including competition and the accumulation of skills and certification in order to make oneself more profitable) and with those of personal freedom and responsibility. Language skills and language learning are part of these processes and are commonly expressed via competition and personal investment. Against this background, educational institutions are of primordial importance in shaping and preparing the future (elite) workforce for a flexible, delocalized labour market (see Hidalgo-​ McCabe & Fernández-​González, 2019; Sunyol & Codó, 2019). And multilingualism and applied language programmes have become particularly prominent in the context of neoliberal education, providing training in language register and competences, developing degree programmes for mobile workers. This evolution has also led to a proliferation of skills discourses, in which “social acts are cast in a transactional or entrepreneurial frame and actors’ segmented selves are recast as assemblages of productive elements, as bundles of skills” (Urciuoli, 2008: 224). The bundles of skills, in turn, act as 291

Luisa Martín Rojo

commodities insofar as they are aspects of productive labour with market value: as aspects of self that enhance theory possessors’ worth on the labour market and as products sold by their inculcators, which command hefty fees for some hours or days of skills workshops. Urciuoli, 2008: 224 Language skills are then part of the ‘soft skills’ individuals need to acquire in the current form of capitalism to be successful in the market, or at least to fulfil its requirement of flexibility, permanent training, mobility, and so on: good skills get people good jobs. However, what is a distinctive feature of neoliberalism as a form of governance of citizens’ conduct is that, beyond capitalist economics, the actors recognize their subjectivities as workers, and as speakers, whose success relies on their skills, and on their capacity of marketize and branding themselves. Furthermore, language skills are now seen as discrete, measurable, transferable and inculcated through (self)training (Martín Rojo, 2019: 94). So, in this case, the current motto will be: all power to be successful is in your hands. For these reasons, the research examples included in this section focus on language education. The first of these studies is that conducted by Joseph Sung-​Yul Park (2021) into how neoliberalism and the neoliberal governmentality influence (English) language teaching and learning in Singapore and South Korea. English is often assumed to be crucial to material success and social inclusion, and this belief is commonly cited to justify the global dominance of English, while broader social inequalities tend to be glossed over or rationalized. Park analyzed South Korea’s ‘English fever’ in the 1990s and 2000s, showing that English became an object of heated pursuit amidst the country’s rapid neoliberalization. The prominence gained by English in this context is not the result of its supposed economic value, but of the anxieties, insecurities and moral desire inculcated within neoliberal Korean society, which led English to be seen as an index of correspondence with the neoliberal ideal, that of a subject who willingly engages in constant self-​ management and self-​development in response to the changing conditions of the global economy. The investment made by speakers in these language programmes reproduces the logic of homo oeconomicus, a being who rationally calculates costs and benefits, seeking to adopt the best option among the possibilities offered. This logic has been transformed with the expansion and consolidation of neoliberalism, giving rise to the entrepreneurial subject, for whom the enterprise becomes a model of subjectification: thus, everyone is an enterprise to be managed and a source of capital that must be made to bear fruit. The research I’ve been conducting in Madrid universities during the last decade illustrates this process by analyzing students’ accounts of their experiences in language and communication. Currently, in a more extensive and more rigorous research, developed by a team of researchers, we are following a critical pedagogy approach, designed to accompany students in raising their awareness, leading them to detect those aspects of language regulation that exclude them or subject them to competitive and entrepreneurial logics, to understand their causes and to develop the desire to transform and develop a political consciousness. The research focused on self-​ examination, including questions, narratives, reflections and exchanges of experiences. Analysis of the data obtained shows, firstly, that many students evoke a particular role model, the ‘self-​ made speaker’, which is the linguistic correlate of the neoliberal (or entrepreneurial) subject (Martín Rojo, 2019). In this context, the students describe how they manage language skills and competences as personal investments and assets, calculate costs and benefits, render accounts, and at the same time seek ‘self-​realization’ and hence security and self-​satisfaction. Recently, within a participatory action research project, our team is also developing tools to reverse the language-​mediated processes of inequity. One of the tools we have created is a 292

The New Economy and the Neoliberal Governance of Speakers

questionnaire elaborated, based on students’ experiences previously collected through ethnographic methods, mostly referring to ‘critical incidents’ shaped by language values and hierarchies, in this questionnaire we included the following question:

Example 1 Imagine you don’t have access to a particular field of study because a good level of English is required to enrol in the degree or to obtain the graduation certificate. What do you think about this? a. b. c. d. e.

It is unacceptable, English cannot be used as a criterion of selection for a Spanish university. It is acceptable, but the university should offer classes for those who need them. It’s acceptable, but they should also consider the other languages I have a good level in. It’s justified because you wouldn’t be able to follow the classes taught in English. It’s justified because in a globalized and connected world, you can’t progress without knowing English.

Answer (e) is mostly chosen by groups of students from different degree programmes (Modern Languages, International Studies, Anthropology) and with different socio-​cultural profiles. And to the complementary following question in Example 2 the answers are also very homogeneous. Answer (b) is the preferred choice in this case.

Example 2 What would you do? a. b. c. d.

Give up on this field of study, given the importance of English. I would do everything I could to improve my level of English. Present an appeal to this policy. I would organize my peers to oppose that level of English be used as a criterion to select and group students. e. If you can think of something else you might do, what would it be?

Thus, the hierarchy of languages that underlies the fact that English is the language of instruction and an entry requirement for some university degree or a must to obtain the graduation certificate in a country like Spain (where it is neither an official nor a commonly spoken language), is not questioned in depth. Much less it’s considered an example of unequal distribution of resources or an example of gatekeeping that discriminates against those with less access to language education. On the contrary, it is accepted with resignation and assumed as a personal responsibility: it is with personal effort and self-​discipline that the situation can be solved. Other options given, which would have shown political awareness, such as (d) joining forces with others or lodging a complaint, are only chosen by a minority. 293

Luisa Martín Rojo

In fact, when later the questionnaire results are discussed in class, in the cases where this kind of requirements have been overcome, students self-​portray as successful, competent speakers who have achieved their objective. Speakers’ agency in this scenario of success is accompanied by self-​satisfaction. Thus, the analysis of speakers’ narratives and their accounts of how they manage to success or to fail, allow to trace the process of subjectivation, that is, how speakers/​citizens understand themselves, in correlation with how they manage their capacities in general and their language skills. The abovementioned research by Park and Martín Rojo adopt ethnographically oriented perspectives on subjectivity, emphasizing the emotionally charged experiences of language users, in the view that this question is fundamental to our understanding of the role of language in neoliberalism and of the technologies of power, applied by external forces but very often self-​exercised. Language learners surveille and discipline themselves to become competitive and responsible. In this line, Ilana Gershon (2011) explained that the development of neoliberalism has triggered changes in the concept of agency in two important ways. Firstly, subjects, markets, economic rationality and competition are now widely acknowledged as socially constructed, depending on the shared ways of thinking about and representing the world at this particular time and places. The second shift is from the liberal vision of people owning themselves as property to a neoliberal vision of people owning themselves as a business. From a liberal perspective, people own their bodies and their capabilities, which can be bought and sold in the market. By contrast, when people are viewed as enterprises, from the neoliberal perspective, they are presumed to own their skills and traits, and this ‘collection of assets’ must be continually nurtured and invested in. The self-​made speaker model represents a value-​given measure within subjectification processes: this model acts as a canon of measurement and the more subjects resemble it (eg. by developing their language skills) the more positive their self-​image will be (responsible and profitable people), and vice versa. Thus, subjects consider themselves responsible for their own transformation, and hence involved, through self-​care, in a persistent search for personal improvement, in some cases, when they achieve compliance with the model, reach satisfaction, but in others they experience failure and feel excluded or even ashamed. In short, from this view of relationships and selves, neoliberal agency constitutes a set of conscious choices that balance alliances, responsibility and risk using a means-​ends calculus. The freedom that neoliberalism provides is to be an autonomous agent negotiating for goods and services in a context where every other agent (in theory, at least) is also acting as a business partner and competitor. Finally, it is important to explore the impact of neoliberal governmentality on speakers’ subjectivities in another, hitherto neglected, context, that of minoritized languages. Zavala (2022) approaches this issue, studying a highly demanded Quechua course in the city of Lima, called Quechua para todos, or Quechua for all. This language has been historically silenced in the capital city, given that it indexes ‘Indianness’ linked to backwardness, rurality, ancestrality and ignorance. However, in the current context of neoliberal economic growth and state policies of cultural branding, Zavala attested a significant change. For the urban and educated young people who follow the programme (many of whom are descendants of Quechua speakers), Quechua has begun to be seen as a capital that is integrated into the figure of the entrepreneurial subject, particularly when it is associated with other linguistic and non-​linguistic signs of social distinction (such as being a professional and knowing English). As Zavala pointed out, this shifting of meanings of the language not only explains the strong demand for the educational programme, but also allows Quechua to enregister a multicultural citizenship. At the same time, however, this may be erasing ongoing processes of racialization of indigenous peoples in Peruvian society and fundamental gaps in access to education and economic resources. 294

The New Economy and the Neoliberal Governance of Speakers

The commodification of minoritized languages has, hence, a negative side. Within the participatory action-​research project mentioned before, we have found similar cases of speakers belonging to ethnic minorities, of immigrant origin, with a very competitive profile. In return, their ethnical subjectivities that may represent a symbolic resistance to the dominant identities seem to weaken. These students do not have equal access to language-​learning resources nor to the recognition of the educational community, in an educational system where a meritocratic and neoliberal logic is increasingly imposed, and where the essentialist policy that attributes a single language to the State is still hegemonic. However, instead of reflecting on the causes of this inequality, some of these students, like other members of the community, often find themselves permeated by a neoliberal discourse, although they do so under unequal conditions. This is the case of Aixa, a university student who has achieved the highest level of academic excellence. She was born in Madrid, at a time in when, according to her, it was rare to see someone of Moroccan origin at school or in the neighbourhood. As a result, she declared she felt like a weirdo in different socio-​cultural settings: in the city mosque where she studied Arabic and the Quran because she could barely speak Darija (Moroccan vernacular Arabic, spoken by her mates) and because of her Spanish accent in Standard Arabic; and in the Spanish school she attended, frequented by upper-​middle-​class Spaniards with very few students of foreign origin, where she also felt out of place, due to cultural differences. The way she tried to overcome this situation was to enter an all-​out competition and surpass everyone in language learning, without, however, changing the rules of the game. Although she seemed exhausted by such a self-​demanding strategy, today she feels self-​satisfied and even superior, as the following example shows.

Example 3 My school mates were furious when I won spelling contests and got better grades than them in Spanish and English, a language which I learned almost unconsciously, since it was always an easy language for me. I never had to study and would get As, and throughout my life people have asked me if I’ve ever lived in England because of my ‘perfect’ British accent.

Example 4 shows the effect of a neoliberal logic, which requires her to build herself as competitive, and leads her to learn and demonstrate her abilities in a very large number of languages (Turkish, Egyptian, German, French, Chinese, among others) throughout her academic career. As in the cases studied by Zavala, Aixa understands herself as a multicultural citizen who is proud of her linguistic competences. At the same time, the way she understands herself seems to blur her identification with the Spanish (and Moroccan) communities.

Example 4 In this way, I feel Turkish when I speak Turkish, Egyptian when I speak Egyptian and French when I speak French … but never Spanish in Spain, where wherever I go, I hear things like “you speak Spanish so well”, not knowing that it is actually my native tongue, the one in which I feel the most comfortable.

295

Luisa Martín Rojo

Thus, the cases studied in Peru and Madrid raise a subsequent research question: to what extent it is more difficult for racialized and minoritized speakers to identify the social, economic and cultural processes that oppress them when they participate in the game of neoliberal subjectivities from a position that reinforces and rewards individual responsibility and meritocracy? The examples of the students in the Quechua for All programme and the Madrid universities can be considered successful, according to the neoliberal meritocracy framework. But we can ask ourselves what happens when, due to unequal social, cultural and linguistic conditions, success is not achieved. In these cases, students may blame themselves for poor academic performance or for failing to find a job (believing they should have worked harder). Thus, neoliberal subjectivities that stress the need to increase skills and which emphasize individual responsibilities, while understating the weight of social inequalities, make it difficult for people to resist the pressures encountered. In contrast, traditional forms of subjectivities that value their status as migrants (or as members of a subaltern population) better equip them to oppose situations of domination.

Conclusions This chapter surveys the main findings of recent sociolinguistic research into multilingualism and the impact of developments in political economy. Our primary consideration is the role played by language in capitalism and economic practices, which has led to the coining of new sociolinguistic concepts such as commodification, linguistic resources and symbolic capital. Nowadays, it is undeniable that commodification is a recurrent issue in popular discourse, as individuals refer to their own practices and experiences. Moreover, it is strongly present in capitalist branding strategies. These questions, therefore, should neither be ignored nor dismissed; in fact, critical engagement with these concepts has deepened our understanding of the different types of research carried out and of the theoretical proposals advanced. We highlight the need to focus on social actors, who may be subjected not only to exploitation but also to a lack of recognition, resulting in alienation. Nevertheless, these actors can make a tangible impact, influencing both the distribution of resources and their recognition, by capitalizing on their own resources or by questioning cultural and linguistic norms that may deprofessionalize or otherwise devalue them. Secondly, we have examined current developments within the framework of sociolinguistics and political economy, to reflect on the consequences of the expansion of neoliberalism and its colonization of all aspects of people’s lives. Here, too, new approaches have been developed, such as the view of language skills as a bundle of capacities, in which individuals can invest in order to improve their profitability, following the subject-​business model; in this case, the technologies of power are often self-​exercised, giving rise to models of neoliberal subjects and of speakers, such as those who are ‘self-​made’, assuming responsibility for their own linguistic education. It is precisely in this behavioural norm of the enterprise subject, as the possessor of a ‘human capital’ –​ one accumulated through enlightened choices arising from the responsible calculation of costs and benefits –​that human conduct is shaped and directed. Achievements made during a lifetime result from a series of decisions and efforts that must be correctly managed. The enterprise is promoted to become a model of subjectification; thus, everyone is an enterprise to be managed and a source of capital that must be made to bear fruit. In relation to capitalist economy and neoliberal governmentality, multilingualism seems in fact to be turning into Englishization, as long as this language has a weight in the market that is recognized and used by the speakers to move in society and in the labour market, once they have internalized that they must compete and be profitable. 296

The New Economy and the Neoliberal Governance of Speakers

Following the approach outlined above, the object of research becomes the subject. Sociolinguistic study then considers not only how language becomes commodified, but also how speakers can accumulate language and communication skills as a personal asset, addressing questions such as how the population is governed within a neoliberal frame, and how neoliberal rationality produces and transforms subjectivities and speakers’ models. With commodification, speakers are called upon to consume languages, to pay for learning them and to compete for linguistic resources, in accordance with a business logic that would have us become entrepreneurial speakers, and to experience success or failure in this enterprise. The imposition of a neoliberal rationality in relation to language is not solely explicable in terms of the mechanisms of the State. For a full picture of how these power mechanisms operate and are transmitted, we must examine the assemblages (or ‘agencements’) in which constituent elements (such as discourses, institutions, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, and scientific statements) intersect, fold together and become transformed (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987). Within this frame, citizens/​speakers’ consent is crucial; it could be explained as the result of how neoliberal principles have permeated society as a whole, and it explains how the self regulation of behaviour becomes so prevalent.

Acknowledgements The theoretical reflections and data in this chapter have been developed within the framework of the R+D+I project: Towards a new linguistic citizenship: action-research for the recognition of speakers in the educational field in the Community of Madrid (EquiLing Madrid) of the National R+D+I Plan FEDER / Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities - National Research Agency (PID2019-105676RB-C41).

Related topics Chapter 5 Unequal Englishes in the Global South; Chapter 20 Sociolinguistics and (in)securitization as another mode of governance; Chapter 24 Multilingualism in the workplace: Issues of space and social order; Chapter 27 Multilingualism in asylum and migration procedures.

Further reading Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Duchêne, A. & Heller, M. Eds. (2012) Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit. London & New York: Routledge. Heller, M. & McElhinny, B. 2017. Language, Capitalism, Colonialism: Toward a Critical History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Martín Rojo, L. & Del Percio, A. Eds. 2019. Language and Neoliberal Governmentality. London & New York: Routledge. Urla, J. 2019. Governmentality and language. Annual Review of Anthropology. 48: 261–​278.

References Barakos, E. 2016. Language policy and governmentality in businesses in wales: a continuum of empowerment and regulation. Multilingua. 35(4): 361–​391. Block, D. 2018. What on earth is ‘language commodification’. Sloganization in Language Education Discourse. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 121–​141. Block, D., Gray, J. & Holborow, M. 2012. Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge.

297

Luisa Martín Rojo Blommaert, J. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1986/​2011. The forms of capital. Cultural Theory: An Anthology. 1: 81–​93. Bruzos, A. 2017. ‘De camareros a profesores’ de ELE: la mercantilización del español y de su enseñanza como lengua extranjera. Spanish in Context. 14(2): 230–​249. Codó, E. & Patiño-​Santos, A. 2014. Beyond language: class, social categorisation and academic achievement in a Catalan high school. Linguistics and Education. 25: 51–​63. Codó, E. 2008. Immigration and Bureaucratic Control. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Del Percio, A. 2016. The governmentality of migration: intercultural communication and the politics of (dis) placement in Southern Europe. Language and Communication. 51: 87–​98. Dlaske, K., Barakos, E., Motobayashi, K. & McLaughlin, M. 2016. Languaging the worker. Multilingua. 35(4): 345–​359. Duchêne, A. 2009. Marketing, management and performance: multilingualism as commodity in a tourism call centre. Language Policy. 8(1): 27–​50. Duchêne, A. & Heller, M. Eds. 2012. Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit. London & New York: Routledge. Duchêne, A., Moyer, M. & Roberts, C. Eds. 2013. Language, Migration and Social Inequalities: A Critical Sociolinguistic Perspective on Institutions and Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Flores, N. 2013. The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and plurilingualism: a cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly. 47(3): 500–​520. Flubacher, M., Duchêne, A. & Coray, R. Eds. 2018. Language Investment and Employability: The Uneven Distribution of Resources in the Public Employment Service. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, M. 2002. The subject and power. In J. Faubion, Ed. Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–​ 1984. London: Penguin. 326–​348. Foucault, M. 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–​78. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gao, S. 2012. Commodification of place, consumption of identity: the sociolinguistic construction of a ‘global village’ in rural China. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 16(3): 336–​357. Garrido, M.R. 2018. Voluntary work, transnational mobility and language learning in social movement. Language and Intercultural Communication. 18(4): 451–​463. Gershon, I. 2011. Neoliberal agency. Current Anthropology. 52(4): 537–​555. Guattari, F. & Deleuze, G. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Bloomsbury Revelations Editorial: Bloomsbury Academic. Gunnarsson, B.L. 2013. Multilingualism in the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 33: 162–​189. Heller, M. 2010a. The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology. 39: 101–​114. Heller, M. (2010b). Language as resource in the globalized new economy. In N. Coupland, Ed. The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden: Blackwell. 349–​365. Heller, M. 2011. Paths to Post-​nationalism: A Critical Ethnography of Language and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heller, M. & McElhinny, B. 2017. Language, Capitalism, Colonialism: Toward a Critical History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Heller, M., Jaworski, A. & Thurlow, C. 2014. Introduction: sociolinguistics and tourism – ​mobilities, markets, multilingualism. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 18(4): 425–​458. Heller, M., Pujolar, J. & Duchêne, A. 2014. Linguistic commodification in tourism. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 18(4): 539–​566. Hidalgo-​McCabe, E. & Fernández-​González, N. 2019. Framing “choice” in language education: the case of freedom in constructing inequality. In Language and Neoliberal Governmentality. L. Martín Rojo & A. Del Percio, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 69–​90. Holborow, M. 2015. Language and Neoliberalism. London & New York: Routledge. Jaspers, J. & Madsen, L.M. 2016. Sociolinguistics in a languagised world: introduction. Applied Linguistics Review. 7(3): 235–​258. Karrebæk, M.S. & Kirilova, M. (Forthcoming) Regimes of organization, solutions and struggles in Danish legal interpreting. In K. Riley, I. García-​Sanchez & B. Perley, Eds. Language and Social Justice: Global Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury. Kraft, K. 2019. Linguistic securitisation as a governmentality in the neoliberalising welfare state. In L. Martín Rojo & A. Del Percio, Eds. Language, Governmentality and Neoliberalism. London: Routledge. 29–​48. Lindberg, I. & Sandwall, K. 2017. Conflicting agendas in Swedish adult second language education. In C. Kerfoot & K. Hyltenstam, Eds. Entangled Discourses: South-​North Orders Of Visibility. London: Routledge. 119–​136.

298

The New Economy and the Neoliberal Governance of Speakers Lorente, B. 2018. Scripts of Servitude. Language, Labor Migration and Transnational Domestic Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2006. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook, Eds. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. London: Multilingual Matters. 1–41. Martín Rojo, L. 2010. Constructing Inequality in Multilingual Classrooms. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Martín Rojo, L. 2019. The ‘self-​made speaker’: the neoliberal governance of speakers. In L. Martín-​Rojo & A. Del Percio, Eds. Language and Neoliberal Governmentality. London: Routledge. 162–​189. Martín Rojo, L. & Del Percio, A. Eds. 2019. Language and Neoliberal Governmentality. London & New York: Routledge. Márquez, R. & Martín Rojo, L. 2011. Service provision in a globalised world. [Special Issue]. Sociolinguistic Studies. 4(2). McGill, K. 2013. Political economy and language: a review of some recent literature. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 23(2): E84–​E101. McIlvenny, P., Klausen, J.Z. & Lindegaard, L.B. 2016. New perspectives on discourse and governmentality. In P. McIlvenny, J.Z. Klausen & B.L. Lindegaard, Eds. Studies of Discourse And Governmentality. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–​70. Park, J.S.Y. 2021. In Pursuit of English: Language and Subjectivity in Neoliberal South Korea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pérez-​Milans, M. 2013. Urban Schools and English Language Education in Late Modern China: A Critical Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London & New York: Routledge. Pietikainen, S. & Kelly-​ Holmes, H. Eds. 2013. Multilingualism and the Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prego, G. & Zas, L. 2019. Unvoicing practices and the scaling (de) legitimization process of linguistic ‘mudes’ in classroom interaction in Galicia (Spain). International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 257: 77–​107. Pujolar, J. 2018. Post-​nationalism and language commodification. In J.W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-​Milans, Eds. The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rahman, T. 2009. Language ideology, identity and the commodification of language in the call centers of Pakistan. Language in Society. 38(2): 233–​258. Rampton, B., Silva, D.N. & Charalambous, C. 2022. Sociolinguistics and (in) securitisation as another mode of governance. Working Papers in Urban Language Literacies. Paper 293. Rampton, B. 2014. Gumperz and governmentality in the 21st century: interaction, power and subjectivity. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies. 117. Roberts, C. 2010. Language socialization in the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 30: 211–​227. Rydell, M. & Hanell, L. 2022. Language for work and work for language: linguistic aspirations in the marketing of domestic work. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 275: 89–​109. Sabaté-​Dalmau, M. 2014. Migrant Communication Enterprises: Regimentation and Resistance. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Shankar, S. & Cavanaugh, J.R. 2012. Language and materiality in global capitalism. Annual Review of Anthropology. 41: 355–​369. Sunyol, A. & Codó, E. 2019. Fabricating neoliberal subjectivities through the IB diploma programme. In Language, Governmentality and Neoliberalism. L. Martín Rojo & A. Del Percio, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 135–​161. Strömmer, M. 2020. Physical work, customer service, or teamwork? Language requirements for seasonal cleaning work in the booming Arctic tourism industry. In K. Gonçalves & H.H. Kelley, Eds. Language, Global Mobilities, Blue Collar Workers and Blue Collar Workplaces. London & New York: Routledge. 187–​203. Urciuoli, B. 2008. Skills and selves in the new workplace. American Ethnologist. 35: 211–​228. Urciuoli, B. 2010. Neoliberal education. In C. Greenhouse, Ed. Ethnographies of Neoliberalism. University of Pennsilvania Press. 162–​176. Urla, J. 2012a. Total quality language revival. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller, Eds. Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit. London & New York: Routledge. 73–​92. Urla, J. 2012b. Reclaiming Basque: Language, Nation, and Cultural Activism. University of Nevada Press. Urla, J. 2019. Governmentality and language. Annual Review of Anthropology. 48: 261–​278. Zavala, V. 2022. Youth, Quechua and neoliberalism in contemporary Perú. International Journal of Sociology of Language. 280: 45–​66.

299

20 SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND (IN)SECURITIZATION AS ANOTHER MODE OF GOVERNANCE Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous Introduction This chapter addresses securitization as a mode of governance, as a way of managing populations, in which the normal laws and rules guiding citizens in contemporary liberal democracies don’t apply, and instead, people act as if there is a state of exception (or a state of siege) where there are existential threats and a strong possibility of violence and/​or death.1 Securitization is “a practice of making ‘enemy’ and ‘fear’ the integrative, energetic principle of politics displacing the democratic principles of freedom and justice” (Huysmans, 2014: 3), and like communication itself, it usually works in two or more directions –​security to one person can be insecurity to another, and this may change with the situation, sometimes quite quickly. To capture this, some scholars speak of (in)securitization (Bigo & McCluskey, 2018: 126), and our overall contention in this chapter is that, at least in the applied and sociolinguistic literatures in English, Greek and Portuguese that we are familiar with, (in)securitization warrants much more attention than it has hitherto received.2 Indeed we will argue that (in)securitization should enter the repertoire of sociolinguistic analysis as a major theme. Joining concepts like ‘standardization’ and ‘commodification’, ‘security’ should be added to ‘correctness’ and ‘profit’ as a fundamental issue for research on communication, capable of influencing language in all the empirical arenas that applied and socio-​linguists study (language policy, public discourse, language learning, ground-​level interactional practice etc.). To make this argument,3 we first consider language standardization, and then turn to (in) securitization. Like standardization, (in)securitization has played a very prominent part in the management of large populations, but its distinctiveness is flagged when Mbembe insists on adding ‘necro-​power’ to Foucault’s concept of ‘biopower’. After this, we outline some of (in) securitization’s prototypical features –​these include inferiorized ‘races’ as well as enemies, physical and/​or symbolic walls, intensified alertness, and efforts to silence opposition. The practical enactment of (in)securitization and the resistances that it generates call for detailed analysis, drawing on the full repertoire of concepts that sociolinguists can bring to the analysis of different modes of governance (ideological representations, interactional practices and events, institutional roles, genres, registers etc). To illustrate (in)securitization in operation, empirical snapshots are then drawn from two sites where we have been investigating language and security for some time, Rio de Janeiro (Silva, since 2012), and Cyprus (Charalambous, since 2006): 300

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-24

Sociolinguistics and (In)Securitization

• in Rio, Brazilian citizens living in favelas experience the necro-​power of drug traffickers and the police, and favela residents are themselves stereotyped as criminals, for the most part abandoned by due legal process. But activist collectives challenge this, paying close attention to language in strategies of counter-​securitization, recognizing existential threats but advancing alternative analyses and solutions; • in Cyprus, the reconciliation of Greek-​and Turkish Cypriot communities is being discussed as a political possibility following a long period of total separation, war and inter-​communal violence. In Greek Cypriot schools, the introduction of Turkish, the language of the (former) enemy, formed part of an effort to de-​securitize Turkish Cypriots, intimating that they are no longer seen as a threat and can be reintegrated in civil society. These are very different situations –​ongoing violence in one and a legacy of war in the other –​ but despite this, we show that our typification of (in)securitization still holds value. Indeed, to strengthen the relevance to sociolinguistics, we dwell on the ways in which (in)securitization can be entangled with language standardization as another mode of governance, to the extent that at least in these two locations, an account of the latter would be inadequate without some grasp of the former. Admittedly, these are sites where security has been a long-​standing concern, but they draw much wider significance from the fact that it is no longer possible to suggest that (in)securitization isn’t really relevant to the study of everyday life in what’s usually referred to as the Global North (Rampton & Charalambous Eds., 2019). In countries like the UK and US, the lines between police, military and private security now blur and converge “towards the same figure of risk and unease management, the immigrant” (Bigo, 2002: 77); cross-​border refugee migration is regulated with necro-​power (Squire, 2017; Aradau & Tazzioli, 2019; Zembylas, 2021); surveillance and everyday bordering, requiring people to demonstrate that they have rights to public services, employment, accommodation etc., penetrate deep inside national territorial boundaries, becoming “increasingly visible and dangerous for those placed lower down the economic and racial hierarchies”, threatening them with exclusion, incarceration or expulsion (Yuval-​Davis et al., 2019; Gallo, 2014). So, the case for treating (in)securitization as only a niche interest is increasingly hard to sustain. We can begin with a brief consideration of language standardization.

Language standardization Over the last 50 years, language standardization has been a major theme in sociolinguistics. Standardization has played a major role in the formation of European nation-​states (Bourdieu, 1991), and as well as serving as emblems of national unity and heritage, standard languages play a central role in a mode of governance that Foucault calls ‘normalization’. Normalization operates whenever a set of practices (like language use) becomes the focus of formal assessment –​in exams, tests, interviews, applications and so forth –​and it “compares, differentiates, hierarchises, homogenizes and excludes” (Foucault, 1977: 182) by establishing “measurements, hierarchy, and regulations around the idea of a … statistical norm within a given population” (Ball, 1990: 2). These then lead into ‘dividing practices’, splitting people into groups and categories, “achieving divisions and objectifications … either within the subject or between the subject and others” (Ball, 1990: 3), producing in language the effects that sociolinguists have called ‘linguistic insecurity’ (Labov, 1972: 117–​118). Normalization is one central procedure in the large-​scale operation of power in democratic societies, and it blends into the broader sphere of ‘biopolitics’, which refers 301

Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous

to “the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life” (Foucault, 1976: 140), “governing populations through systematic monitoring and regulation of living organisms (e.g. demographics, health and hygiene, policing techniques)” (Zembylas, 2021: 417). Standardization has a strong institutional base in the State, in education and other public institutions, but it isn’t the only normative regime to influence the use of language. Since the 1990s, there has been a great deal of sociolinguistic work on the commodification and neoliberal marketization of language, and this often interacts with standardization in complex and unpredictable ways (Duchêne & Heller Eds., 2012; Block et al., 2012; Flubacher & Del Percio Eds., 2017). Indeed, both standardization and commodification are also often interwoven with a plurality of other ideologies and cultural schemes that shape and constrain relations and identities in households, voluntary associations, places of worship etc., as a rich sociolinguistic literature on language socialization, language and gender, youth language and so forth has also amply documented. But there is another system of regulation, with substantial implications for sociolinguistic processes that has received a lot less consideration, even though it has been hugely influential in the past and is now increasingly difficult to overlook, even in the oldest and wealthiest democracies. This is (in)securitization, to which we should now turn, exploring its relationship with language standardization in more detail.

(In)securitization as a mode of governance As well as being vital to the formation of European nation-​states, the description and standardization of language has played an important part in the organization of colonial rule (cf e.g. Stroud, 2008; Errington, 2008; see below), and of course colonies have also been intimately connected to the development of European modernity, providing a huge proportion of the material resources that fuelled it. Colonies, however, “are the location par excellence where the controls and guarantees of judicial order can be suspended –​the zone where the violence of the state of exception is deemed to operate in the service of ‘civilization’ ” (Mbembe, 2003: 24; emphases added). “That colonies might be ruled over in absolute lawlessness,” adds Mbembe, “stems from the racial denial of any common bond between the conqueror and the native” (ibid.), and Foucault concurs: “In a normalising society … . race or racism is the precondition that makes killing acceptable … Once the State functions in the biopower mode, racism alone can justify the murderous function of the State” (Foucault, 1975–​76: 256; Mbembe, 2003: 17). In this context, argues Mbembe, “the notion of biopower is insufficient to account for … forms of subjugation of life to the power of death” (2003: 39), and instead, he proposes the terms ‘necro-​power’ and ‘necropolitics’. Justified by racism, motivated by profit, enduring for centuries, and crucial in the Global North’s material development, plantation slavery is a potent example of necro-​power as a mode of governance (Mbembe, 2003: 21), and alongside a discussion of the prohibition of literacy among slaves, Gilroy characterizes its communicative dynamics in the following terms: The extreme patterns of communication defined by the institution of plantation slavery dictate that we recognize the anti-​discursive and extralinguistic ramifications of power at work in shaping communicative acts. There may, after all, be no reciprocity on the plantation outside of the possibilities of rebellion and suicide, flight and silent mourning, and there is … no grammatical unity of speech to mediate communicative reason … The violent tenor of the slave’s life is manifested through the overseer’s disposition to behave in a cruel and intemperate manner and in the spectacle of pain inflicted on the slave’s body. Violence, here,

302

Sociolinguistics and (In)Securitization

becomes an element in manners (Gilroy, 1994: 57; also cited in Mbembe, 2003: 21; see also e.g. Taussig, 1987; Scarry, 1985; Silva, 2017). So, language standardization is obviously only one part of the sociolinguistic story of European nation-​ state formation. Standardization was actually resourced by institutions that operated necropolitical regimes which, far from encouraging appropriately regulated standard speech, pushed towards silence and the negation of language, and this relied on much more than the (merely) ‘symbolic violence’ that Bourdieu describes in standard language settings (Bourdieu, 1991: 51–​52 et passim; Burawoy & von Holdt, 2012; on comparable processes in the suppression of minority languages in Europe, see Heller & McEllhinny, 2017: 94; Williams, 2022: 52–​53). In its focus on states of exception and governance through violence and (threats of) death, necro-​ power is close to what we are calling (in)securitization, a form of governmentality that operates through fear and suspicion (taking governmentality as a “deliberate attempt … to shape conduct in certain ways in relation to certain objectives” (Rose, 1999: 4). Admittedly, it might be hard to make the case that sociolinguistics should give more consideration to this if plantation slavery were the only model for (in)securitization/​necro-​power. But necropolitical subjugation takes contemporary as well as historical forms, and Mbembe refers, for example, to the management of flows of refugees and to late-​modern colonial occupation (as in Gaza and the West Bank). In addition, necro-​power/​(in)securitization is exercised through a broad range of different techniques and practices (Mbembe, 2003: 29; Foucault, 1975–​76: 256), and –​crucially –​it is often mixed with other modes of governance in what Mbembe describes as a “combining of the disciplinary,4 the biopolitical, and the necropolitical” (2003: 26). For our own purposes, ‘(in)securitization’ is easier to use than the starker term ‘necro-​power’. (In)securitization as a mode of governance can account for blurred and shifting power relations; it can operate in varied and attenuated forms, sometimes mixed in with others; and it has interdisciplinary resonance (in our case, reflecting collaboration with researchers in Critical Security Studies –​see McCluskey & Charalambous Eds., 2022). Even so, (in)securitization’s alignment with necro-​power underscores its colonial pedigree, spotlights the profound links with racialization, and brings in a set of strong claims about the impact on language, not only suggesting that there are “anti-​discursive and extralinguistic” pressures, but also arguing that political expression develops its opposition through “deliberately opaque means … played, danced, and acted, as well as sung and sung about” (Gilroy, 1994: 37; Scott, 1990). These ideas certainly need to be nuanced empirically, and indeed in previous work, we have proposed a definition of (in)securitization tuned to the sociolinguistic analysis of everyday interaction, characterizing (in)securitization as “an intensifying apprehension of institutionally authorized vulnerability and existential threat, produced (and received) in communicative practice in a range of social settings” (Rampton & Charalambous, 2019: 6). But the terrain where this develops deserves fuller specification, and a schematic comparison with standardization, bringing in commodification as well, can provide some prototypical coordinates for more detailed sociolinguistic investigations of (in)securitization. So we can suggest that while standardization and marketization promote the identities of ‘educator+​literate citizen’ and ‘consumer+​entrepreneur’ respectively, (in)securitization attends to enemies, terrorists, traitors, ‘inferior races’ and the military; walls and fortifications take over from institutional ladders and market flows; the message ‘stay alert’ takes priority over ‘conform’ or ‘shine’; language serves as shibboleth and weapon, not just for measurement or profit; and silencing antagonists joins regulation and selling as a language ideological objective or effect. At the same time, as we hope to illustrate in the two case studies

303

Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous

that follow, (in)securitization’s sociolinguistic materialization is impossible to predict from afar, away from the empirical scenes in which it occurs. At this point in our case for (in)securitization’s significance, we should turn to some data, beginning with its historical contextualization.

Necropolitics and Papo Reto’s counter-​securitization in a favela in Rio de Janeiro In Brazil, ‘segurança pública’ (public security) is often invoked in institutional and everyday debates about the escalation of violence since the mid-​1980s (Caldeira, 2000; Machado da Silva, 1999). Conflicting ideas about ‘security’ and ‘violence’ have been entangled with crucial urban and economic transformations. For instance, with the escalation of ‘crime’, the (upper-​) middle classes have been building walls, real and symbolic, to segregate themselves from ‘criminals’ (Caldeira, 2000), and in 2019, Brazilians elected Jair Bolsonaro, a retired military captain who promised to ‘shoot’ criminals and protect ‘good citizens’. Here, we follow Silva’s ethnography in the Complexo do Alemão favelas (neighbourhoods self-​built by residents) in Rio de Janeiro. With Adriana Facina and Adriana Lopes, Silva began ethnography in 2012, when Complexo do Alemão was included in police ‘pacification’ –​a security experiment ahead of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics (Menezes, 2015). The official purpose of ‘pacification’ was to withdraw weapons from the drug trade and to install permanent police units in favelas. It was aimed at favelas located within the ‘security belt’ of mega-​events (Silva, Facina & Lopes, 2015). The Complexo do Alemão was central in this ‘pacification’, and the programme’s operation is illustrated in the military occupation in 2010. Following attacks by drug faction Comando Vermelho, the neighbourhood was raided by a cluster of armed forces on 28 November 2010. The event received live broadcast by Rede Globo, Brazil’s main TV channel. Both domestic and international media coverage enacted a racialized discourse connecting the ‘recovery’ of a national territory to the expulsion of (Black) narcos. Newspaper headlines included: “Brazilian forces claim victory in Gang Haven”5 (The New York Times) and “Las fuerzas de seguridad toman el bastion de los narcos en Río”6 (El País). The entanglement between necropolitics and racialization was perhaps best rendered on the front page of Rio’s main newspaper, O Globo, which displayed images of Black men being expelled to the neighbouring favela, Vila Cruzeiro.7 A cartoon of Christ the Redeemer wearing a police bulletproof vest completed the necropolitical mosaic. Silva’s ethnography overlapped with the height of ‘pacification’ (2012–​2016) and the aftermath of mega-​events, and it has extended to the near-​extinction of ‘pacification’, an economic crisis, and the escalation of police violence against Black people under Bolsonaro. It has yielded evidence both on the anti-​discursive effects of necropolitical (in)securitization and on resistances to it. Perhaps one of the most conspicuous effects that (in)securitization has on residents’ daily lives is a ‘code of silence’ (Leite & Oliveira, 2005; Menezes, 2015). Machado da Silva and Menezes (2019) explain that the code of silence is embedded in surveillance, threats and real violence by armed agents who dispute the governance of peripheries: the State (i.e. the police) and the ‘world of crime’ (i.e. drug traffic and paramilitary groups). Spatial contiguity with these agents yields silence and a constant calculation regarding risks of what, to whom, and when to talk (about e.g. problems involving armed agents). An example of the anti-​dialogical effects of surveillance8 was an interview with Raphael Calazans, a young Black activist. In 2012, Silva was in a group of six strolling around the neighbourhood. The interview lasted two hours, but there were two occasions when the conversation faltered. The first interruption to an otherwise relaxed interaction was caused by a drug trade 304

Sociolinguistics and (In)Securitization

lookout. Upon noticing this surveillance, Calazans displayed signs of discomfort and fear. The motorcyclist’s presence produced sudden silences, interruptions and local incoherence in his talk. Only after the motorcyclist left was he able to explain that the group had been watched. But there was no comfort from a police presence either, and about half an hour later, a passing police car had a similar effect on Calazans’s speech. There was a fuller account of the part that police played in these non-​dialogical dynamics during a focus group discussion at Vila Cruzeiro, a favela bordering the Complexo do Alemão in January 2013. Luan, a young participant from a middle-​class neighbourhood, asked other students whether they had ever experienced a ‘dura’ from the police. Duro (fem. dura) means hard in Portuguese, and dura is a slang term meaning a violent encounter. Mateus, a local resident, responded: Excerpt 1:9 Focus group with young favela residents and Rio activists, January 2013 (translated from original in Portuguese) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

on Sunday I was in the store where I work, in a candy store, I was talking to my boss (.) gunshots broke out, everybody ran to the store (.) a group of cops passed by and stopped at the corner (.) then my boss began joking with the people from the store and I started laughing (.) and then the last one in line saw me laughing and came with a rifle pointed at my face, in my direction, cursing me, shouting loudly, yeah:: asking me why I was laughing (.) and now I’m already surrounded, now I already have the rifle in my face (.) and if it wasn’t for my boss to intervene, I would have been (.) beaten up, taken to the alley and killed

Mateus was elaborating on ‘life under siege’ (Machado da Silva & Menezes, 2019). While ‘being killed’ might sound like an exaggeration, a few months later, a dura in Favela da Rocinha sparked national commotion. In a case that was incorporated into the mottos against police violence during the 2013 mega-​protests (Duncan, 2021; Rocha, 2016), Amarildo de Souza, a Black bricklayer, was approached by ‘pacification’ officers and never appeared again. Luan then asked whether other participants had had similar experiences to Mateus, and together they described stereotypical comments about favelados. According to Luiza, in the favela, “If it’s a man, it’s a suspect, if it’s a woman, it’s a sex object.” Amidst their collaborative depiction of duras, Fabiana, another young Black woman, addressed language more explicitly: “You’ve got to bear it all quietly, you’ve got to listen quietly.” Luiza was emphatic about the violent governance of poverty and blackness in Brazil: “For sure, it’s a project.” The anti-​ discursive effects discussed here –​faltering conversation, violent reprimand to laughter and an obligation to remain silent –​lend support to Arendt’s (1994: 38) differentiation between violence and language in politics: “violence begins where speech ends.” Yet there was also opposition to this longstanding criminalization of blackness and poverty, and principled forms of counter-​securitization.

305

Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous

Figure 20.1 Coletivo Papo Reto activists (@CPapo_​Reto, 8 July 2021)

A prototypical example is Coletivo Papo Reto (‘Straight Talk Collective’) in Complexo do Alemão. Papo reto is a common metapragmatic term in non-​standard Portuguese, and in the favela, dar um papo reto (to give a straight talk) means to communicate something in the most direct way, usually with non-​standard language suspending expectations of face (see Silva & Lee, 2021; Silva, 2022). Some of the collective’s members can be seen in Figure 20.1 (clockwise from top left: Lana Souza, Raull Santiago, Renata Trajano, Thainã Medeiros, Ananda Trajano and Bento Fábio), and the central caption translates as ‘Who makes the straight talk happen’. In Figure 20.1, activists creatively scramble the line between vernacular and official discourse by declaring their Papo Reto identity in the paradigmatic genre of language standardization, the dictionary entry,10 printing this on the most basic and unpretentious item of everyday dress, the T-​shirt. At a 2019 public meeting attended by favela residents, Raull Santiago explained the Collective’s strategy. He began his lecture by saying that in addition to “favela resident, human rights activist and favela mobiliser,” he liked to define himself as “entrepreneur of words”. Through using slang and suspending politeness –​e.g. “eu falo pra caralho” (‘I’m fucking talkative’) –​he announced from the outset that his talk would be enunciated in a papo reto register. Here is an excerpt of his talk:

306

Sociolinguistics and (In)Securitization

Excerpt 2: Raull Santiago at the Perifa Talks, 2019 (translated from Portuguese) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

the main public policy that comes to us the main investment is still violence against our people coming as a security policy discourse a public security that doesn’t include us, favela residents as people who have the right to the guarantee of security but are seen as enemies of an idea of public security that in practice is private with someone paying for it (.) and then in these constructions I began to notice that (.) violence was only growing in Complexo do Alemão (.) no matter how hard we tried to denounce it we were criminalized (.) if people got together to make a protest in an access road to-​ to-​ the press would come and say that the protest was orchestrated by organized crime the police were the only final voice to speak about that moment it was never our voice as the final voice as the central voice of something and nothing worked out (.) but then when we started to have access to the internet and to have the possibility to have better equipment like a good cell phone I started to try to record this as much as possible so we got together and started to monitor “let’s follow the violence let’s follow how this happens inside Complexo do Alemão” (…) the Coletivo Papo Reto emerged in the Complexo do Alemão with the intention of (.) being papo reto ((straight talk)) that is, to talk about violence to talk about how we live from us to ourselves first and then from us to the outside that is, to try to organize people to not accept that the main public policy for the Blacks for the poor for favela residents for the people that live in our reality is state violence as the rule

307

Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous

Papo Reto defied the code of silence and the official accounts of police and press, appropriating the affordances of digital media and using ‘sousveillance’ (surveillance from below) to monitor and expose violence (lines 22–​29; cf. Jones, 2020). The private interests at play in ‘pacification’ were recognized (lines 8–​9, see also Grassiani and Muller, 2019). Yet Papo Reto worked with video and social media to form a range of alternative alliances, both nationally and internationally. All of this was guided by ‘nós por nós’ (‘us for/​by ourselves’), a major contemporary activist trope in Brazilian peripheries (Fabricio & Melo, 2020: 1885), and “in talking from us to ourselves first and then from us to the outside” (lines 34–​35), the mediational role of papo reto as a discursive style and emblem was crucial. As symbolized in its dictionary entry T-​shirt inscription, papo reto pushed for wider recognition and understanding, and it deconstructed and opened up the public debates conducted in standardized bureaucratic language (Silva & Lee, 2021: 14–​15). These empirical fragments should be sufficient to show favela residents having to contend with necropolitical states of exception: rule through violence and death, racialization, suspicion, fear and constant alertness, and policies and practices in which obedient silence is a central stake in tense (language ideological) struggle. At the same time, collectives like Papo Reto resist this coercive exceptionalization and its portrayal of local people as “enemies of an idea of public security” (line 7). Their political strategy operates at the nexus of counter-​securitization and language ideology, refusing the equation of political voice with standard Portuguese, and insisting on inclusion without relinquishing their sociolinguistic identity. The next set of examples shifts the focus to Greek Cypriot secondary classrooms, where conflict is now less acute, violence is more remote and students submit to schooled standard language learning. Even so, the logic of (in)securitization derived from the island’s history produces threatening counter-​currents that demand deft navigation from all of the participants.

De-​securitization in Turkish language classes at a Greek Cypriot secondary school The roots of the conflict between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are usually traced to the period of the British administration (1878–​1960), when standard language and literacy had an important role in the two communities’ ethnolinguistic self-​imagining, embracing distinct (and subsequently hostile) identities. During the Ottoman Rule of the island (1571–​1878), people had been categorized according to their religion (‘millets’), but the new British administration classified citizens according to their ‘native languages’ (Bryant, 2004). Religious leaders lost their traditional power as representatives of their community, and instead, communication with the new authorities was achieved through petitions and other documents completed in the notional ‘native tongues’ of each community, which were construed as standard Greek and Ottoman/​Turkish rather than the local Cypriot dialects, even though most of the population wasn’t literate in either of these official varieties (Bryant, 2004; Karoulla-​Vriki, 2004). This created the need for wider literacy and education, which brought people into contact with the ‘high cultures’ of the mainlands and increased their awareness of the nationalist discourses in each (Bryant, 2004; Pollis, 1998). In the case of younger Greek Cypriots, these then inspired anti-​colonial struggles seeking unification with Greece, while Turkish Cypriots “adopt[ed] the ideology of Turkish nationalism, first in order to fight against the union of Cyprus with Greece, and then, in order to achieve the division of Cyprus and unify her [sic] with Turkey” (Kızılyürek & Gautier–​Kizilyürek, 2004:41). By the second half of the 20th century, education and other nation-​building processes had solidified ethnolinguistic boundaries, and when the Cyprus Republic was founded in 1960, it was 308

Sociolinguistics and (In)Securitization

a bicommunal and bilingual state, with little sense of shared identity and two systems of mono-​ communal, mono-​lingual education. As early as 1963 constitutional troubles led to intercommunal violence and a few years later, a pro-​Greek coup overthrew the legal president of the republic (1974). A week after that, a violent military intervention by the Turkish army led to war and the occupation of the northern third of the island, with large-​scale displacement in both directions, and from that time until 2003, the two communities were divided by borders and a UN-​patrolled buffer zone, communication between the two parts being almost impossible. On the northern, Turkish-​speaking side, Greek was erased from roadsigns, names of villages and so forth, emphasizing the independence of Turkish Cypriots (Killoran, 2000). In the government-​controlled areas (the southern, Greek-​speaking part), Turkish continued to have recognized status in e.g. official documents, coins and banknotes, supporting the argument that the Republic of Cyprus was functioning unaltered, with its jurisdiction suspended in the ‘occupied areas’. But learning Turkish was restricted to espionage, police and diplomats, and education remained monolingual, emphasizing standard Greek and Hellenocentric ideals, attaching little value to the local Cypriot variety and identity. In general in both communities, learning and using the language of ‘the other’ was seen as a betrayal towards one’s nation (Ozerk, 2001). In 2003, however, there were important changes in the political scene. The Republic of Cyprus sought to enter the European Union and to re-​imagine Cypriot identity within an open transnational market, which could include Turkish Cypriots as well. In the midst of political negotiations for signing the EU accession treaty and for finding a resolution to the so-​called Cyprus Issue, the Turkish Cypriot authorities decided to lift the restriction of movement across the buffer zone, and to allow communication between Greek and Turkish Cypriots for the first time in nearly three decades. The (Greek) Cypriot government responded with a ‘Package of Measures of Support to Turkish Cypriots’ that aimed to ensure their rights as European citizens, and among these measures, as an emblematic reconciliatory gesture, the Turkish language was to be offered to Greek Cypriots as an optional foreign language (Charalambous, 2019; Charalambous et al., 2017), alongside policies for intercultural education and the cultivation of a European identity. This historical sketch provides a glimpse of different political imaginings and modes of governance shaping the processes of nation-​building and identity formation, together with the important role of language: the ethnic divisions produced by the colonial bureaucracy’s language classifications; their intensification through education oriented to standard language in different ‘motherlands’; the securitization of linguistic difference following the war; and most recently, European marketization and the incentive to reconciliation. But as each one of these political configurations developed, it did not replace the others but instead became entangled with them (e.g. Philippou & Theodorou, 2014), creating new dynamics and different linguistic uses and indexicalities, exposing everyday communicative practice to potentially competing and/​or conflicting expectations of conduct and visions of Cyprus and Cypriotness. So in one of the main sites that we have investigated, contemporary Greek Cypriot public education, students experienced the processes of standardization, measurement, hierarchization and division that Foucault associates with normalization (see §2 above), while at the same time, schooling (textbooks, curricula, school celebrations/​commemorations) was also a site for perpetuating images of the Turks’ hostile otherness as an enemy, teaching the ‘emotional styles’ associated with insecurity and war (Spyrou, 2006; Zembylas et al., 2016). In Greek Cypriot secondary schools, this mixture made the post-​2003 introduction of the Turkish language a complicated and precarious process (see Charalambous 2012; 2013; Charalambous et al 2021; Rampton et al., 2019).11 At secondary school, Turkish classes were incorporated in the foreign language curriculum as one option in a list of seven,12 part of the European plurilingual policy of ‘mother tongue plus 309

Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous

2’. Students gave us a range of different reasons for selecting this option, but the most frequent referred to the exigencies of school normalization itself –​because of the similarities between the Cypriot dialects of Turkish and Greek, Turkish was supposed to be an easy language, putatively guaranteeing high grades (‘it’s more for the marks and for the fact that it’s an easy language’) (cf Rampton et al., 2019: 639–​641). But Turkish was still indexically associated with conflict and hostility, and Greek Cypriot teachers and learners of Turkish were often called traitors, being compelled either to justify this option choice to others, or to conceal it by e.g. hiding their books. To circumvent this hostility, one strategy was to reposition Turkish within the neoliberal European discourse of plurilingualism as potential economic and cultural resource, rather than as a local language capable of contributing to reconciliation by improving intercommunal communication (Charalambous, 2019). This could be seen in certain policy texts, as well as in the pedagogy of one of the teachers participating in our research, who tried to tie Turkish to a cosmopolitan rather than a local outlook (Charalambous et al., 2017). But the most widespread pedagogic strategy was to ‘depoliticize’ the language by focusing exclusively on grammar and vocabulary, cutting it off from its cultural associations (see also Rampton et al., 2019). For the most part, this succeeded in keeping culture and politics out of the classroom, but the grammar studied was Turkish standardized in Turkey, and this could complicate attempts to handle issues commonly associated with a standard language (formality/​informality, high and low status), potentially reigniting political sensitivities. We can see Mr. A trying to manage this in the following episode, in which he raises the question of formality in Turkish: Extract 3 (2006) 1 Mr. A ((talking about the ‘question suffix’-​mi)) 2 just so that you know though ()‌ 3 the Turkish Cypriots do not use it 4  I mean we speak ()‌ the formal official language in the classroom 5  the Turkish Cypriot will say “Ali?” (is it Ali?) (2) 6  if you add the ‘-​ mi’ they will say that you are ()‌ 7 Constantinopolitans ((he laughs)) 8 that’s what the educated people say In the 29 hours that Charalambous observed him, this was only one of four occasions when Mr. A made a passing reference to Turkish speakers (see Extracts 4 & 5 for two more). Outside the classes, the word ‘Turk’ itself was quite often used as an insult, and it is significant that it is Turkish Cypriots, often seen as more ‘similar to us’ than Turks, the arch-​enemies and invaders, that Mr. A identifies in Extract 3 (lines 3 & 5). Indeed, as his elaboration continues, Mr. A refers to ‘educated people’ rather than the educated Turks who actually use the standard form they are learning in class (line 8), and in speaking of ‘Constantinopolitans’ (line 7), he invokes the Byzantine Greek identity of Istanbul, allowing those learning ‘correct’ Turkish to sustain a sense of Greekness. On another occasion, when a point of grammar prompted Mr. A to refer to politeness among Turkish speakers, there was an intense negative reaction from the students (see Charalambous, 2013; Rampton & Charalambous, 2016), but usually, students ‘colluded’ with the teacher in suppressing the social and cultural elements of the language during the lesson, only talking about

310

Sociolinguistics and (In)Securitization

communication with Turkish speakers outside or in the periphery of the main floor of classroom interaction (in whispered talk, interviews, discussions before/​after the lesson; Charalambous, 2012). The complications of talking about interaction with Turkish speakers, as a result of the historic securitization of Turkish can be seen in Extracts 4 and 5: Extract 4 (fieldnotes, 2006) Mr. A: Children, you have to study because unfortunately there are no Turks over here so that we can practise ((he goes on with the exercise sheets)). This was factually inaccurate: after the border gates opened in 2003, there were Turkish Cypriots coming to the southern part of Cyprus to work or shop etc, and in interview, many students mentioned encounters with Turkish Cypriots as a reason for learning the language. Several days later, Mr. A acknowledged this: Extract 5 (fieldnotes, 2006) Mr. A: You can’t learn a language without studying it unless you live with people who speak it. For example, you learn English while living in England. We …in our country ((  pause)) well we do have Turkish-​Cypriots but we do not have contact with them. ((  pause. No reply from students)) Ok now how can we say “look at me”. Turkish-​language classes had been set up to try to bring the two communities closer, but here Mr. A construed/​conceded an absence of interaction as the social norm. Indeed, none of the students challenged him, even though some of them did actually interact with Turkish Cypriots outside school. In interview, Mr. A spelled out the state of exception that motivated this restricted account of the possibilities: “because we are under occupation students cannot interact with Turkish Cypriots. If things were different, they could go over there and use the vocabulary we learn in the classroom” (18/​12/​06). Closely attuned to the logic of securitization, schooled study was as far as they could venture with Turkish in Mr. A’s view, and a similar sensitivity both to the connotations of ‘Turk’ and the acceptability of studying as a (limited) mode of engagement shows up in Extract 6, involving one of the teachers in our 2012 research: Extract 6 (B2 class, 16.11.12) 1 Teacher: Panayiotis should read the text 2 Student: Turk 3 Teacher: do you have to be a Turk to speak Turkish? 4   by the summer I’ll turn all of you into Turkologists! Just as Panayiotis is about to read aloud in Turkish, another student teases him with ‘Turk’ (lines 1 & 2). The teacher then responds without trying to mitigate ‘Turk’s’ negative connotations. Instead, he dissociates speaking Turkish from Turkish ethnicity, and uses ‘Turkologist’ to render the language as something ‘technical’, as academic knowledge removed from the controversies of ethnolinguistic identification. There is far more we could say, backed up by a lot more evidence, about communicative practice and the representations and imaginings of language with which teachers and students negotiated 311

Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous

the entangled pressures and expectations of schooling and de-​securization; for example, the contribution to peace-​building (Charalambous et al., 2021), the positioning of multilingual migrant children with Turkish in their repertoires (Charalambous et al., 2020), the dynamics in adult classes where learners sometimes interacted with Turkish speakers (see Charalambous, 2019; Charalambous et al., 2017). But at this point we should move to some conclusions.

(In)securitization’s significance for sociolinguistics Our purpose in this chapter has been to argue for the significance for sociolinguistic analysis of (in)securitization as a process that operates in a range of different situations, and we have pointed to the plurality of forms that it can take, often intersecting with other modes of governance. Given our own interest in its bi-​or multi-​directional effects in communicative interaction, our preference is to speak of (in)securitization. But even in the two sites we have referred to, it has been useful to talk of counter-​ and de-​securitization –​‘counter’ recognizing existential threats but advancing alternative analyses and solutions, ‘de-​’ proposing that groups, phenomena or processes are moved out of special measures back into the realm of ordinary affairs. But whether and whatever affixing helps to clarify particular processes, states of exception beyond the reach of normal legal process and the fear of threats to life are centrally at issue. In both empirical sites, (in)security and a sense of existential threat are prominent in public discourse and lived experience, and in both, there are zones regarded as dangerous states of exception (favelas in Rio, and the buffer zone and ‘occupied areas’ in Cyprus). In both, language and communication are prominent local concerns, and efforts to challenge (in)securitization also engage reflexively and critically with standard languages, a staple in sociolinguistics. Standard language has links to powerful forces opposed by our research participants, either now or in the past –​state bureaucracies and mainstream media in Brazil and the Turkish state in Cyprus’s historic conflict. This prevents these activists and teachers from relying on conventional resources, practices and ideological representations, and instead they exercise their agency –​their ability to “act otherwise” (Giddens, 1984:14) –​in devising alternative metalinguistic strategies for, in one case, public discourse and display, and in the other, classroom pedagogy. So, in both, we can say, the larger project of overcoming a state of exception and restoring civil rights involves engaging with standard language models without surrendering to them: in Rio, carrying papo reto as a name and insisting on its parity with dictionary Portuguese; in Cyprus, encountering Turkish in classrooms where, as far as possible, the language’s indexical associations with Turkey are neutralized. In the ideologies that they are contesting, Turkish and favela vernaculars have been shibboleths eliciting fear and/​or suspicion, and both sets of actors generally work hard at shifting these indexical values –​ with one, the shibboleth is embraced and elevated in papo reto, and with the other, it is schoolified/​ domesticated (linked to good grades and academic study at school, or if necessary, to Turkish Cypriots rather than Turks, ‘Constantinopolitans’ rather than ‘İstanbullular’). This is not to claim that (in)securitization inevitably problematizes standard language ideology, or that the communicative effects of (in)securitization are easy to predict. The differences between these two sites should be enough to inhibit any such determinism. But it would be hard to make sense of these particular engagements with standard language without bringing (in)securitization into the account,13 and there were other elements in these two scenes that speak to the prototypification of (in)securitization in the second section above (on (in) securitisation as a mode of governance): in Rio, gated communities, self-​censorship and distraction under surveillance, a code of silence, silencing by violent dura (Extract 1), the usurpation of voice by press and police (Extract 2); in Cyprus, a buffer zone, learning sequestered from contact (Extracts 4, 5 and 6), first-​language speakers erased from accounts of Turkish –​and none actually teaching the language. 312

Sociolinguistics and (In)Securitization

Again, these are not law-​like connections or sociolinguistic effects necessarily tied to (in)securitization, and one only has to think of espionage, or of all the language learning in the American army during the Second World War (Howatt, 1984: 265–​269), or of human creativity under duress more generally, to become wary of, for example, any broader generalization such as ‘(in)securitization is hostile to multilingualism’. Indeed, even though it “displac[es] the democratic principles of freedom and justice” (Huysmans cited above), there may very well be circumstances in which one welcomes (periods of) intensified securitization itself. But contemporary sociolinguistics has traditionally aligned with Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité as higher ethical goals (Hymes, 1977: 204–​206; Signorini, 2004), and it is very well equipped to offer some expert analytic insight into practices/​ experiences of self-​ censorship, voicelessness, silencing, surveillance etc., potentially either strengthening the fight against these communicative practices/​effects, or alternatively, moving beyond the most obvious responses (making the case, for example, for pedagogy like Mr. A’s, defending it as a workable adaptation to the Turkish language’s precarity at school [Charalambous et al., 2021]). This is an area where sociolinguists can make significant contributions to interdisciplinary work (McCluskey & Charalambous, 2022), and in the process, sociolinguistics can discover new research challenges, having had very little to say so far about, for example, surveillance14 or algorithmic influences on communication.15 So (in)securitization now needs to become a core concern. Indeed, if (in)securitization doesn’t start to feature in textbooks and introductory courses, people may start to wonder whether sociolinguistics really retains its contemporary relevance.

Related topics Chapter 10 Linguistic citizenship; Chapter 19 Multilingualism, the new economy and the neoliberal governance of speakers.

Notes 1 Historically, in research on International Relations, securitization has a relatively specialized meaning, referring to the discourse of governments and other authoritative actors (Buzan & Waever, 2003). But as will become clear, our use of the term is much more general, covering the range of processes in security studies (see e.g. Bigo 2002; Huysmans, 2014). 2 Language research certainly hasn’t completely ignored fear, suspicion and violent conflict, and there is important work in critical discourse analysis (e.g. Hodges Ed., 2013; Khan, 2017), in linguistic anthropology (Briggs, 1997; Silva & Lee, 2021; Blommaert, 2009; Maryns, 2006;), in translation & interpreting studies (e.g. Busch, 2016b; Footitt & Kelly Eds., 2012), and educational linguistics (e.g. Valdés, 2017; Zakharia, 2020) (for a literature review, see P. Charalambous, 2017). But it is not yet obvious that this work is regarded as a core concern rather than a specialist niche or a field of practical application. 3 A more detailed version of our argument can be found in Rampton, Silva & Charalambous, 2022. 4 “Discipline is a mechanism of power which regulates the behaviour of individuals in the social body. This is done by regulating the organization of space (architecture etc.), of time (timetables) and people’s activity and behaviour (drills, posture, movement). It is enforced with the aid of complex systems of surveillance. Foucault emphasizes that … discipline is simply one way in which power can be exercised. He also uses the term ‘disciplinary society’, discussing its history and the origins and disciplinary institutions such as prisons, hospitals, asylums, schools and army barracks” (O’Farrell, 2021; see Foucault, 1977) 5 www.nyti​mes.com/​2010/​11/​29/​world/​ameri​cas/​29bra​zil.html 6 https://​elp​ais.com/​dia​rio/​2010/​11/​29/​intern​acio​nal/​129098​5210​_​850​215.html 7 https://​ace​rvo.ogl​obo.globo.com/​em-​desta​que/​o-​dia-​em-​que-​est​ado-​expul​sou-​traf​ico-​do-​compl​exo-​do-​ ale​mao-​ha-​dez-​anos-​9001​633 8 For more empirical detail, see Rampton, Silva & Charalambous, 2022, and for a theorization of interactional experience of surveillance, see Rampton & Eley, 2018 and Eley & Rampton, 2020. 9 We have utilized Jefferson Transcription Conventions throughout.

313

Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous 10 Papo reto is not a common entry in Portuguese dictionaries. 11 The data here draws on two linguistic ethnographic projects initiated by Constadina Charalambous: the first was carried out between 2005–​2009 (funded by King’s College School of Social Sciences and Public Policy); the second one was conducted together with Ben Rampton and Panayiota Charalambous (2012–​ 2015, funded by Leverhulme Trust). 12 The rest included Italian, Spanish, English, French, German and Russian. 13 How, for example, could one explain the lack of reference to Turks or Turkey in Mr. A’s discourse? 14 See, however, Jones, 2017; Eley & Rampton, 2020. 15 But see Georgakopoulou et al., 2021; Rampton, 2016; Maly, 2020.

Further reading Bigo, D. 2002. Security and immigration: toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. 27(1): 63–​92. Feltran, G. 2020. Entangled City: Crime as Urban Fabric in São Paulo. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Mbembe, A. 2003. Necropolitics. Public Culture. 15 (1): 11–​40. McCluskey, E. & Charalambous, C. Eds. 2022. Security, Ethnography & Discourse: Transdisciplinary Encounters. London & New York: Routledge.

References Aradau, C. & Tazzioli, M. 2019. Biopolitics multiple: migration, extraction, subtraction. Millenium: Journal of International Studies. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03058​2981​9889​139 Arendt, H. 1994. Essays in Understanding; 1930–​1954. J. Kohn Ed. New York: Schocken Books. Ball, S. 1990. Introducing monsieur Foucault. In Foucault and Education. S. Ball, Ed. London & New York: Routledge. 1–​8. Bigo, D. 2002. Security and immigration: toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. 27(1): 63–​92. Bigo, D. & McCluskey, E. 2018. What is a PARIS approach to (in) securitization? Political anthropological research for international sociology. In The Oxford Handbook of International Security. A. Gheciu & W.C. Wohlforth, Eds. 116–​132. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Block, D., Gray, J. & Holborrow, M. 2012. Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge. Blommaert, J. 2009. Language, asylum and the national order. Current Anthropology. 50/​4:415–​25. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Oxford: Polity Press. Briggs, C. 1997. Notes on a ‘confession’: on the construction of gender, sexuality, and violence in an infanticide case. Pragmatics. 7: 519–​546. Bryant, R. 2004. Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in Cyprus. London & New York: I.B. Tauris. Burawoy, M. & Von Holdt, K. 2012. Conversations with Bourdieu: The Johannesburg Moment. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. Busch, B. 2016. Heteroglossia of survival: to have one’s voice heard, to develop a voice worth hearing. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies 188. www.acade​mia.edu/​20304​151/​ Buzan, B. & Waever, O. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caldeira, T. 2000. City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in São Paulo. Berkeley: University of California Press. Charalambous, C. 2012. ‘Republica de Kubros’: transgression and collusion in Greek Cypriot adolescents’ classroom silly–​talk. Linguistics and Education. 23: 334–​349. Charalambous, C. 2013. The ‘burden’ of emotions in language teaching: negotiating a troubled past in ‘other’-​ language learning classrooms. Language and Intercultural Communication. 13: 310–​329. Charalambous, C. 2019. Language education and ‘conflicted heritage’: implications for teaching and learning. The Modern Language Journal. 103(4): 874–​ 891. https://​online​libr​ary.wiley.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1111/​ modl.12593

314

Sociolinguistics and (In)Securitization Charalambous, C., Charalambous, P. & Rampton, B. 2021. International relations, sociolinguistics and the ‘everyday’: a linguistic ethnography of peace-​building through language education. Peacebuilding. 1–​22. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​21647​259.2021.1895​604 Charalambous, C., Charalambous, P., Zembylas, M. & Theodorou, E. 2020. Translanguaging, (in) security and social justice education. In Inclusion, Education and Translanguaging. J.A. Panagiotopoulou, L. Rosen & J. Strzykala, Eds. 105–​123. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Charalambous, P., Charalambous, C. & Rampton, B. 2017. De-​securitizing Turkish: teaching the language of a former enemy, and intercultural language education. Applied Linguistics. 38: 800–​823. Charalambous, P. 2017. Sociolinguistics and security: a bibliography. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 213. www.acade​mia.edu/​33687​581/​ & www.kcl.ac.uk/​liep Duchêne, A. & M. Heller. Eds. 2012. Language in Late Capitalism: Pride & Profit. London: Routledge. Duncan, J. 2021. Researching Protest Literacies: Literacy as Protest in the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro. London & New York: Routledge. Eley, L. & Rampton, B. (in press). Everyday surveillance, Goffman and unfocused interaction. Surveillance & Society. 18(2): 199–​215. https://​doi.org/​10.24908/​ss.v18i2.13346 Errington, J. 2008. Linguistics in a Colonial World. Oxford: Blackwell. Fabricio, B.F. & Melo, G.C. 2020. “Us for ourselves”: enregistering and de-​escalating Coronavirus under nervous conditions. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada. 59(3): 1884–​1915. Flubacher, M.C. & Del Percio, A. 2017. Language, Education & Neoliberalism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Footitt, H. & Kelly, M. Eds. 2012. Languages at War: Policies and Practices of Language Contacts in Conflict. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Foucault, M. 1975–​76. Society Must Be Defended. New York: Picador. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gallo, S. 2014. The effects of gendered immigration enforcement on middle childhood and schooling. American Educational Research Journal. 51(3): 473–​504. Georgakopoulou, A., Stage. C, & Iversen, S. 2021. Quantified Storytelling: A Narrative Analysis of Metrics on Social Media. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Giddens, A. 1984. Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press. Grassiani, E. & Müller, F. 2019. Brazil-​Israel relations and the marketing of urban security expertise. Latin American Perspectives. 46(3): 114–​130. Heller, M. & B. McElhinny. 2017. Language, Capitalism, Colonialism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hodges, A. Ed. 2013. Discourses of War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howatt, A. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huysmans, J. 2014. Security Unbound: Enacting Democratic Limits. London & New York: Routledge. Hymes, D. 1977. Foundations in Sociolinguistics. London: Tavistock. Jones, R. 2017. Surveillant landscapes. Linguistic Landscapes. 3(2):150–​87. Jones, R. 2020. Accounting for surveillance. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 10.1111/​josl.12405 Karoulla–​Vrikki, D. 2004. Language and ethnicity in Cyprus under the British: a linkage of heightened salience. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 168: 19–​36. Khan, K .2017. Citizenship, securitisation and suspicion in UK ESOL policy. In Engaging Superdiversity. K. Arnaut, M. Karrebæk, M. Spotti & J. Blommaert, Eds. 303–​21. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Killoran, M. 2000. Time, space and national identities in Cyprus. In Step-​Mothertongue: From Nationalism to Multiculturalism: Literatures of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey. M. Yaşin, Ed. 129–​146. London: Middlesex University Press. Kızılyürek, N. & Gautier–​Kizilyürek, S. 2004. The politics of identity in the Turkish Cypriot community and the language question. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 168: 37–​54. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistics Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell. Leite, M & Pedro, O. 2005. Violência e insegurança nas favelas cariocas: o ponto de vista dos moradores. Praia Vermelha: Estudos de Política e Teoria Social. 13: 14–​43. Machado da Silva, A. 1999. Criminalidade violenta: por uma nova perspectiva de análise. Revista de Sociologia e Política. 13: 115–​124. Machado da Silva, A. & Menezes, P. 2019. (Des)continuidades na experiência de ‘vida sob cerco’ e na ‘sociabilidade violenta’. Novos Estudos. 38(3): 529–​551. Maly, I. 2020. Algorithmic populism and the datafication and gamification of the people by Flemish Interest in Belgium. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada. 59(1): 444–​468.

315

Ben Rampton, Daniel N. Silva and Constadina Charalambous Maryns, K. 2006. The Asylum Speaker: Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure. Manchester: St. Jerome Press. Mayblin, L., Wake, M & Kazemi, M. 2020. Necropolitics and the slow violence of the everyday: asylum seeker welfare in the post-​colonial present. Sociology. 54/​1:107–​123 Mbembe, A. 2003. Necropolitics. Public Culture. 15(1): 11–​40. McCluskey, E. & Charalambous, C. Eds. 2022. Security, Ethnography, Discourse. London: Taylor & Francis. Menezes, P. 2015. Entre o ‘fogo cruzado’ e o ‘campo minado’: uma etnografia do processo de ‘pacificação’ de favelas cariocas. Doctoral dissertation, State University of Rio de Janeiro. O’Farrell, C. 2021. Michael Foucault: Key Concepts. https://​mic​hel-​fouca​ult.com/​key-​conce​pts/​. Ozerk, K. 2001. Reciprocal bilingualism as a challenge and opportunity: the case of Cyprus. International Review of Education. 47: 253–​265. Philippou, S. & Theodorou, E. 2014. The ‘europeanisation’ of othering: children using ‘Europe’ to construct ‘others’ in Cyprus. Race Ethnicity and Education. 17(2): 264–​290. Pollis, A. 1998. The role of foreign powers in structuring ethnicity and ethnic conflict in Cyprus. In Cyprus and its People: Nation, Identity, and Experience in an Unimaginable Community, 1955–​1997. V. Calotychos, Ed. Oxford: Westview Press. 85–​102. Pujolar, J. 2008. Bilingualism and the nation-​state in the post-​national era. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach. M. Heller, Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rampton, B. 2016. Foucault, Gumperz and governmentality: interaction, power and subjectivity in the 21st century. In Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. N. Coupland, Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 303–​330. Rampton, B. & Charalambous, C. 2019. Sociolinguistics and everyday (in)securitisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1–​14. DOI: 10.1111/​josl.12400 Rampton, B. & Eley, L. 2018. Goffman and the everyday interactional grounding of surveillance. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies. www.acade​mia.edu/​37680 030/​. Rampton, B., Silva, D. & Charalambous, C. 2022. Sociolinguistics and (in)securitisation as another mode of governance. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 293. www.wpull.org/​prod​uct/​wp293 Rocha, A. 2016. Cadê o Amarildo? Iterabilidade e construção de memórias em cartografias comunicáveis. Master’s Thesis. Rio de Janeiro, UNIRIO. Rose, N. 1999. The Power of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, J. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press. Signorini, Inês. 2004. Invertendo a lógica do projeto escolar de esclarecer o ignorante em matéria de língua. Scripta. 7(14): 90–​99. Silva, D. 2017. Investigating violence in language: an introduction. In Language and Violence: Pragmatic Perspectives. Daniel, Silva, Ed. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–​29. Silva, D. 2022. Papo Reto: The politics of enregisterment amid the crossfire in Rio de Janeiro. Signs and Society. 10(1). Silva, D.N, Facina, A. & Lopes, A.C. 2015. Complex territories, complex circulations: the “pacification” of the Complexo do Alemão in Rio de Janeiro. Pragmatics and Society. 6(2): 175–​196. Silva, D. & Lee, J. 2021. “Marielle, presente”: metaleptic temporality and the enregisterment of hope in Rio de Janeiro. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 25(2): 179–​197. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​josl.12450 Spyrou, S. 2006. Constructing ‘the Turk’ as an enemy: the complexity of stereotypes in children’s everyday worlds. South European Society & Politics. 11(1): 95–​110. Squire, V. 2017. Governing migration through death in Europe and the US. European Journal of International Relations. 23(3): 513–​532. Stroud, C. 2008. Bilingualism: colonialism and post-​colonialism. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach. M. Heller, Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 25–​49. Taussig, M. 1987. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Valdés, G. 2017. Entry visa denied: the construction of symbolic language borders in educational settings. In The Oxford Handbook of Language & Society. O. García, N. Flores & M. Spotti, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 322–​348. Williams, C. 2022. Enregistering Welshes: Urban Styles and Ideologies of a Minority Language. King’s College London: Unpublished PhD dissertation. Yuval-​Davies, N., Wemyss, G. & Cassidy K. 2019. Bordering. Cambridge: Polity.

316

Sociolinguistics and (In)Securitization Zakharia, Z. 2020. Language and (in)securitisation: observations from educational research and practice in conflict-​affected contexts. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 24: 103–​110. Zembylas, M. 2021. Necropolitics and sentimentality in education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 29(3): 415–​429 Zembylas, M., Charalambous, C. & Charalambous, P. 2016. Peace Education in a Conflict-​Affected Society: An Ethnographic Journey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

317

21 THE MULTILINGUALISM OF GLOBAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH AND COMMUNICATION PRACTICES Mary Jane Curry, Theresa Lillis, Adel Alshehri, Onesmo Mushi and Xiatinghan Xu

Introduction Multilingualism is at the core of global academic knowledge production and the lived reality of many of the approximately ten million scholars around the world (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2019). Here we use the term ‘multilingualism’ to encompass not only named ‘standard’ languages (e.g. Arabic, Mandarin, English, Swahili) but also varieties of named languages, including English (Strauss, 2017) as well as translingual texts (García, 2009), while noting that labelling the semiotic resources emerging from specific geo-​historical and geolinguistic contexts is always a contested practice. Our understanding of what it means to be a multilingual scholar goes beyond a definition as those who ‘write’ (entextualize) in more than one language (e.g. Mur-​Dueñas, 2019) to include academics who use multiple languages in their/​ our routine work lives, research practices and communications. Multilingualism in fact occupies a central place in many scholars’ research practices as well as their/​our written, spoken and multimodal communications. Research examining multilingual academic writers’ practices has adopted survey, questionnaire (e.g. Monteiro & Hirano, 2020; Alamri, 2021) and qualitative methods as well as ethnographic (Lillis & Curry, 2010; Mur-​Dueñas, 2012), life history (Burgess, 2017), and autobiographical/autoethnographic methodologies (Gentil, 2019; Payant & Belcher, 2019; Olmos-​López, 2019; Herrando, 2021). Related research uses bibliometric, corpus-​and web-​based approaches to explore publications produced across contexts in different languages and types of outlets, including journals, books, book chapters and digital platforms (e.g. Pouris & Ho, 2014; Cernova-​Buca, 2021). In this chapter we foreground the ways that multilingualism is embedded in scholars’ research and text production practices and its epistemological/​intellectual value (Lillis & Curry, 2022) for scholars and the various communities that use the knowledge produced (e.g. Márquez & Porro, 2020). Foregrounding the production of knowledge in multiple languages challenges the ideology of English as the presumed global ‘academic lingua franca’ that currently dominates discussions in research and practice, which are largely driven by the central place accorded to English in

318

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-25

Global Academic Research and Communication Practices

the governmental and institutional regimes that evaluate academics’ work globally (Post, 2014). These ‘evaluation regimes’ (Lillis, 2017) privilege English-​medium articles published in journals included in particular citation indexes, with citations to publications adopted as a key metric of productivity and quality (Lillis & Curry, 2010; Nygaard & Bellanova, 2018; Curry & Lillis, 2022). Yet multilingualism in academic publishing is attested by the use of 67 or more languages in the approximately 49,400 academic, peer-​reviewed journals being produced globally (UlrichsWeb. com; as of April 2022); further, 80 languages are represented in the journals and repositories listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (doaj.org; as of March 2022). To read and contribute texts to multiple communities, scholars draw on their/​our multilingual repertoires while selecting genres and modes for specific texts. In so doing, they/​we may be enacting decolonial stances in opting for non-​hegemonic languages despite hegemonic pressures for using English in publications. We see scholars’ ability to exercise this agency as being grounded in the principles of academic freedom (Moore, 2021) and linguistic human rights (Skutnabb-​Kangas, 2012) in the face of institutional policies and evaluation regimes. To illustrate these dynamics of multilingualism in academic knowledge production, we draw on evidence from the 20-​year longitudinal, text-​ethnographic study by Lillis and Curry on the publishing experiences and practices of 50 scholars in Southern and Central Europe, Professional Academic Writing in a Global Context (PAW). The PAW project findings document how multilingualism is woven into scholars’ multimodal research and communication practices (e.g. Curry & Lillis, 2004, 2014, 2022; Lillis & Curry, 2006, 2010, 2022). We also discuss findings from related research that illuminate how multilingualism is realized in scholars’ practices and communications. Some of these studies themselves exemplify multilingual entextualization by, for example, appending an English-​medium synopsis to a book chapter published in French (Zarate, Gohard-​Radenkovic & Rong, 2015); using Spanish and English in an article advocating for a “translanguaging stance” to be widely adopted at a Hispanic-​serving institution in Texas (Musanti & Cavazos, 2018); and highlighting the potential for meaning-​making of translanguaging in academic texts by alternating the use of different languages in an article (Gentil, 2019; Lillis, 2022). Adding to these examples, here we interweave brief reflections by co-​authors in Arabic, English, Mandarin, Spanish and Kiswahili into our discussion. These reflections highlight the significance of multilingual repertoires for us as co-​authors and for global knowledge making more broadly. Some co-​authors checked their version against the automatic text translator DeepL (DeepL supports Chinese and Spanish but not Arabic and Swahili), or Google Translate. We have included auto-​text of translations of all the commentaries in an appendix to this chapter and we encourage readers to use one of these programmes to access the texts themselves. The chapter concludes by considering approaches to enacting multilingualism in knowledge production and distribution.

Multilingual research practices Regardless of the language chosen for an ultimate text, many scholars draw on different languages at various moments in their/​our research practices, ranging from reading sources (Kuteeva & McGrath, 2014), to designing research studies, to writing grant proposals to collecting and analyzing primary data, to holding face-​to-​face and electronic communications within collaborations (Melo-​Pfeiffer, 2020), to formulating the products of research as conference papers, articles, books and digital genres (Berthauld & Gajo, 2020; Salö, Holmes & Hanell, 2020), to speaking formally and informally at conferences (Ventola, 2002; Villares, 2020; Navarro et al., 2022). Alshehri’s commentary below emphasizes the additional benefit of using multiple languages to seek information, for example, government-​produced statistics as contextual background information for 319

Mary Jane Curry et al.

texts written in social science disciplines. It also points to a potential drawback for globally mobile students and scholars in contexts that may not offer immediate access to resources about their home contexts published in the local language (e.g. sources about Saudi Arabia written in Arabic). Exemplifying the multilingual practices of data collection, Martin,1 a Slovak psychology scholar in the PAW study who took part in a European Union-​sponsored research project, translated the structured interview protocol designed for all project partners so that he could conduct interviews in Slovak and Czech and analyze the resulting data (Curry & Lillis, 2022; for other examples, see Pérez-​Llantada, 2018; Holmes, 2020).

Reflection: The greater availability of certain information in certain languages ‫ وبالرغم من‬.‫ استخدم اللغة العربية واللغة اإلنجليزية بطالقة‬،‫كطالب دكتوراه من المملكة العربية السعودية‬ ‫ إال أنني استخدمها لألغراض األكاديمية واألبحاث العلمية أقل من اللغة‬،‫أن لغتي األولى اللغة العربية‬ ‫ أو عندما يكون من الصعب‬،‫ قد أستخدم العربية حين يكون الموضوع متعلقا بالمجتمع العربي‬.‫اإلنجليزية‬ ‫ على وجه الخصوص بعض البلدان العربية التي ال تكون فيها اللغة‬،‫الوصول إلى بيانات باللغة اإلنجليزية‬ ‫ عندما طلب مني العثور على معلومات تتعلق بالكشاف العربي‬،‫ على سبيل المثال‬.‫اإلنجليزية هي السائدة‬ ‫نظرا إلى أن موضوع أطروحتي يتعلق‬ ً .‫ استخدمت اللغة العربية واللغة اإلنجليزية‬،‫لإلستشهادات المرجعية‬ ً ‫ أحيا ًنا استخدم اللغة العربية للوصول إلى البيانات واإلحصاءات وجمعها التي ربما لم‬،‫أيضا بالمجتمع العربي‬ ‫ لقد ترجمت مستندات إلى اللغة العربية للوصول إلى الجمهور‬،‫ باإلضافة إلى ذلك‬. ‫تنشر باللغة اإلنجليزية‬ ‫ فإني‬،‫ وما عدا ذلك‬.‫ مثل نموذج موافقة أحد الوالدين‬،‫العربي من أجل بعض العلماء الناطقين بغير العربية‬ ‫ من الواضح لي أن معرفة أكثر من لغة له فوائد‬.‫استخدم اللغة اإلنجليزية لألغراض األكاديمية واألبحاث‬ ‫لألغراض األكاديمية والبحثية؛ فالعلماء الذين لديهم قدرة الوصول إلى مصادر في أكثر من لغة فإنهم يحرزون‬ ‫نظرا إلى أن كثيرا من البلدان ال تستخدم اللغة‬ ً .‫معلومات أكثر ويحظون بجمهور ومشاركين على نطاق أوسع‬ ‫ حكوماتها ومنظماتها ووزاراتها غالبا ما تنشر سياساتها وتقاريرها واإلحصائيات‬،‫اإلنجليزية كلغة رسمية‬ ‫ مثل اللغة العربية؛ وبالتالي قد يكون من الصعب على المتحدثين بغيرها‬،‫المتعلقة بها باللغة السائدة المعتمدة‬ .‫الوصول إلى مثل هذه المعلومات‬ Adel Alshehri The linguistic repertoires of members of transnational research collaborations may also inform the choices of working languages, not always conforming to the belief that English is the preferred linguistic medium of such collaborations (e.g. Wöhlert, 2020). In Melo-​Pfeiffer’s study of how 25 academics from seven national contexts participating in a European project managed the project’s communications, the partners chose French as the working language, exhibiting “agency and awareness of the forces at stake” (2020: 311; see also Zarate, Gohard-​Radenkovic & Rong, 2015) in making linguistic choices. The diverse perspectives of collaboration members from different backgrounds add “cognitive advantage” and “cognitive creativity” to the work of transnational research teams, Lüdi argues (2015: 215). Even when an official collaboration language is English, as in a funded transnational Scandinavian project discussed by Kuteeva and McGrath (2014: 379), the daily languages of the work may often be partners’ local/​national languages such as “Swedish or Scandinavian”, the latter being the partners’ term for a mix of Nordic languages. In projects of any size, multilingual scholars draw on various languages to discuss data, ideas, and emerging findings with others involved in the research. Evidence of scholars’ multilingual entextualization practices is made visible by tracing the development of texts across multiple drafts using the ‘text history’ methodology Lillis and Curry (2010) developed in the PAW project and by exploring ‘text clusters’, or sets of related publications for distinct audiences and communities produced from a common research base (Lillis & Curry, 2022).

320

Global Academic Research and Communication Practices

Reflection: Participating in multiple linguistic and academic communities Mimi ni mwanafunzi wa shahada ya udaktari (wa falsafa PhD) katika Chuo Kikuu cha Rochester kutokea Tanzania, Afrika ya mashariki. Ninazungumza Kichaga na Kiswahili kama lugha zangu kuu na pia nimejifunza Kiingereza, Kichina, Kihispania, Kijapani na Kifaransa katika safari yangu ya masomo. Katika uandishi wa kitaaluma, huwa natumia lugha tofauti kwa madhumuni tofauti. Kwa mfano, mimi hutumia Kiswahili kuandaa mawazo yangu ya awali na kupangilia uandishi wangu lakini ninaandika rasimu za kitaaluma kwa Kiingereza. Nilipokuwa nikikusanya data za tasnifu yangu ya shahada ya uzamili, nilitumia Kiswahili kuwasiliana na washiriki wangu wa utafiti kutoka Tanzania kwa sababu ilitufanya tujisikie vizuri na huru kutoa mawazo yetu. Walakini, nilitafsiri data kwa Kiingereza kwa sababu tasnifu ilitakiwa kuandikwa kwa Kiingereza. Vile vile, katika mawasiliano ya kitaaluma, mimi hutumia lugha ya hadhira yangu. Kwa mfano, nilipotaka profesa wa Kihispania tuliyefahamiana kukagua insha zangu za maombi ya elimu ya juu, nilimwandikia barua pepe kwa Kihispania kwani nilihisi kuwa kutumia lugha yake kunaweza kumfanya ajisikie kuwa tayari kunisaidia. Hivi karibuni pia nilipokuwa nikitafuta taarifa za watafiti na majarida yanayochapisha kwa lugha ya Kiswahili, nilitumia Kiswahili kuwauliza waandishi wa Tanzania. Kwa hiyo, kutokana na uwezo wangu wa kutumia lugha mbalimbali pamoja na hizi nilizozitaja, lingekuwa jambo la faida endapo ningeruhusiwa kuzitumia katika uandishi wa kitaaluma kwani zinapanua ujuzi. Badala ya kushinikizwa kuandika katika lugha moja, nadhani majarida yangeweza kuchapisha katika lugha nyingi na kuandaa nakala yenye tafsiri ya kiingereza kama ziada ya lugha anayochagua mwandishi. Onesmo Mushi

Commitments to multilingual identities and communities In the context of evaluation regimes (Lillis, 2017) that increasingly privilege the use of one language –​English –​many scholars use local/​national languages for a range of reasons related to personal and professional identities; to participate in multiple communities, as exemplified in Mushi’s comment, above; and to enact commitments to local/​national cultures and academic communities (Gentil, 2019; Lillis & Curry, 2022). Language is a key aspect of identity and a means of belonging to communities that span the personal and professional, including research-​oriented, practice-​oriented, policy and public audiences who use multiple languages. Mushi’s reflection exemplifies the strategic use of different aspects of his linguistic repertoire to achieve goals including getting a recommendation letter, collecting data, organizing ideas and drafting texts. Deploying multiple languages also supports scholars’ desire to develop multilingual professional identities (Payant & Belcher, 2019) and bolster their/​our career opportunities (Anderson, 2013). For many scholars, not surprisingly, using a local/​national language to produce academic communications is more comfortable and efficient than writing in an additional language. Multilingual scholars participating in various studies have identified using a local/​national language to be, as one Icelandic academic comments, “more rewarding and more authentic” based on familiarity with linguistic features and the contextualized concepts and “ways of thinking” of local academia (Arnbjörnsdottír & Ingvarsdottír, 2018: 72–​74; see also Gentil & Séror, 2014; Langum & Sullivan, 2020). The more discursive texts often written in the social sciences and humanities tend to display, as Kuteeva and Airey (2014: 538) argue, “a stronger authorial presence compared to the sciences,” which scholars may entextualize with greater facility in 321

Mary Jane Curry et al.

local/​national languages. In addition, terminology referring to specific concepts that has emerged in local/​national languages may not translate easily into other languages (Lillis & Curry, 2010; Márquez & Porro, 2020). Multilingualism is also centrally involved in how scholars distribute scholarship to different communities through varying practices. The commonly held view that research communities are ‘international’ (and for this reason use English) while practice-​oriented communities remain ‘local’ (and thus use ‘local’ languages) oversimplifies the actual nature of communities, which often span local, national and transnational sociolinguistic scales (Blommaert, 2010; Lillis & Curry, 2010, Ch. 6). The rise of digital academic genres published on platforms such as websites, blogs, YouTube and Twitter also blurs simple equations of the language(s), knowledge and place (e.g. Ramos, 2017). Instead, multilingual scholars carefully choose where to direct work at given moments based on specific purposes (Gentil & Séror, 2014; Schluer, 2014; Berthauld & Gajo, 2020). This agency is exemplified by Mushi’s communicative choices and counters the prevailing ideology of English as the dominant language of academic communication.

Research communities Against the assumed alignment of certain languages and types of communications for specific communities (i.e. research findings =​ English medium =​ journal articles), a retrospective analysis of the CVs of 12 European psychology and education scholars participating in the PAW study (Lillis & Curry, 2022) shows that scholars consistently use multiple languages to reach research communities. More broadly, research texts published in multiple languages provide important and timely knowledge that is not always made available through English-​medium publications. For example, in Amano et al.’s (2021: 2) ‘meta-​research article’ on the results of biodiversity conservation efforts, when the researchers accounted for publications on this topic in all languages, it “expanded the geographical coverage of English-​language studies by 25%”, enriched with “unique and valuable scientific information”. Scholars’ decisions to publish in local/​national languages also stem from the awareness that academics who read local-​language journals may be more conversant in the theories and methodological approaches that they/​we are seeking to develop, an understanding expressed by Portuguese education scholars Aurelia and Ines, participants in the PAW study (Lillis & Curry, 2010, Ch. 4). They chose to publish an article in a Portuguese-​medium journal, pushing the boundaries of their original theoretical framing –​with which local scholars were familiar –​rather than ‘simplifying’ it, as an English-​medium journal editor demanded. Similarly, the scholars in Smirnova, Lillis and Hultgren (2021: 9) saw Russian-​medium journals as more open to publishing particular paradigms than were certain highly ranked English-​medium journals. Such nuanced understandings of the lived realities of many multilingual scholars are perhaps more visible to academics working ‘on the ground’ than to policymakers who may hold stereotypical views of the extent of mono-​, bi-​or multilingualism among academics, as Lillis’s commentary, below, suggests. Multilingual scholars also enact commitments to developing local research infrastructures to support the production of knowledge independent of the anglophone-​centre’s hold on its distribution (Perrotta & Alonso, 2020; Ramírez-​Castañeda, 2020). For instance, seeing the paucity of Spanish-​medium scientific publications as problematic, Márquez & Porras (2020: 3) “embarked on a path to create content in our native tongue and broaden access to scientific knowledge”. Beyond contributing to the production of research and publications in French, some French-​ speaking scholars in officially bilingual Canada feel a sense of obligation to develop registers of academic French, against the disproportionate status accorded to English (Gentil, 2019; Payant 322

Global Academic Research and Communication Practices

& Belcher, 2019; Payant & Jutras, 2019). In the English-​dominant context of the United States, speakers and researchers of languages such as Spanish and Turkish use these languages in research and publishing (Cavazos, 2015; Fuentes & Gómez-​Soler, 2018). In examples such as these, multilingual scholars resist the hierarchical power accorded to English as the presumed language of knowledge production through individual and collective activities. Indigenous languages have also been recruited for the distribution of research in efforts to sustain both these languages and the cultures in which they are grounded. In two examples, scholars use Northern Sámi in writing about research conducted in Northern Scandinavia (Thingnes, 2020) and in Hawai’ian, a language accepted for use in three of the journals identified by Koller and Thompson in their survey of the prevalence of the indigenous languages of Oceania in publications (2021). The Directory of Open Access Journals catalogs publications produced in Africa that use Sesotho, Swahili and Amharic, in addition to English and other colonial languages (Ezema & Onyancha 2017: 107). The growth of publications in these languages shows authors enacting commitments beyond reaching the widest possible audience or publishing in the most rewarded venues, again pushing against the power of linguistic hierarchies that position English as the top in terms of global knowledge production.

Reflection: the myth of monolingualism in academia Como soy una académica del , en términos de mi ubicación geo-​ institucional (Reino Unido) y de mi historia educativa (estudié en el Reino Unido e Irlanda), a menudo se supone que soy monolingüe (en inglés). Sí es verdad que a lo largo de los años he aprendido a manejar un discurso académico adecuado en inglés (y así asumir unas prácticas semióticas de la clase media). Sin embargo • el español también es mi idioma de comunicación cotidiano –​con mi pareja e hijos, mi familia extensa y mis amigos. • a diario (ej. correos electrónicos, redes sociales) leo en español, inglés, y portugués y francés. • he presentado y publicado en francés, español e ingles. ¿Importa la invisibilidad pública de mi multilingüismo en el mundo académico? Si solo se tratase de mí –​No. Pero como ilustración de un fenómeno más amplio, sí importa porque esta invisibilidad contribuye a sostener el mito del inglés y del monolingüismo como norma (e ideal) socioacadémica, tanto en el como globalmente. Enmascara el trabajo intelectual oculto que –​ para muchísima gente –​ es de naturaleza multilingüe y no monolingüe. Un pequeño ejemplo de mi propio aprendizaje: aunque leí a Bakhtin traducido al inglés, fue mi lectura de la novela picaresca española la que me permitió comprender su concepto de карнавал. Importa porque los sistemas de evaluación de los países anglófonos no valoran (en realidad desalientan) el uso de lenguas que no sean el inglés y, por lo tanto, actúan contra el intercambio de conocimientos multi/​translingüísticos que se deberían de reconocer como poderosos recursos intelectuales para tod@s. Theresa Lillis 323

Mary Jane Curry et al.

Practice, policy and public communities Publications aimed at practice, policy and public audiences may use English (Petric, 2014; Lillis, 2012), but often use local/​national or regional languages to share knowledge relevant to local issues, debates and dilemmas (Kulcyzki et al., 2020; Stockemer & Wigginton, 2019; Pölönen et al., 2021), though English may also serve this purpose. For example, the Egyptian social scientists participating in Shehata and Eldakar (2018) preferred to publish in Arabic to make their work available to local communities. The desire to support the development of local practice communities also motivates scholars’ choices of language. For instance, Slovak education scholar Olivia, a participant in the PAW study, believed her research team comprising local schoolteachers and graduate students would benefit more by producing Slovak-​language publications as a result of their participation in a transnational literacy research project funded by the European Union, rather than English-​medium publications (Curry & Lillis, 2010). Olivia’s awareness that local readers may not have high levels of proficiency in academic English or access to costly journals published in English is echoed in other research (Lillis & Curry, 2013; Ramírez-​Castañeda, 2020). Alongside scholars’ individual commitments to communicate research to local publics (Kuteeva & McGrath, 2014), many governments funding research require scholars to distribute the resulting knowledge to the public. These developments have prompted the multilingual use of digital platforms to share research with multiple communities (Luzón & Pérez-​Llantada, 2022). Spanish academics’ blogs, for example, feature Spanish, English, Catalan and other languages to communicate with researchers and the public (Luzón, 2018). To popularize the communication of research to people in local communities, videos have been created in Guaraní, an indigenous language in Paraguay and nearby Latin American countries, and Tsonga, used in Mozambique (Ramos, 2017). Public audiences may include politicians and policymakers because, as Harbord (2018: 88) points out, “many key policy debates continue to be resolved at national levels and in national languages.” Scholars who engage in policy debates can thus serve as a conduit for academic knowledge to reach policymakers.

Variations across disciplines Beyond individual and geolinguistic variations in multilingualism in research practices and communications for different communities, disciplinary trends exist in terms of selecting genres and languages. The frequent claim that English dominates scientific articles in academic, peer-​reviewed journals is based on metrics showing English used in around 95% of journals included in the high-​status Clarivate Analytics indexes. An analysis of languages used in these journals, however, shows many languages persisting and English being used less extensively than has been assumed (Curry & Lillis, 2022). Increasingly, scientists are recognizing that multiple languages are needed to gather data on and distribute information about urgent issues such as global climate and public health (e.g. Purnell & Quevedo-​Blasco, 2013; Perrotta & Alonso, 2020; Hunter, North & Slowtow, 2021), among other topics. For example, an analysis of the CVs of 1,874 Brazilian scholars showed that agricultural scientists publish more in Portuguese than English, as compared with other scientists, who showed the opposite pattern (Baumvol, Sarmento & da Luz Fontes, 2021). Over time, Japanese researchers working in three medical subspecialities, according to Muller and Gallagher (2021), have increased their use of Japanese in conference presentations, case reports and review articles while shifting to English for research articles.

324

Global Academic Research and Communication Practices

As discussed, multilingual scholars in social sciences and humanities disciplines may identify strongly with local or regional disciplinary, intellectual and epistemological traditions, which can influence not only language choices and rhetorical styles but also scholars’ commitments to research topics, methodologies, and theoretical lenses (Bennett, 2014). Especially in humanities disciplines focusing on local/​national languages, literatures and cultures, the languages that scholars choose for publications vary considerably (Duszak, 2006; Kuteeva & Airey, 2014). Burgess identifies these disciplines as representing “sites of potential resistance to the implicit privilege of publication in English” (2017: 15). Using the life-​history approach to yield a longitudinal view of six Spanish humanities scholars’ publishing practices, Burgess documents the tactical responses enabling scholars to continue to publish in multiple languages despite pressures for English-​medium publications. Likewise, Curry and Lillis (2014) draw on de Certeau to distinguish between scholars’ ‘strategies’ for publishing in ways that align with their evaluation regimes (Lillis, 2012) and ‘tactics’ for publishing in ways that may not align yet enable them to achieve personal objectives.

Reflection: language and culture in academic communication 我是一名在美国攻读博士学位的中国留学生。我能熟练使用中英文和用西班牙语进 行简单读写，但却很少在学习和工作中用到英语之外的语言。本科的沉浸式英语环 境让我养成了用英文读写和思考的习惯。因此，英语是我最流利的学术语言。不 过，我会结合中英文与同事进行交流以提高我们对话的效率和准确度。此外，如果 研究话题和对象与中国有关，我也会用中文收集数据。在美国这些年，我意识到语 言不仅是学术交流的重要媒，也是文化的关键载体。基于我的教育背景，我所接触 的术语、理论和方法论大多来自西方国家，尤其是英语国家。因此，英语和西方文 化深深影响了我的认知和思考方式。然而，我并不认可这样的现状。我不愿因为西 方国家现阶段在学术界的优势地位而放弃自己通过母语学习和研究的机会。同时， 我也希望各国学者可以拥有选择学术语言的能力和自由，为学术届的整体发展以及 其多样化和公平化作出贡献。 Xiatinghan Xu

Variations across scholars’ careers Research on multilingual scholars’ publishing practices also challenges the ‘lore’ about career moments when scholars might opt to use different languages (Curry & Lillis, 2019). Studies show senior scholars in contexts such as Poland publishing more in the local/​national language than do junior scholars (Warchał & Zakrajewski, 2021), while other research reports that scholars who had previously responded to pressures for English-​medium publishing later felt freer to use other languages as they achieved senior status (e.g. Fuentes & Gómez-​Soler, 2018). In the retrospective CV analysis by Lillis and Curry (2022), mentioned above, of the publications of 12 scholars in the PAW study, all of these scholars had published in two or more languages across the length of their careers, with no strong patterns of language use over time. Professional and personal circumstances and preferences influence the extent to which scholars write for publication in multiple languages, which requires more time and effort than publishing in one language (Hanauer, Sheridan & Englander, 2019). Collaborating with students and junior faculty colleagues and participating in funded projects may prompt scholars to engage in greater publishing activity using multiple languages (Burgess, 2017). On the other hand, administrative responsibilities, heavy teaching loads, and family caretaking can reduce the available time (especially women’s) for publishing in 325

Mary Jane Curry et al.

multiple languages (Lillis & Curry, 2018). Multilingual scholars’ knowledge distribution practices thus entail a complex interplay of language(s), intellectual traditions and knowledges produced for various communities (Lillis & Curry, 2022). While linguistic variation appears to be the norm, what remains constant are understandings of the choices and trade-​offs to be made. Xu’s commentary, above, expresses her understanding of how not only a Western language (English), but also theories and research methods originating in the West, have influenced her educational trajectory, but have not erased her desire to use Chinese when feasible.

Multilingualism in academic journals As noted, globally at least 80 languages are used in peer-​reviewed academic journals, at a minimum those cataloged by Ulrichs.com and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Local/​national language and multilingual journals provide spaces for authors who prefer to use the local/​national language, including PhD students who are coming under increasing pressure to publish for degree requirements or career prospects (e.g. in Kazakhstan, as discussed in Kuzhabekova, 2018). In addition to being more open to local topics and qualitative research methodologies, Russian journals were seen by the scholars in Smirnova, Lillis and Hultgren (2021) as offering faster publishing timelines than English-​medium journals, enabling scholars to meet productivity goals set by their evaluation regimes. The landscape of local/​national/​regional journal publishing shifts frequently in response to global pressures for scholars to produce greater research output overall; in some cases, the number of local/​national journals has increased “to overcome the perceived dominance of international journals and to address the significant barriers to getting published … in some emerging countries” (Meneghini, 2012: 106). In other cases, counts of local/​national journals have decreased as systems of higher education aim to regularize the production of journals that can help their institutions rise in rankings (Fussy, 2018). Attempting to count journals published in multiple languages is made difficult because of whether and how they are included in indexes and directories. This task is more challenging with bi/​multilingual journals, as articles published in a local/​national language that also include English-​medium titles and abstracts, one requirement of anglophone indexing services such as Clarivate Analytics, may be characterized only as English medium (see Curry & Lillis, 2022). While some journals have long published in multiple languages (e.g. Education Policy Analysis Archives, https://​epaa.asu.edu/​ojs/​index.php/​epaa), other journals have more recently added English to become bilingual and thus be accepted into citation indexes, as Sheridan (2018) reports for English Teaching and Learning (www.sprin​ger.com/​jour​nal/​42321; see also Kamwendo, 2014). Bi/​multilingualism as a means of knowledge distribution is a key vision of some newer journals, such as Cahiers de l’ILOB, a Canadian French–​English journal begun in 2010 (https://​uott​awa.sch​ olar​spor​tal.info/​ott​awa/​index.php/​ILOB-​OLBI/​about). Although such journals focusing on topics in language and education may be more predictably multilingual, journals covering social and natural sciences are also represented, particularly among open-​access journals (Shen, 2017; Pölönen et al., 2021). Indeed, the open access movement advocates for journals to be published in multiple languages (Salager-​Meyer, 2018) to distribute academic knowledge “beyond academia to support, for example, teaching, learning, enlightenment, critical debate, professional practice, innovation, and decision-​making” (Pölönen et al., 2021: 2). Approximately 100 open-​access journals are included in the Journal.fī platform, nearly 80% in Finnish. Likewise, Chinese is the predominant language of publication of Chinese open-​access journals (Shen, 2017). As many of these platforms are hosted by governments or non-​governmental agencies, they facilitate the distribution of 326

Global Academic Research and Communication Practices

knowledge more broadly than do most proprietary publishers. As Curry’s reflection below exemplifies, anglophone-​centre based scholars often have more complex linguistic repertoires than is sometimes assumed which can be used for a range of academic purposes.

Reflection: on translation and knowledge distribution English has been my dominant language in daily life and academic work growing up and working mainly in the United States. I studied French from ages 12 to 20 and had a year of Latin in high school. As an undergraduate, I studied Ancient Greek for two years and spent a semester in France, where I wrote academically. In my graduate programs I added study of Spanish and German. I used French and Spanish in tourism and as a translator into English –​first, a French-​language biology article for a friend; later, a Spanish-​medium book on biodiversity for popular audiences while living in Costa Rica. Scientific translation felt straightforward because of cognates but when I encountered Spanish literature extracts in the biodiversity book, I sought help. I have not attempted formal academic writing in Spanish. More recently, he leído textos académicos en español y en francés. Además, he usado el español para hacer investigaciones: lo uso para entrevistas y focus groups, también en mensajes electrónicos y para conversaciones informales con los participantes de investigaciónes y colegas que vienen de países hispanohablantes. My privilege as an educated speaker of ‘standard’ American English allows me to settle for being underprepared for academic writing or giving talks in other languages, aunque me gustaría hacerlo. More broadly, the possibilities that translation platforms such as DeepL offer for distributing academic work are intriguing. Supporting the translation of academic journals and books would provide readers with greater access to texts in multiple languages and might challenge publishing taboos on distributing the same work to multiple audiences. Mary Jane Curry

Discussion: supporting multilingual knowledge production In this chapter we have outlined the central and complex uses of multilingual repertoires in academic knowledge production and distribution, which persist despite the felt hegemony of English in scholarly publishing. Some of these practices, such as open-​access journal platforms and digital genres adopting multiple languages, align with the Open Science movement’s call for “bibliodiversity” as seen in new models of knowledge distribution that include open data sources, open peer review and open access journals. As Shearer et al. (2020) argue, in challenging the ideology of monolingualism of academic publishing that emphasizes the benefits of the supposed greater discoverability of research published in one shared language (English): A diversity of languages in academic publishing will not result in content being less accessible globally as long as it is supported by a specific effort to increase discoverability (with metadata in several languages, for example) and translation enabled by the new generation of translation technologies. p. 5 Multilingualism is at the core of academic knowledge production globally. However, to sustain multilingual publishing agendas, institutional support is needed. Although policies in many 327

Mary Jane Curry et al.

contexts do reward publications in local/​national or regional languages, in general they currently value publishing in English more highly (Curry & Lillis, 2014). Conversations about how evaluation regimes might account for and reward the digital academic genres scholars use for public outreach may provide an opening for reassessing how other genres using local/​national languages are valued, including the current but often unsanctioned practice of drawing on multilingual repertoires to create ‘equivalent’ versions of texts for different communities (Lillis & Curry, 2010). The rise of online journal production and distribution, whether open or closed access, creates technical affordances for journal websites to host complete versions of texts in multiple languages, going beyond the common practice of translating only titles and abstracts. Different models of multilingual publishing have been proposed. Sequential publication involves the source text appearing first in a local/​national language with subsequent translation into other languages (Morley & Kerans, 2013). Similarly, Dołowy-​Rybińska (2021) suggests that authors submit manuscripts using their/​our preferred language and postpone translation if and until the article is accepted. Another model is simultaneous publication, with journals/​publishers funding the work of translators and authors’ editors, who could, as Morley and Kerans (2013: 129) suggest, access disciplinary subspecialty corpora to provide accurate and consistent terminology. Improved digital translation tools such as DeepL and Google Translate also enable authors to translate texts as academic sources –​as part of self-​editing or in conjunction with language and literacy brokers (Lillis & Curry, 2006) –​and readers to engage with multiple languages through translation (e.g. Gentil, 2019; Lillis, 2022). Most of this chapter’s commentaries have used these platforms, whether as a technological affordance or for inquiry into the nature of their results. Nonetheless, evidence that global linguistic hierarchies remain influential is seen by identifying which languages are currently being supported on digital translation platforms. While English, Spanish and Chinese are supported by both DeepL and Google Translate, fewer languages are translatable via the free version of DeepL, which currently offers only 26, mainly European, languages. The preparation of students is another domain for multilingualism to be recognized and supported, rather than backgrounded for English (Langum & Sullivan, 2020). Kaufhold (2018: 1) argues that academic literacy courses can provide a space for students to “draw on their linguistic resources” in learning new communication practices. The commentaries by the PhD student co-​ authors of this chapter signal the range of ways that drawing on their multilingual repertoires can benefit their research and writing. Involving multiple languages in pedagogies for academic writing and oral and digital communications would also sustain academic registers in multiple languages (Payant & Belcher, 2019). The multilingual text examples mentioned in the Introduction signal a growing role for translingualism in academic publishing, another manifestation of scholars’ multilingual repertoires. In this chapter we have aimed to show how multilingualism, rather than withering away in the face of English, is thriving across the range of academic research and communication practices globally, based on scholars’ agentive use of their/​our linguistic repertoires in different ways and for different purposes. Our discussion supports the aims of recent movements such as the Manifesto in Defence of Scientific Multilingualism (Remesal Rodríguez, 2016) and the Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication (www.helsi​nki-​ini​tiat​ive.org/​) as well as the growing recognition by governments and funding agencies that knowledge must be shared beyond academic communities using only English (Harbord, 2018) to the broader world of scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and public audiences.

328

Global Academic Research and Communication Practices

Related topics Chapter 11 Multilingual literacies; Chapter 16 Opening up spaces for multilingual learning and teaching practices in South African higher education; Chapter 24 Multilingualism in the workplace; Chapter 27 Multilingualism and translation.

Note 1 A pseudonym, as are all names used in examples given.

Further reading Gentil, G. 2019. Translanguaging and multilingual academic literacies: how do we translate these into French? Pour en faire quoi? (et pourquoi s’en faire?). Cahiers de l’ILOB 10: 3–​41. DOI: 10.18192/​olbiwp. v10i0.3831. Lillis, T. & Curry, M.J. 2022. The dynamics of academic knowledge making in a multilingual world: chronotypes of production. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 3(1), pp. 109–​ 142. DOI 10.1075/​JERPP.22022.lil. Navarro, F., Lillis, T., Donohue, T., Curry, M.J., Avila Reyes, N., Gustafsson, M., Zavala, V., Lauría, D., Lukin, A., McKinney, C., Motta-​Roth, D. 2022. English as a “lingua franca” in scientific-​academic contexts: a position statement. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 3(1): 143–​153. DOI 10.1075/​JERPP.21012.nav. Nygaard, L., and Bellanova, R. 2018. Lost in quantification: scholars and the politics of bibliometrics. In Curry, M.J., and Lillis, T.M., Eds. Global Academic Publishing: Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 23–​36.

References Alamri, B. 2021. Multilingual scholars’ experiences in publishing in the social sciences and humanities: attitudes, obstacles, and initiatives in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 52(4): 248–​272. https://​doi.org/​10.3138/​jsp.52.4.04 Amano, T., Berdejo-​Espinola, V., Christie, A.P., Willott, K., Akasaka, M., Báldi, A., Berthinussen, A., Bertolino, S. & Bladon, A.J. 2021. Tapping into non-​English-​language science for the conservation of global biodiversity. PLOS Biology. https:doi.org/​10.1371/​jour​nal.pbio.3001​296. Anderson, L. 2013. Publishing strategies of young, highly mobile academics: the question of language in the European context. Language Policy 12: 273–​288. DOI: 10.1007/​s10993-​013-​9272-​0 Arnbjörnsdottír, B. & Ingvarsdottír, H. 2018. Issues of identity and voice: writing English for research purposes in the semiperiphery. In Global Academic Publishing: Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies. M.J. Curry & T.M. Lillis, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 73–​87. Baumvol, L., Sarmento, S. & da Luz Fontes, A.B.A. 2021. Scholarly publication of Brazilian researchers across disciplinary communities. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes. 2(1): 5–​29. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jerpp.20012.bau Bennett, K. 2014. Toward an epistemological monoculture: mechanisms of epistemicide in European research publication. In English as a Scientific and Research Language: Debates and Discourses. R.P. Alastrué & C. Pérez-​Llantada, Eds. Berlin: deGruyter. 9–​35. Berthaud, A. & Gajo, L. 2020. The Multilingual Challenge for the Construction and Transmission of Scientific Knowledge. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Blommaert, J. 2010. A Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burgess, S. 2017. Accept or contest: a life-​history study of humanities scholars’ responses to research evaluation policies in Spain. In Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language: Practices, Pathways and Potentials. M. Cargill & S. Burgess, Eds. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press. 13–​31. Cavazos, A. 2015. Multilingual faculty across academic disciplines: language difference in scholarship. Language and Education. 29(4): 317–​331. DOI: 10.1080/​09500782.2015.1014375.

329

Mary Jane Curry et al. Cernovica-​Buca, M. 2021. Language preferences in Romanian communication sciences journals: a web-​ based analysis. Publications. 9(1): 11. https://​doi.org/​10.3390/​publ​icat​ions​9010​011 Curry, M.J. & Lillis, T.M. 2004. Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly. 38(4): 663–​688. Curry, M.J. & Lillis, T.M. 2010. Academic research networks: accessing resources for English-​medium publishing. English for Specific Purposes. 29(4): 281–​295. Curry, M.J. & Lillis, T.M. 2014. Strategies and tactics in academic knowledge production by multilingual scholars. Educational Policy Analysis Archives. 22(31). http://​dx.doi.org/​10.14507/​epaa.v22​n32.2014. Curry, M.J. & Lillis, T. 2019. Unpacking the lore on multilingual scholars publishing in English: a discussion paper. Publications. 7(2): 27. DOI:10.3390/​publications7020027. Curry, M.J. & Lillis, T. 2022. Multilingualism in academic writing for publication: putting English in its place. Language Teaching. DOI:10.1017/​S0261444822000040. Dołowy-​Rybińska, N. 2021. Publishing policy: toward counterbalancing the inequalities in academia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 267–​268: 99–​104. https://doi.org/10.1515/ ijsl-2020-0090. Duszak, A. 2006. Looking globally, seeing locally: exploring some myths of globalization in academia. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses. 53: 35–​45. Ezema, I.J. & Onyancha, O.B. 2017. Open access publishing in Africa: advancing research outputs to global visibility. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Sciences. 27(2): 97–​115. Fuentes, R. & Gómez Soler, I. 2018. Foreign language faculty’s appropriation of an academic publishing policy at a US university. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 39(3): 195–​209. DOI: 10.1080/​01434632.2017.1344243. Fussy, D.S. 2018. Policy directions for promoting university research in Tanzania. Studies in Higher Education. 43(9): 1573–​1585. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​03075​079.2016.1266​611. García, O. 2009. Education, multilingualism, and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Social Justice through Multilingual Education. T. Skutnabb-​Kangas, R. Phillipson, A.K. Mohanty & M. Panda, Eds. Bristol,: Multilingual Matters. 140–​158. Gentil, G. 2019. Translanguaging and multilingual academic literacies: how do we translate these into French? Pour en faire quoi? (et pourquoi s’en faire?). Cahiers de l’ILOB 10. 3–​41. DOI: 10.18192/​olbiwp.v10i0.3831. Gentil, G. & Séror, J. 2014. Canada has two official languages –​or does it? Case studies of Canadian scholars’ language choices and practices in disseminating knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 13: 17–​30. Hanauer, D.I., Sheridan, C. & Englander, K. 2019. Linguistc injustice in the writing of research articles in English as a second language: data from Taiwanese and Mexican researchers. Written Communication. 36(1): 136–​154 DOI:10.1177/​0741088318804821. Harbord, J. 2018. Language policy and the disengagement of the international academic elite. In Global Academic Publishing: Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies. M.J. Curry & T.M. Lillis, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 88–​102. Herrando, I. 2021. A question of balance: the scholarly publication trajectory of a dual profile language professional. In Scholarly Publication Trajectories of Early Career Researchers. P. Habibie & S. Burgess, Eds. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://​doi.org./​10.107/​978-​3-​030-​85784-​4_​13. Holmes, L. 2020. Disrupting dual monolingualisms? Language ideological ordering in an internationalizing Swedish university. In Language Perceptions and Practices in Multilingual Universities. M. Kuteeva, K. Kaufhold & N. Hynninen, Eds. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://​doi.10.1007/​978-​3-​30-​38755-​6_​11. Hunter, N.B., North, M.A. & Slowtow, R. 2021. The marginalization of voice in the fight against climate change: the case of Lusophone Africa. Environmental Science and Policy. 120: 213–​221. https://​ j.envsci.2021.03.012. Kamwendo, G. 2014. Language policies of South African accredited journals in humanities and social sciences: are they speaking the language of transformation? Alternation: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of the Arts and Humanities in Southern Africa. 21(2): 207–​222. ISSN 1023–​1757. Kaufhold, K. 2018. Creating translanguaging spaces in students’ academic writing practices. Linguistics and Education. 45: 1–​9. DOI: doi.org/​10.1016/​j.linged.2018.02.001. Koller, E. & Thompson, M. 2021. The representation of indigenous languages of Oceania in academic publications. Publications. 9: 20. https://​doi.org/​10.3390/​publ​icat​ions​9020​020. Kulczyki, E., Guns, R., Pölönen, J., Engels, T., Rozkosz, E., Zuccala, A., Bruun, K., Eskola, O., Starčič, A.I., Petr, M. & Sivertsen, G. 2020. Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: a seven-​country

330

Global Academic Research and Communication Practices European study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71: 1371–​1385. DOI: 10.1002/​asi.24336. Kuteeva, M. & Airey, J. 2014. Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher Education. 67: 533–​ 549. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-013-9660-6 Kuteeva, M. & McGrath, L. 2014. Taming “Tyrannosaurus Rex”: English use in the research and publication practices of humanities scholars in Sweden. Multilingua. 3(3–​4): 365–​387. https://doi.org/10.1515/ multi-2014-0017. Kuzhabekova, A. 2018. The reaction of scholarly journals to impact-​factor publication requirements in Kazakhstan. In Global Academic Publishing: Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies. M.J. Curry & T.M. Lillis, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 121–​135. Langum, V. & Sullivan, K.P.H. 2020. Academic writing, scholarly identity, voice and the benefits and challenges of multilingualism: reflections from Norwegian doctoral researchers in teacher education. Linguistics and Education. 60: 100883. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ged.2020.100​883. Lillis, T. 2012. Economies of signs in writing for academic publication: the case of English medium “national” journals. Journal of Advanced Composition (JAC). 32(3–​4): 695–​72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41709849 Lillis, T. 2017. Resistir regímenes de evaluación en el estudio del escribir: hacia un imaginario enriquecido. Signo y Pensamiento. 36(71): 66–​81. ISSN 0120-​4823. Lillis, T. 2022. ¿Academic literacies: intereses locales, preocupaciones globales? academic literacies: local interests, global concerns? In Contribuciones Multilingües a la Investigación en Escritura: Hacia un Intercambio Académico Igualitario [Multilingual Contributions to Writing Research: Towards an Equal Academic Exchange]. N. Avila-​Reyes, Ed. The WAC Clearinghouse. DOI: 10.37514/​INT-​B.2021.1404.2.01 Lillis, T.M. & Curry, M.J. 2006. Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-​medium texts. Written Communication. 23(1): 3–​35. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754. Lillis, T.M. & Curry, M.J. 2010. Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. London & New York: Routledge. Lillis, T.M. & Curry, M.J. 2013. English, scientific publishing and participation in the global knowledge economy. In English and International Development. E. Erling & P. Sargeant, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 220–​242. Lillis, T. & Curry, M.J. 2018. Trajectories of knowledge and desire: multilingual women scholars researching and writing in academia. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 32(1): 53–​66. DOI: 10.1016/​ j.jeap.2018.03.008. Lillis, T. & Curry, M.J. 2022. The dynamics of academic knowledge making in a multilingual world: chronotypes of production. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes. 3(1): 109–​142. DOI: 10.1075/​ JERPP.22022.lil. Lüdi, G. 2015. Monolingualism and multilingualism in the construction and dissemination of scientific knowledge. In The Multilingual Challenge: Cross-​Disciplinary Perspectives. U. Jessner-​Schmid & C. Kramsch, Eds. Berlin: De Gruyter. 213–​238. Luzón, M.J. 2018. Constructing academic identities online: identity performance in research group blogs written by multilingual scholars. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33: 24–​39. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1016/​j.jeap.2018.01.004. Luzón, M.J. & Pérez-​ Llantada, C. 2022. Digital Genres in Knowledge Production and Communication: Perspectives and Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Márquez, M.C. & Porro, A.M. 2020. Science communication in multiple languages is critical to its effectiveness, Frontiers in Communication. 5(31). DOI: 10.3398/​fcomm.2020.00031. Melo-​Pfeifer, S. 2020. Is it just ‘black’ or ‘white’? Multilingual collaborative research seen through the practices of an international research team. European Journal of Higher Education. 10(3): 308–​324. DOI: 10.1080/​21568235.2020.1777447. Meneghini, R. 2012. Emerging journals: the benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports. 13(2): 106–​108. https:// doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.252. Monteiro, K. & Hirano, E. 2020. A periphery inside a semi-​periphery: the uneven participation of Brazilian scholars in the international community. English for Specific Purposes 58: 15–​29. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.esp.2019.11.001. Moore, S. 2021. Open access, Plan S and “radically liberatory” forms of academic freedom. Development and Change. 52(6): 1513–​1525. DOI: 10.1111/​dech.12640.

331

Mary Jane Curry et al. Morley, G. & Kerans, M.E. 2013. Bilingual publication of academic journals: motivations and practicalities. In Supporting Research Writing: Roles and Challenges in Multilingual Settings. V. Matarese, Ed. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Chandos/​Springer. 121–​137. Muller, T. & Gallagher, N. 2021. Faculty publication trends in a Japanese national university’s medical faculty: a preliminary diachronic comparison. Journal of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Toyoma. 2: 1–​13. https://​ci.nii.ac.jp/​naid/​12000​6978​400/​. Mur-​Dueñas, P. 2012. Getting research published internationally in English: an ethnographic account of a team of Finance Spanish scholars’ struggles. Ibérica. 24: 139–​155. Mur-​Dueñas, P. 2019. The experience of a NNES outer circle novice scholar in scholarly publication. In Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication. P. Habibie & K. Hyland, Eds. 97–​115. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Musanti, S.I. & Cavazos, A.G. 2018. ‘Siento que siempre tengo que regresar al inglés’: embracing a translanguaging stance in a Hispanic-​serving institution. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages. 5(2): 44–​61. DOI http://​dx.doi.org/​10.21283/​23769​05X.9.147. Navarro, F., Lillis, T., Donohue, T., Curry, M.J., Avila Reyes, N., Gustafsson, M., Zavala, V., Lauría, D., Lukin, A., McKinney, C. & Motta-​Roth, D. 2022. English as a “lingua franca” in scientific-​academic contexts. a position statement. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes. 3(1): 143–​153. DOI 10.1075/​JERPP.21012.nav. Nygaard, L. & Bellanova, R. 2018. Lost in quantification: scholars and the politics of bibliometrics. In Global Academic Publishing: Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies. M.J. Curry & T.M. Lillis, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 23–​36. Olmos-​López, P. 2019. Back and forth between languages: an early-​career bilingual academic’s writing odyssey. Critical Multilingualism Studies. 7(1): 32–​43. ISSN 2325-​2871. Payant, C. & Belcher, D. 2019. The trajectory of a multilingual academic: striving for academic literacy and publication success in a mother tongue. Critical Multilingualism Studies. 7(1): 11–​31. ISSN 2325–​2871. Payant, C. & Jutras, D. 2019. Doctoral candidates’ motivation for using French for research publication purposes in a multilingual environment. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education. 36(1): 1–​14. https://​ dergip​ark.org.tr/​en/​downl​oad/​arti​cle-​file/​780​316. Pérez-​Llantada, C. 2018. Bringing into focus multilingual realities: faculty perceptions of academic languages on campus. Lingua. 212: 30–​43. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​gua.2018.05.006. Perrotta, D. & Alonso, M. 2020. Cross-​national research partnerships in international relations: a study of research groups’ practices of MERCOSUR –​re-​envisioning scholarly activities beyond the global North-​global South divide. Journal of Studies in International Education. 24(1): 79–​96. DOI: 10.1177/​ 1028315319887390. Petric, B. 2014. English-​medium journals in Serbia: editors’ perspectives. In The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourses, Communities and Practices. K. Bennett, Ed. 189–​209. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pölönen, J., Syrjämäki, S., Nygård, A-​J. & Hammarfelt, B. 2021. Who are the users of national open access journals? The case of the Finnish Journal.fi platform. Learned Publishing. DOI: 10.1002/​leap.1405. Post, D. 2014. The future of education research publishing: challenges and responses, introduction to special issue. Education Policy Analysis Archives 22(26). DOI: http://​dx.doi/​org/​10.14507/​epaa.v22​n26.2014. Pouris, A. & Ho, Y-​S. 2014. Research emphasis and collaboration in Africa. Scientometrics. 98: 2169–​2184. DOI 10.1007/​s11192-​013-​1156-​8. Purnell, P.J. & Quevedo-​Blasco, R. 2013. Benefits to the Spanish research community of regional content expansion in Web of Science. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 13(2): 147–​154. DOI: https://​doi.org/​10.1371/​jour​nal.pone.0238​372. Ramírez-​Castañeda, V. 2020. Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: the case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences. PLoS ONE. 15(9): e0238372. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1371/​journal.pone.0238372 Ramos, A. 2017. Research videos in indigenous languages. Nature 551: 168. https://doi.org/10.1038/ d41586-017-05731-0. Remesal Rodríguez, J. 2016. Manifesto in Defense of Scientific Multilingualism. Translated by S. Keay. www. obs​erva​toir​eplu​rili​ngui​sme.eu/​ima​ges/​Pétiti​ons/​4_​Man​ifie​sto-​EN.pdf. Salager-​Meyer, F. 2018. Open access: the next model for research dissemination? In Global Academic Publishing: Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies. M.J. Curry & T.M. Lillis, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 184–​199. Sälo, L., Holmes, L. & Hanell, L. 2020. National languages matter in academic career trajectories. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies. Paper 269.

332

Global Academic Research and Communication Practices Schluer, J. 2014. Writing for publication in linguistics: exploring niches of multilingual publishing among German linguists. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16: 1–​ 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeap.2014.06.001. Shearer, K., Chan, L., Kuchma, I. & Mounier, P. 2020. Fostering bibliodiversity in scholarly communications: a call for action. Zenodo. DOI:10.5281/​zenodo.3752923. Shehata, K. & Eldakar, M. 2018. Publishing research in the international context: an analysis of Egyptian social sciences scholars’ academic writing behaviour. The Electronic Library. 36(5): 910–​924. https://​doi. org/​10.1108/​EL-​01-​2017-​0005. Shen, C. 2017. Open access scholarly journal publishing in Chinese. Publications 5: 22. DOI: 10.3390/​ publications5040022. Sheridan, C. 2018. Blind peer review at an English language teaching journal in Taiwan: glocalized practices within the globalization of higher education. In Global academic publishing: Policies, perspectives and pedagogies. M.J. Curry & T.M. Lillis, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 136–​150. Skutnabb-​Kangas, T. 2012. Linguistic human rights. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. P.M. Tiersma & L. Solan, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 235–​248. Smirnova, N.V., Lillis, T. & Hultgren, A.K. 2021. English and/​or Russian medium publications? A case study exploring academic research writing in contemporary Russian academia. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 53: 101015. Strauss, P. 2017. ‘It’s not the way we use English’: can we resist the native speaker stranglehold on academic publications? Publications. 5(27). DOI: 10.3390/​publications5040027. Stockemer, D. & Wigginton, M.J. 2019. Publishing in English or another language: an inclusive study of scholars’ language publication preferences in the natural, social and interdisciplinary sciences. Scientometrics. 118(2): 645–​652. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​192-​018-​2987-​0. Thingnes, J.S. 2020. Making linguistic choices at a Sámi university: negotiating visions and demands. Current Issues in Language Planning. 21(2): 153–​174. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14664​208.2019.1671​712. Ventola, E. 2002. Should I speak English or German? Conferencing and language code issues. In The Language of Conferencing. E. Ventola, C. Shalom & S. Thompson, Eds. Frankfurt/​Berlin/​New York: Peter Lang. 332–​360. Villares, R. 2020. The challenges and opportunities of multilingual academia: Spanish scholars’ language choice in research and teaching practices. International Journal of Synergy and Research. 16(2): 131–​152. Warchał, K. & Zakrajewski, P. 2021. Multilingual publication practices in the social sciences and humanities at a Polish university: choices and pressures. International Journal of Multilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/​ 14790718.2021.1966432. Wöhlert, R. 2020. Communication in international collaborative research teams: a review of the state of the art and open research questions. Studies in Communication and Media. 9(2): 151–​217. DOI: 10.5771/​ 2192-​4007-​2020-​2-​151. Zarate, G., Gohard-​Radenkovic, A. & Rong, F. 2015. Le précis du plurilinguisme et du pluriculturalisme: une recherche internationale, face aux défis d’une conception plurilingue et d’une traduction en anglais et en chinois. In The Multilingual Challenge: Cross-​Disciplinary Perspectives. U. Jessner-​Schmid & C.J. Kramsch, Eds. 239–​270. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Appendix English versions of reflections in other languages, translated using Google Scholar or DeepL Adel Alshehri: As a PhD student from Saudi Arabia, I use Arabic and English fluently. Although my first language is Arabic, I use it for academic purposes and scientific research less than English. I may use Arabic when the topic is related to the Arab community, or when it is difficult to access data in English, especially some Arab countries where English is not dominant. For example, when I was asked to find information regarding the Arabic Citation Index, I used both Arabic and English. Since the topic of my dissertation is also related to the Arab community, I sometimes use Arabic to access and collect data and statistics that may not have been published in English. In addition, 333

Mary Jane Curry et al.

I have translated documents into Arabic to reach the Arab audience for some non-​Arabic speaking scholars, such as a parental consent form. Other than that, I use English for academic and research purposes. It is clear to me that knowing more than one language has benefits for academic and research purposes; Scholars who have access to resources in more than one language gain more information and have a wider audience and participation. Since many countries do not use English as an official language, their governments, organizations, and ministries often publish their policies, reports, and statistics in the dominant language, such as Arabic; thus, it may be difficult for non-​native speakers to access such information. Onesmo Mushi: I am a PhD student from Tanzania, East Africa. I speak Chagga and Kiswahili as my dominant languages. I also studied English, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese and French in my academic journey. In academic writing, I use different languages for different purposes. For example, I use Kiswahili for my initial thinking and organization, but I write academic papers in English. When I was collecting data for my master’s thesis, I used Kiswahili to communicate with my research participants from Tanzania because it made us feel comfortable and free to share our thoughts. However, I translated the data into English because the thesis had to be written in English. Similarly, in academic communications, I usually use the language of my audience. For example, when I wanted a Spanish professor I knew to review my graduate school applications, I wrote emails to her in Spanish as I felt that using her language might make her more willing to help. Recently as I was looking for information about scholars and journals publishing in Kiswahili, I used Kiswahili for asking scholars in Tanzania for information. Therefore, with my multilingual repertoire including these languages, it would be rewarding to use them in writing too as they expand knowledge. Instead of being pressured to write in one language, I think journals could publish in multiple languages and make an English translation available in addition to the author’s language of choice. Theresa Lillis: As I am an anglophone centre scholar in terms of where I am geo-​institutionally based (UK) and in terms of my educational history (studied in UK and Ireland) –​who has researched and published predominantly in English –​it is often assumed that I am monolingual and that my daily communication is in ‘English’. Yet for most of my adult life, Spanish has also been an everyday language of communication –​part of my home life with my partner and children, extended family and friends. In everyday mobile communication (emails, social media, online news) I read and write Spanish and English, and also Portuguese and French. In terms of my academic work –​focusing on writing, language, sociolinguistics –​over the years I have come to learn what counts as appropriate English-​medium discourse (not easy –​ whilst nobody’s first language is certainly strongly aligned with middle-​class practice). My learning of Spanish-​medium academic discourse was until a few years ago limited to literary discourse (poems, novels). More recently, I have been lucky enough to work with colleagues in Spain and Latin America which has led to me presenting and publishing in Spanish. Does the public invisibility of my individual multilingualism matter in the academic world? Thinking only about me, no. But as an illustration of a larger phenomenon, yes it matters because such invisibility helps sustains the myth of Englishness and monolingualism as a socio-​academic norm (and ideal) in anglophone centre academia and globally. Such invisibility skews debates and discussions about linguistic realities and stymies opportunities for exploring the value of the many linguistic and rhetorical resources available to us for use in academia. It masks the hidden 334

Global Academic Research and Communication Practices

intellectual work which is multi rather than monolingual in nature. One tiny example from my own learning: I came to understand Bakhtin’s notion of carnival through my understanding of his use of the Spanish-​medium picaresque work by Guzman de Alfarache. Whilst I read Bakhtin in English translation, it was my reading of the Spanish medium text which enabled me to grasp the notion of карнавал. It matters because the evaluation systems in anglophone countries undervalue (actually discourage) languages other than English and thus actively working against cross/​mult/​trans lingual knowledge exchange which should be acknowledged act as a powerful intellectual resource for us all. Xiatinghan Xu: I am a Chinese international PhD student. Although I use Mandarin and English proficiently and read and write in elementary Spanish, I have had few opportunities to use languages other than English in school and at work. The English immersion environment of my undergraduate institution helped me develop the habit of reading, thinking and writing in English. Hence, English is my most fluent academic language. Nevertheless, sometimes I combine Chinese and English to communicate with my colleagues to improve the efficiency and accuracy of our conversations. Also, I collect data using Chinese if the research topic and participants relate to China. During my years in the United States, I realized that language is not only an important medium for academic communication but also an essential carrier of culture. In my educational background, most of the terminology, theories and research methodologies that I have been exposed to come from Western countries, especially anglophone countries. As a result, the English language and Western culture have deeply influenced the way that I perceive and think about the world. However, I am not willing to give up the opportunity to learn and research through my native language because of the current dominance of Western countries in academia. I also hope that scholars from all countries can have the ability and freedom to choose their language of research, contribute to the overall development of academia, and protect its diversity and equity. Mary Jane Curry [bracketed text originally in English; other text translated via Google Translate]: [More recently,] I have read academic texts in Spanish and French. In addition, I have used Spanish to do research: I use it for interviews and focus groups, also in electronic messages and for informal conversations with research participants and colleagues who come from Spanish-​speaking countries. [My privilege as an educated anglophone speaker allows me to settle for feeling underprepared for academic writing or giving talks in other languages], although I would like to. …

335

22 MULTILINGUALISM AND HIP HOP Quentin Williams

Introduction This chapter provides an overview of multilingual hip hop1 as an area of study from the perspective of sociolinguistics. Multilingual hip hop is a reality of our 21st century. It is a truly global popular culture that continues the flow of hip hop culture, in unique ways in urban spaces and places, remixing multilingual communication in institutions and nooks and crannies across society, and transforming genres, discourses and practices. In the next section of this chapter, I discuss the historical formation of multilingual hip hop as a field of research. I will consider the global flow of hip hop culture and its implications for language, identity and multilingualism and its uptake and appropriation in various localities, as well as the frictions that derive from uneven attention to identity politics, gender and sexuality. In the third section of the chapter, I discuss the importance of multilingual hip hop in South Africa. In particular, I focus on the history of South African hip hop as a form of resistance and innovation in multilingual lyrical ingenuity, including an analysis of the metapragmatics of specifically multilingual Cape hip hop, and the commodification of that form of hip hop’s language. This is followed by a conclusion where I assert the importance of multilingual hip hop as a window onto the dynamics of individual and societal multilingual practices, pointing to gaps that still require attention for future research and study.

Multilingual hip hop cultures In globalized societies across the world and on various social media platforms, popular cultural practices of hip hop dominate the communicative space. For many decades now, hip hop culture as a practice, as a way of life and a commodity, has transformed the ways we draw on multilingualism and languages to communicate to make meaning and negotiate identities. Sociolinguists and hip hop scholars agree that hip hop culture is an important engine in the transcultural flow of multilingualism around the world (Potter, 1995; Terkourafi, 2010). In its historical formation, the culture has been responsible for creating new linguistic forms that transform bounded notions of language and new forms of multilingualism (Williams, 2012). It has always challenged multilingual frictions that arise from linguistic flows, and various constraints on multilingual communication practices that come about the frictions from standard prescriptive notions of language and language ideologies that emerge from socio-​economic and political flows (Alim, Ibrahim & Pennycook, 2009).

336

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-26

Multilingualism and Hip Hop

Since its inception in the 1970s, hip hop has reached global and transnational heights most would not have expected (Mitchell, 2001; Forman & Neal, 2004; Chang, 2007. This popular culture has reached small and large places, rural and urban enclaves, and recently has experienced a research surge by academics interested in the transnational interconnectedness of hip hop culture, youth language and identity. From Nigeria to Finland to India, global hip hop shapes the way we understand and approach the politics of language and identity and the practice of multilingualism (Saucier, 2011; Clark, 2018). Often mixing African American English (AAE), global hip hop is inserted in the localities mentioned and given new meaning and priorities. In those localities too, young multilingual speakers use local language and in such practice they comment on and enact local authenticities of hip hop (Westinen, 2014). From a sociolinguistics of globalization perspective, hip hop has been studied as a global cultural genre that is performed locally for the purposes of stylization and appropriation (Blommaert, 2010; Coupland, 2010). The practice of deejaying, rap, break dancing, graffiti and beatboxing (Singh & Campbell, 2022) can be heard and seen on a global scale, on television networks and social networking websites. For decades now these practices have been appropriated in creative ways for different local contexts that have shaped its local expression (see for example, Osumare, 2004; Singh, 2022; Terkourafi, 2010). Pennycook (2007) draws our attention to the appropriation of global hip hop in various local places, pointing out how for each of those localities, youths develop the discourse practice of rap and other elements of hip hop to meld into local needs and concerns. These localities have also in turn changed what it means to talk locally and perform globally or talk globally and perform locally. For example, in her study on conversational sampling in Brazilian hip hop, Roth-​Gordon (2009) notes how the practice of hip hop influences everyday language practices, and how integration of certain hip hop language registers in the daily language practices of fans and gives spaces and places new meaning in interaction (compare Pardue, 2008). In a similar vein, Higgens (2009) shows how Kiswahili in Tanzania is mixed with African American English (AAE), and other varieties, in performing local indigenous as well as transnational identities, and Omoniyi (2009) explores the complex discursive relationship between language, hip hop and globalization in the construction of post-​ colonial identities in Africa. In particular, Omoniyi underscores how hip hop provides not only the space for developing various sorts of alternative yet local identities, but also serves as a cultural reference system that offers youths access to global identities. The oscillation of these identities has been captured in Cutler’s (2009) adaptation of W.E.B Du Bois’ notion of ‘double consciousness’ –​a notion adapted by the author to explain how White American youth reflect on their own presence in hip hop culture. As a predominant form of popular culture in times of globalization and localization, hip hop is (in part) responsible for creating new linguistic forms that transform bounded and seemingly impervious monolingual ‘spaces’ into permeable multilingual ‘places’ (see Pennycook, 2007). But its role in globalization is also important to understand if we are to grasp the complex emerging multilingual communication patterns that stem from the politics of identity, in particular the performative and interactional negotiation of gender and sexuality. It is no understatement to point out that hip hop cultures across the world are overburdened by masculinity, often hegemonic and toxic. As a male-​dominated culture, scholars have always highlighted the unequal gender differences, the lack of emphasis on the plurality of masculine identities, and the subjugation of women and their bodies (Rose, 1994). It was Rose’s (1994) comprehensive study on rap music that shed light not only on how rap artists’ use of misogynistic and homophobic lyrics denigrate women and non-​heterosexual men, but also how the under-​ representation of female emcees in localized hip hop cultures and gender marginalization in global 337

Quentin Williams

hip hop persist (see also Morgan, 1999; and Perry, 2004). Studies of hip hop and gender have been critical of the over-​privileging of hegemonic and toxic masculinity that are consistently and predominantly associated with the apprenticing of boys, young men and older men into the culture and its practices (Sharpley-​Whiting, 2007). Since Rose’s seminal study on rap, a stronger focus on men in hip hop and their masculinities has been one of the main concerns among hip hop feminists and cultural theorists (Forman & Neal, 2004; Pough et al., 2007; see also importantly Macdonald, 2001 and Schloss, 2009). The critique of hip hop culture’s marginalization of women includes the oversexualization of their bodies and the positioning of non-​binary, queer identities (Shaikjee, 2014; Haupt, 2016). The commodification of women’s bodies as sex symbols in rap videos (Aubrey, Hopper & Mbure, 2011) have blurred the lines between hip hop culture and the “adult entertainment world –​particularly strip clubs and pornography production” (Hunter, 2011: 16; Richardson, 2007). Multilingual hip hop scholarship has slowly documented these problematics and is progressing steadily beyond what men say and do, and how they perform gender, and towards Alim’s suggestion to develop “[studies] of language and the construction of gender in hip hops that take us beyond the tired ‘bitch’ and ‘ho’ critiques to an ethnographic understanding of how youth interpret and make use of ‘misogynistic’ and ‘homophobic’ texts” (Alim, 2009: 16). Studies have addressed how narratives of hip hop practices challenge hegemonic masculinity (Singh, 2021), including the multi-​languaging of gender and sexuality across hip hop linguistic styles (Clark, 2018). In colonial and apartheid contexts that transformed towards neoliberal democracy and globalization, multilingual hip hop has given shape to the language use and identity practices and performances of multilingual speakers. In the next section, I pay attention to South African multilingual hip hop, with a specific focus on the language use and appropriation in and outside Cape hip hop.

Multilingual hip hop in South Africa: Cape hip hop as a case study Multilingual hip hop in South Africa emerged out of resistance and the need for hip hop artists to perform and represent their communities’ speech practices. Since its inception, the culture in South Africa has always offered a perspective on multilingualism and language that exposed the ways in which marginalized language varieties and their speakers are framed as ‘less than’ fully multilingual speakers. Cape hip hop, specifically, emerged in an era defined by apartheid state violence and censorship, an oppression experienced by a few emcees who articulate their suffering, and the suffering of others, through translocally mixed lyrics (cf. Haupt, 1995, 2008; Nkonyeni, 2007; Warner, 2007; Watkins, 2000). South African hip hop artists entered into radical debate with multilingualism and the delimitation of languages as it was invented since colonialism in the country. Although South Africa was always perceived to be a multilingual country, since the imperial invasions of Dutch and British settlers, multilingualism was reduced to monoglossic languages and later with the drawing up of boundaries and bounded languages.2 From the period the British agreed in 1806 to undertake control the Cape to the spread of English across the country and up to the implementation of apartheid in 1948, the unassailable position of English was cemented into South African life as part of the policy of indirect rule (McCormick, 2002. For example, colonial South Africa legislated hegemonic languaging, socially entrenching a hierarchy of languages, society, class and culture through English (though not exclusively) (Alexander, 2013). The colonial administration sought through numerous inexhaustible attempts to capture the imagination of the native subject by reinforcing

338

Multilingualism and Hip Hop

English and did so successfully (de Klerk, 1997; Kamwangamalu, 2004), growing and spreading alongside the development of Afrikaans (McCormick, 2002). But it would be English that became the language of the colonizer, the language of the commercial industry, in the scientific field, technology, of global society and a language of wider communication, followed by Afrikaans in apartheid as the language that divides, and the subsequent negligent planning for historically marginalized languages and African languages. Hip Hop culture’s critique of multilingualism was based on the idea that in South Africa multilingual communication was restricted to only English and Afrikaans. Hip hop culture in South Africa found in the global hip hop nation a ‘connective marginality’ (Osumare, 2007) which served as a common frame of reference for young Black and Coloured3 multilingual speakers in township spaces, bringing solace and comfort in shared circumstances of poverty and discrimination. By 1982, a fledgling Cape Town hip hop community had formed and begun to apprentice followers into the ‘style community’ (following Alim, 2009a) that came to define hip hop across the Cape peninsula (Nkonyeni, 2007: 156–​157). With the emergence of sub-​genres of rap such as Spaza and Zef Rap, Cape Town hip hop grew its style community into one that is currently realizing its transformative potential by lifting marginalized voices into the spotlight through the mainstreaming of previously marginalized languages. Since its inception, hip hop in Cape Town has always had an interesting non-​hegemonic relationship with transnational whiteness. From the heady days of the 1980s, Coloured hip hop heads developed this relationship by cultivating a form of hip hop authenticity that drew heavily on the anti-​racism and anti-​hegemonic transnational hip hop nation established in the United States rearticulating in local lyrics the ‘conscious’ philosophies of Public Enemy and KRS-​One, amongst others, and the ‘each-​one-​teach-​one’ philosophy that became part of the anti-​racist movement, Zulu Nation. In one sense (because not all hip hop heads agree on this point), Cape Town hip hop became the site where the recontextualization of a global struggle consciousness was inserted into local struggles against apartheid, and the symbolic refiguring of local whiteness (Warner, 2007). This took place at the same time as notions of ‘Colouredness’ were undergoing refiguration (Haupt, 1995). Almost 20 years after the first democratic elected government branded the unifying idea of multiracialism in the metaphor of the ‘rainbow nation’ (Alexander, 2013), new forms of performance genre, such as Spaza Rap (pioneered by Black Xhosa hip hop heads) and Zef Rap (pioneered by White Afrikaans hip hop heads), are showing that the rainbow nation seems to be, quite disconcertingly, ‘an optical illusion’ (Alexander, 2013). In particular, Zef culture has become a form of release for White Afrikaner youth amidst an assumed crisis of power, masculinity and sexuality (Kreuger, 2012). According to Marx and Milton (2011), Zef culture is reconfiguring Afrikaans whiteness, mediated through ‘Zef’ cultural artefacts and performances, in a deliberate attempt to speak ‘to the perceived sense of marginal and liminal experience of White Afrikaans youth in post-​ apartheid South Africa’ (cf. Marx & Milton, 2011: 723). Spaza Rap, a mixture of isiXhosa, Afrikaans and Tsotsitaal, was “invented in Cape Town and is a clear example of the different paths South African Hip hop has taken in diverging from the American model” (Pritchard, 2009: 54). In an interview published on the blog entitled ‘The UnderGround Angle’, Rattex, one of the leading pioneers of the Spaza Rap genre, reports that when they created it that “Spaza was small back in the day –​ it was all about English raps … English rappers used to call us Kwaito MCs”. Becker (2008: 10) notes that Spaza rappers “have creatively appropriated hip hop in their quest for alternative, fluid, consciously ‘African’ identities in contemporary South Africa” and that music, clothing and embodiment among young

339

Quentin Williams

isiXhosa-​speaking hip hop artists in a Cape Town township “did not necessarily entail the confirmation of old, or the construction of new (ethnicized/​racialized) boundaries” (Becker, 2008: 11).

Multilingualism and hip hop in apartheid times In South African hip hop culture, as represented by groups such as Prophets of da City (POC), Godessa, Black Noise and Brasse Vannie Kaaps (Brothers from the Cape or BVK), multilingualism became one of the cornerstone issues in the fight against the apartheid regime. POC, during the eighties, became one of the leading multilingual groups to challenge and test the limits of the apartheid government’s language ideologies, to highlight the agency and voices of marginalized speakers of English and particularly Afrikaans. Decades later, in the new democratic South Africa, with citizens across the racial spectrum enjoying new freedoms, the problems of language and multilingualism that emerged in apartheid times persist. But hip hop artists, pioneering and ground-​breaking, as I demonstrate below, draw on multilingualism as a resource to tackle new language communication problems with new tactics, intellectual fervour and ideas. Multilingual communication was highly regimented by the apartheid nation-​state in public contexts. Under apartheid’s system of racial oppression, South African hip hop artists challenged from its inception monolingualism and divisive ethnolinguistic language policies from above that constrained true multilingualism. The emergence of Cape hip hop, a local variation of South African hip hop, came about in part as a challenge to the regimentation of Black and Coloured bodies, interactions, cultural semiotics and signifying practices through surveillance, control and legal measures. To articulate the oppression and linguistic hegemony imposed by the apartheid state, Cape hip hop artists used language and multilingualism as a resource to express their suffering and Othering through deejaying, in lyrics, performances, graffiti and breakdancing (see Haupt, Williams, Alim & Jansen, 2019). In apartheid, Afrikaans and English enjoyed official language status. The apartheid regime favoured Afrikaans in its advance of racist structures and practices, promoting monolingual ideologies wrapped up in the furtherance of standard language strategies and sustaining myths around non-​standard language multilingual speakers. For hip hop groups and individuals, however, multilingualism became part of a larger strategy to counter the hegemony of Afrikaans. For Prophets of da City (POC), one of the first rap groups to become known in the hip hop scene of Cape Town, the use of language and in particular Kaaps, otherwise then known as Gamtaal4 (the language of the children of Ham), became a strategic decision. As front man for the group, Shaheen Ariefdien explained to Adam Haupt in an interview: gamtaal, or whatever, that shit’s on purpose so the kid at home can say, “Fuck, they’re speaking my language,” you know? They’re representing, you know, what comes out of the township and shit. So if some middle class motherfucker comes, “Oe God, skollietaal” [Oh God, gangster language]. The shit’s not for them, you know what I mean? I don’t care if some white-​ass dude at home thinks, “Oh shit, look at this … uncultured,” you know? I want some kid from the ghetto to think, “Naa, we can relate to that.” Haupt 1995; also in Haupt et al., 2019 Later, in an interview with emcee Marlon Burgess, Shaheen states that this focus on speaking Gamtaal, the language of the “kid from the ghetto” was a deliberate attempt to promote the speech practices of historically racialized speakers but also to celebrate those voices and critique the racist language politics that stemmed from speaking Afrikaans: 340

Multilingualism and Hip Hop

[Cape Town] hip hop took the language of the ‘less thans’ and embraced it, paraded it, and made it sexy to the point that there is an open pride about what constituted ‘our’ style … to express local reworkings of hip hop. Ariefdien & Burgess, 2011: 235 The above quote reveals how one of the pioneering groups of hip hop in South Africa considered multilingualism and specifically language as a resource to rework hip North American hop culture into the local. For Ariefdien, Cape hip hop artists combined and remixed the linguistic forms and functions of the ‘less thans’ to not only produce a local style but to represent accurately and authentically the multilingualism of Black and Coloured multilingual speakers on the Cape Flats (the township area 20 miles from the centre of Cape Town). On the one hand, it is clear that in the early formation of Cape hip hop culture, multilingualism became important to index implicitly and explicitly trans-​local connections. But on the other hand, hip hop artists also used the multilinguality of Kaaps (Gamtaal) speakers. By embracing and then using the language of the ‘less thans’ in lyrical performances, groups like POC challenged the apartheid state’s monolingual ideology,5 the enforcing of Afrikaans over the empowerment of marginalized Afrikaans speakers, those speakers who were told they spoke Gamtaal and not pure Afrikaans. In concert with poets, pundits and academics at the time, Cape hip hop artists relied on multilingualism as a community and individual repertoire to break down racist stereotypes of marginalized languages and its speakers, going against the apartheid state’s linguistic hegemony and arguing for pride in languages such as Kaaps (or Gamtaal).

Multilingual hip hop in post-​apartheid times The study of multilingualism in Cape hip hop has traditionally focused on the narratives and poetics of resistance, race and counter-​hegemonic agency in the context of apartheid and the early days of post apartheid. However, recently, more attention has been paid to the performance genres such as freestyle rap battles (Williams & Stroud, 2014), braggadocio (Williams, 2012; 2014), the commodification of the culture and its language use (Alim, Williams, Haupt & Jansen, 2021), and the practice of language activism (Williams, 2018).

Multilingualism and freestyle rap battles “Should the battles be limited to 1 Language at a time?” This was the question posted by one founding member of the Suburban Menace rap group, emcee MoB, on their Facebook page. Since the staging of their hip hop show in 2008, ‘Stepping Stones to Hip hop’, in Club Stones (Kuilsriver, Cape Town), Suburban Menace has sought to broaden the multilingual scope of their show, particularly in rap performances and freestyle rap battles.6 A few months had passed since the debut of the hip hop show and the question of including emcees from across Cape Town led to the question of which type of multilingualism to emphasize and ultimately which languages should be included in on-​stage rap performances and, with respect to freestyle rap performances, how many languages. A debate began among emcees and audience members who attended the show in offline and online contexts but ultimately the decision was left to Suburban Menace to decide whether the freestyle rap battles should be limited to one language at a time, or whether it should be linguistically inclusive. Although the audience who attended the show was made up largely of so-​called Coloured hip hop fans and hip hop artists, increasingly Black and White hip hop fans and artists attended the show 341

Quentin Williams

and therefore the question of multilingualism and language use took centre stage. On their Facebook page, Suburban Menace established a forum for debate around issues of language, identity and local hip hop authenticity. This forum allowed fans and artists alike to interact with each other and as such engaged in ‘online talk’ which “extends hip hop focused interaction, and making a homepage and or weblog extends practices of fan productivity” (Androutsopoulos, 2009: 54). Suburban Menace under the stewardship of their label, MoBCoW Records, had to consider the multilingual rap practices of some of their own rap artists who did not perform in English only. For instance, the label had a Black emcee, Baza Lo, who performs rap music not only in Kaaps, but also in isiXhosa, SeSotho, isiZulu and Tsotsitaal (a stylect, see Hurst, 2009). Moreover, Suburban Menace also considered that their fellow emcees and hip hop fans were from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds and that they frequently wrote not only in texting language but a variety of speech styles. With these multilingual issues as a backdrop, emcee MoB posted his question and as a result provoked answers from emcees and hip hop fans who not only commented on the indexical values of particular languages as they are used in freestyle rap battles in the Club on a Wednesday night, but they also pointed to the need to emphasize multilingual diversity and the intermixing of racial and ethnic speech forms. In Extract 1 below, MoB is the first one to respond to his question: Extract 1. Exchange on Suburban Menace Wall 23–​26 March 2009 (Gloss Font styles: English Afrikaans isiXhosa, Txting)    1.  MoB (07:27): This is certainly one of the biggest debates going around. In my opinion it doesn’t really matter looking at demographics of the people coming to Stones on Wednesday Nites. I mean at the end of the day the crowd decides the winner and I think most of the people speaks/​understands English and Afrikaans! The one thing that I see and like about the battles is that we’re creating the atmosphere again that the music listerner’s are being taken serious. And that’s going to help with the quality of music that the local artist will bring out. No more ‘artistic masturbation’ please, we need to find the balance between creation and connection!    2.  Gift (07:48): I say battles must be in Afrikaans … Reason Being –​ The people wanna laugh Afrikaa1ns can be the most funniest shit … even the English people will laugh them fucked up!! We ive noticed since I came to stones, is that the English rappers are battling!! E.g. Revelation –​Hegot some good punches, good Flow, Using Metaphors at times, But it don’t really strike the crown as hard as Jack denovan, Bio Hazard, Cole or Cream does!! So imo … I say AFRIKAANS is the best language to spit in!!tell me what you guys think. In line 1 above, MoB contends that even though the argument about whether one language should be used in freestyle rap battles is one of the “biggest debates going around”, to him it does not “really matter looking at [the] demographics of the people coming to Stones on Wednesday Nites”. He goes on by writing that it is the crowd which decides a winner and that he thinks “most of the people” in the audience “speaks/​understand English and Afrikaans!” He also recognizes that they, as Suburban Menace, are providing a listening environment for their fans and audience members to appreciate “the quality of music that the local artist will bring out” because they as artists are trying “to find the balance between creation and connection!”. Gift responds to MoB by arguing the freestyle rap battles be held in Afrikaans because “people wanna laugh” and Afrikaans lyrics would effectively be funny and “the English people will laugh them fucked up!!” 342

Multilingualism and Hip Hop

As the answers are written on the wall, some commentators argue that English emcees are just as good as Afrikaans emcees when a freestyle rap battle is staged. Others argue that Afrikaans emcees have more lyrical content to deliver than English emcees, irrespective of the opinion that “English is the language used in the Global market … [and that] we need to educate ourselves and come with real shit…!!” (line 4, Exctract 1, Aldrich, 08: 07). Nevertheless, toward the end of the wall post, participants in the discussion explicitly move the topical question posed by MoB into the direction of multilingual diversity, drawing on the rhetoric of post-​apartheid South Africa and discourses of racial and ethnic diversity. Extract 2. Exchange on Suburban Menace Wall 23–​26 March 2009 (Gloss Font styles: English Afrikaans, isiXhosa, Txting) 3. Gavin (10:50):  Soe lank it net nie xhosa is nie, van d ninjas vat kla oor op metro fm, hip hop is all about da msg but how do u get da msg when its dat kakalak taal? eish me I don’t know, but Afrikaans is more original n lyk marlow wys kak funny. 4. Clayton (12:24):  LMIMP @ GAVIN … moetie hulle swak makie … i think they will feel the same way if we spit Afrikaans and they don’t understand it … You know our slang can be confusing to anyone not from cpt. I do think that if we can sit it smengels it doesnt matter. You should do anything to move the crowd. Cause at the end of the day. That is what we do –​move the crowd. 5. Marvin (14:13):  True Clayton! 6. Gavin (17:24):  Volle waarheid clayton I was only tawking my kop se kak, I own a lot of hype mixtapes and most of the artist on there r rapping in chosa but they got potential n I keep their shit banging top volume … I aint racist some of my best friends r black lmimp. Extract 2 above speaks to the difficulty of discourses of diversity but also how some young multilingual speakers approach the issue of race and the racialization of multilingualism in South Africa. We read how one of the interlocutors racialize the Facebook wall post by suggesting the freestyle rap battles would be largely understood in English and Afrikaans as long as it is not in isiXhosa (line 3 above). The writer, Gavin, argues that because “hip hop is all about da msg [the message]” audience members in the freestyle battle space would find it difficult to understand the message if isiXhosa is used because “d ninjas” (a racial epithet describing Black people) are already taking over “metro fm”7. Subsequently, Gavin labels isiXhosa in Afrikaans as a “kakalak taal” (cockroach language), explicitly racializing the Facebook wall post, after which he writes in accented Black South African English “eish me I don’t know”, employing Mock-​Black South Africa English by imitating an imagined black speaker.8 He then argues further that the use of Afrikaans in the local freestyle battle space “is more original” because the language of hip hop authenticity in South Africa is Afrikaans. Clayton admonishes Gavin for his racist comments, and he does so by writing not only in English and Afrikaans, but also in texting language. Firstly, Clayton writes in text shortcode, LMIMP (which means in Afrikaans text shortcode, Laugh Me In My Poes (pussy), and signifies (using the logographic @ sign) that his comments are directed at Gavin, whom he asks not to insult Black people in Afrikaans: “moetie hulle swak makie” (literally translated as ‘don’t make them weak’). Secondly, Clayton, himself a well-​known emcee, suggests that isiXhosa speakers would probably also not understand Afrikaans freestyle rap battles if emcees used “our slang” version because it “can be confusing to anyone not from” Cape Town. By our slang, Clayton is referring to the use of Kaaps, a variety of Afrikaans, most often used by emcees and other rap artists in Cape Town’s hip hop community. He also suggests further that if emcees, both isiXhosa and Kaaps multilingual 343

Quentin Williams

speakers, are able to perform their lyrics in “smengels” it would not really matter because the goal of freestyle rap battles is to move the crowd.9 On this wall post, Clayton writes ‘smengels’ in small letters but if we write the word in all capital letters it would read as follows: SMENGELS; a combination of ‘SMS’ and the Afrikaans label for English, that is, ‘Engels’. In this instance, such a combination of words is not only typical of social media writing practices but the very act of writing this word allows Clayton to appeal to the multilingual complexity of youth multilingual practices. Moreover, Clayton argues implicitly that whether in Afrikaans, English, isiXhosa or texting language, as in the case here with ‘smengels’, so long as the emcee moves the crowd, the crowd will accept the emcee’s multilinguality. It is this type of writing on Facebook message and discussion boards that Androutsopoulos argues gives hip hop artists and their fans “a space of vernacular literacy” where “they may draw on a variety of linguistic and multimodal resources to construct their glocal hip hop identities” (Androutsopoulos, 2009: 56). Gavin’s follow-​up response to Clayton is immediately apologetic but sarcastic. To atone for his racist prejudice, Gavin argues that he was only “tawking” (talking) nonsense and that he listens to and owns “a lot of hype mixtapes” and that some of the “chosa” (Xhosa) artists “got potential”. Hype in this case is a rap music producer who has executively produced a number of black Spaza emcees’ rap music; prominent members are Rattex (a black emcee from the township of Khayelitsha) and Driemanskap (from the township of Gugulethu). But it is clear Gasant is not sincere in his apology because he argues further, and rather sarcastically, that he “aint racist” because “some of [his] best friends r black”; which is all followed by the Afrikaans texting logographic that indicates laughter: “lmimp” (laugh me in my poes (pussy)). In countering Gavin´s duplicitous response, a number of respondents agree with Clayton that it doesn’t matter whether emcees perform in Afrikaans, English, isiXhosa, French or even Portuguese, it is about multilingual diversity in the end. To summarize the analysis, multilingualism is a phenomenon that occurs not in isolation but intersects with ideologies and practices of identities, diversity and language. In both extracts, we see how respondents, conscious of the racial, ethnic and cultural diversity of South Africa, respond to the question posed by MoB by explicity and implicitly forming opinions on what they believe are the best linguistic solution to solving language use in freestyle rap battles. From the excerpts we learn the following: firstly, the commentators point to the difficulty of multilingualism but also give various reasons to use either English or Afrikaans, or both, for simplicity, creativity and comedic effect. Secondly, although they all recognize the multilingual diversity of the country and the increasing mixture and intermixing of racial and ethnic speech forms, some celebrate the marketability of a language like English, while others still find it difficult to cross over to a language like isiXhosa because they are being racist towards isiXhosa speakers. Thirdly, and perhaps directly related to youth multilingual practice on a computer-​mediated communication medium such as Facebook, is the multilingual nature of the comments. While the first two exchanges (Excerpt 1) are mainly in English, in Excerpt 2 we find the use of English, Afrikaans, accented parodic isiXhosa voicing and texting language. The creative use of texting language in particular reveals the appeal of youth multilingualism amongst those active in the hip hop community.

Commodifying the multilingualism of Cape hip hop It would be an understatement to suggest that hip hop language varieties (such as African American English and Cockney English) have only recently become the most commodified forms of speech across the world today. Multilingual speakers in South Africa came to discover this is a fact too when a well-​known beer company began producing advertisements that featured hip hop legends 344

Multilingualism and Hip Hop

Vanilla Ice imbibing an ice-​cold alcoholic beverage and reciting his famous catch phrase, ‘Ice Ice Baby’, followed by two more that featured MC Hammer reciting his catch phrase ‘Can’t touch this’, M.O.P singing “Cold as Ice”, and another that featured again Vanilla Ice with Public Enemy’s Flava Flav hollering, ‘Flavor Flav!!’. Not to be outdone by the beer company’s marketing, fast food outlets, beer and sweets producing companies produced advertisements with local pop and hip hop artists: for example, a beer advertisement featuring local white Zef rapper, Jack Parow; a chocolate Lunch Bar with a break-​dancer, and a KFC advertisement with rapper Khuli Chana performing the bridge to his hit song ‘Mnatebawen’. While all these advertisements contracted well-​known male hip hop artists from the American and South African hip hop cultures, one company, Halls, decided to produce an advert that featured a woman, named Kimmie Kool, and one that accurately represented so-​called Coloured English (CE). The Halls advertisement’s opening scene pushes the boundaries of hip hop language commodification and somewhat challenges cis-​patriarchy in the talk and performance of the rap character Kimmie Kool, as she starts to rhyme: Extract 1: Standing, performing rap 1. This is for my mense [people] there in Olivedale neh /​né/​. 2. Mabzi, this one’s for you neh /​né/​. At the beginning of the advertisement, Kimmie Kool performs a shout-​out for her community and her friend Mabzi, a feature typical of rap’s performance genre and actively used by Coloured English speakers in Cape Town’s hip hop culture. Her linguistic repertoire is defined by Coloured English, mainly, with an irregular remixing of Afrikaans. For example, from the opening scene of the advertisement, the audience hears Kimmie Kool remix Coloured English with Afrikaans as she begins to interact with her interviewer. In two quick turns, she manages to use Coloured English words and sounds with Afrikaans words and sounds. In line 1, Kimmie uses the Afrikaans words such as mense (people) and untranslatable lexical features such as /​né/​often employed by Coloured English speakers as “either a phatic question … but also functions as a tag question” (McCormick, 2008: 529;). In line 2, Kimmie Kool uses /​né/​again to reinforce the idea that her English style is “highly emblematic” (Williams & Stroud, 2014: 282) of Cape Town’s hip hop culture’s use of Coloured English. In the next scene of the video, Kimmie Kool sits down at her workstation, talking to her interviewer about work life, the content of her rap moniker (identity), and why she prefers to rap. Her workstation and desk are covered with hip hop-​like objects that represent her rap persona: from a golden chain to a golden microphone. Seated and donned in gold chains, she describes what it is like to be a rapper in a formal work environment: Extract 2: In reality, I´m a rapper 1. Well, I´m here in the daytime. 2. So this is my day job, 3. But … the reality is that I’m a rapper /​rɔpa/​. In Extract 2, Kimmie Kool reveals to the audience that she feels out of place in the office space and the place at which she works. She presents her identity as deviant, out of place and not in synch with expectations from the formal environment of her job. Her “day job” (line 2) is boring because 345

Quentin Williams

in ‘reality’ she is a rapper /​rɔpa/​(line 3), substituting the dull institutional culture of work with the cool stylings of hip hop culture. Thus, Kimmie Kool argues that although she works in an office during the day and may be seen as a regular worker, she has a rap identity and it defines who she is, not her “daytime” (line 1) office identity. In a next scene, and by way of elaboration, we see Kimmie Kool rap a few lyrics to the interviewer, followed by an explanation: Extract 3: Seated, describing identities 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Kimmie in the cut, Creamy cream puff. Tiny Kimmie Cause I’m not big I’m little. Klein Kimmie Kimmie cool. It’s betta to be cool than ice cold. Around here they call me Kimberley.

It is clear from the above that Kimmie Kool has more than one identity. In her rap, in lines 7 and 8, she describes characteristics of her rap identity, a negotiable identity that is better than her “ice cold” (line 14) office, imposed identity (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). Her rap moniker Kimmie Kool presents her negotiated identity. And while her office colleagues are free to hail her as “Tiny Kimmie”, she chooses instead to use her real name, “Kimberley” (line 15). Kimmie Kool puts on display what we could consider to be her project identity, a work-​in-​progress type of identity (following Kiessling & Mouss, 2004: 314). This we learn is the case because Kimmie Kool is stylized as free to not conform to the institutional culture and language of her workplace. Kimberly, however, the one that has a “day job”, must conform to the rules and regulations put upon her by her manager, and that she should refrain from transforming into Kimmie Kool, a “cool” (line 14) identity for the “ice cold” (line 14) work environment. Aware of this, Kimmie Kool complains, for example, to the interviewer that her manager will not allow her to don her hip hop chain since, as she puts it, “Boss man says it disrupts, because it is an optical here in the office.” Kimmie Kool’s office manager is presented as the gatekeeper against the free exercise of her rap identity. He is a ‘white manager’ and an additional source of transgression for her: the boss man, always surveying her like a bird watching over prey. Interestingly, Kimmie Kool remonstrates with her manager by indexing the transgressive ideology of hip hop culture’s, elevating the coolness of her identity and marginalizing the mundanity of her day job’s cubicle workspaces and her boss’s governmentality. Although her colleagues and boss may call her Kimberley, she is indifferent since being Kimmie Kool leads her to conclude that “It’s betta to be cool than ice cold” (line 14 above). Kimmie Kool’s use of Coloured English, over and above the representation of her identities, is characteristic of the so-​called Coloured speaker of that variety but in its use also challenges tough masculine practices. She exclaims for example at one point in the video that she is “a bit of a gangsta /​ɡɔŋsta/​” and she speaks with “street flair/​flɔɪɾ/​”, performing the type of talk often ascribed to male artists in hip hop culture performing heteropatriarchal identities. Specifically on the use Coloured English, we see her pronounce the word gangsta as /​ɡɔŋsta/​(cf. Finn, 2008: 212 for more evidence; see also Hastings, 1979, quoted in Wood, 1987: 111) as she proceeds to raise the front vowel /​ɔ/​ with a lengthened voiced velar nasal consonant /​ŋ/​ as a stereotypical speaker 346

Multilingualism and Hip Hop

of Coloured English would pronounce it (see Wood 1987: 133). She pronounces /​flair/​ as /​flɔɪɾ/​ , raising the back vowel, an open, mid-​back, rounded vowel /​ɔ/​, before a labiodental fricative (pronounced with the lower lip in front of the teeth rather than below the top teeth), followed by a near-​close, near-​front, unrounded vowel /​ɪ/​and finally a voiced alveolar flap /​ɾ/​. These two words used by Kimmie Kool support the argument that as a character in the Halls advertisement her use of Coloured English is an attempt to use the language of Cape Town´s hip hop speech community, where Coloured English is normatively used and is the English variety of so-​called Coloured English speakers. The advertisement mediatizes her as an excellent rapper with a cool rap style. The overall themes of her rap can be defined as a form of battle rap since the source of uncool is her daily job, her manager and the boredom of cubicle workspace. At one point, she raps: Extract 4: Performing rap 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

Boss man booggy man, big mouth like a pellycan, did I even finish my report? Ag, who gives a damn.

After this scene, the camera cuts to the corridor of the office space where Kimmie further performs: 46. Who gives a hoot, 47. about that bossy boots. 48. I’m knocking off at five only time I feel alive. Towards the conclusion of the advertisement, Kimmie Kool brings to an end the conversation with the interviewer as she reflects on her future success as a hip hop artist. As she looks into the camera, she utters that one day her name will appear “in lights”, that she will be among “da stars”, emphasizing the alveolar/​dental plosive in the word ‘da’. And just as she says her last word, the interviewer says: “There’s a rap audition down the road.” She pauses for effect, eats a Halls mint lozenge, breathes quickly, at which time the scene transitions to a new frame showing the Halls lozenge product graphics.

Conclusion In this chapter, I have tried to discuss and illustrate the dynamics of multilingual hip hop as a global phenomenon. It has reached the furthest, smallest spaces across the world. As a 21st-​century phenomenon, it is slowly transforming the way we communicate in online and offline spaces and places. It is practised across the world, by communities and individuals who communicate through many languages, language varieties and styles in their everyday lives. As a genre, multilingual hip hop is found across a multitude of media and performances, shaping identities and communities of practices and revitalizing languages once thought would die out. It is a resource for expanding the linguistic repertoires of multilingual speakers and has transformed our understanding of multilingualism as a mere process and event to a mobile, distributive resource that elevates the meaning-​ making, hip hop, influenced practices of speakers today. 347

Quentin Williams

Related topics Chapter 3 (De)colonial multilingual/​multimodal practices: resisting and re-​existing voices from Latin America; Chapter 8 Multilingualism and multimodality; Chapter 12 Digital multilingualism.

Notes 1 In this chapter, hip hop is defined as a culture and a way of life that is practised through rap, breakdancing, beatboxing, deejaying, graffiti writing and the teaching of Knowledge of Self. 2 The Dutch through the Dutch East India Company (VOC) first colonized South Africa through initial contact with the Khoi who initially pidginized and creolized Cape Dutch (the Cape variety of Dutch). The slaves brought to the Cape from Indonesia, Madagascar, Ceylon and Angola from 1652, spoke Old Javanese, Low Portuguese (or ‘Malay’ Portuguese), Bahasa Malay and Arabic, and adapted to the use of Cape Dutch but also contributed to the creolization of Cape Dutch (today known as Kaaps). The Khoi and Slaves defined multilingual communication at the Cape and influenced the VOC administrators and the White Free Burgers who became farmers (on stolen land) and Voortrekkers who invented themselves as Afrikaners speaking and writing Afrikaans, like the farmers did. It is the Afrikaners who first de-​creolized the creolized Cape Dutch spoken by the Khoi and Slaves –​to move closer to Dutch in Europe –​followed by the erasure (purification) and standardization of Afrikaans. These latter actions were accomplished, in part, in the name of Afrikaner Vlok and Volk unity (nationalism) against the material, social and institutional encroachment of the British colonial government and the English language on the Afrikaners. 3 Coloureds are a mixed-​race people racially classified under apartheid South Africa. 4 Gamtaal is a racial epithet used to refer to the language Kaaps, spoken mostly by so-​called Coloureds in South Africa. The words can be described as follows Gam-​ refers to Ham, the biblical son of Noah, and -​taal to language. Ham was the brother of Shem and Japeth, all sons of Noah. Ham was cast out by Noah after immoral and embarrassing actions, and according to the Biblical story, he and his forebears was cursed by God. This is the reasoning White Afrikaner religions institutions, apartheid nationalists used to label Kaaps as Gamtaal. 5 POC’s music was banned by the apartheid state for their anti-​apartheid language use and stance (see Haupt et al., 2019). 6 Freestyle rap battles are rap performance genres where an emcee produces clever lyrics and rhymes against an opponent, and performed in front of an audience, with the goal to score a win. 7 Metro FM is a popular radio station in South Africa, broadcasting from Johannesburg. 8 I should point out that because of apartheid segregation policies e.g. Group Areas Act, Coloured people were separated from black African language speakers and had very little opportunity to learn African languages. It is still uncommon for Coloured people to speak African languages including isiXhosa. 9 I first encountered this writing form at a rap performance by a young emcee who one night during the Suburban Menace hip hop show told audience members that if they understood ‘smengels’ they would be able to understand his form of multilingual rap performing.

Further reading Singh, J. 2021. Transcultural Voices: Narrating Hip Hop Culture in Complex Delhi. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. (In this rich narrative study of hip hop in Delhi, Singh provides an important window onto one of the under-​representative contexts in the Global South. The author lifts the voices of hip hop practitioners who try to make hip hop real. Hip hop, in language, in practice and as authenticity is a resource to transform their lives and futures.) Haupt, A., Williams, Q., Alim, H.S. & Jansen, E. Eds. 2019. Neva Again: Hip Hop Art, Activism and Education in Post-​Apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press. (In this ground-​breaking anthology on hip hop in South Africa, the editors provide a panoramic view of the history and future of South African hip hop. With a focus on history, language, space, place, gender, sexuality, ideology and so on, the book brings together multilingual voices from across the South African hip hop scene.)

348

Multilingualism and Hip Hop

References Alexander, N. 2013. Thoughts on the New South Africa. Johannesburg: Jacana Media. Alim, H.S. 2009. Introduction. In Global Linguistic Flows: Hip Hop Cultures, Youth Identities, and the Politics of Language. H.S. Alim, A. Ibrahim & A. Pennycook, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 1–​24. Alim, H.S., Williams, Q.E., Haupt, A & Jansen, E. 2021. “Kom Khoi San, kry trug jou land”: disrupting white settler colonial logics of language, race, and land with Afrikaaps. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 21(2): 194–​217. Androutsopolous, J. 2009. Language and the three spheres of hip-​hop. In Global Linguistic Flows: Hip-​Hop Culture, Youth Identities and the Politics of Language. H.S. Alim, A. Ibrahim & A. Pennycook, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 43–​62. Ariefdien, S. & Burgess, M. 2011. Putting two heads together: a cross-​generational conversation about hip hop in a changing South Africa. In Native Tongue: An African Hip Hop Reader. P.K. Saucier, Ed. Trenton: African World Press. 219–​252. Aubrey, J.S., Hopper, K.M & Mbure, W.G. 2011. Check that body! The effects of sexually objectifying music videos on college men’s sexual beliefs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 55: 360–​379. Becker, H. 2008. Negotiating culture in contemporary South Africa: photographic self-​representations from the Cape Flats. CODESRIA. 1–​43. Becker, H. & Dastile, N. 2008. Global and African: exploring hip-​hop artists in Philippi Township, Cape Town. Anthropology Southern Africa. 13(1–​2): 20–​29. Blommaert, J. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chang, J. 2007. Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: A History of the Hip-​Hop Generation. London: Ebury. Clark, M.K. 2018. Hip Hop in Africa: Prophets of the City and Dustyfoot Philosophers. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Coupland, N. Ed. 2010. The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell. Cutler, C. 2009, “You shouldn’t be rappin’, you should be skateboardin’ X games”: the construction of Whiteness in an MC battle. In Global Linguistic Flows: Hip-​Hop Cultures, Youth Identities, and the Politics of Language. H.S. Alim, A. Ibrahim & A. Pennycook, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 79–​95. De Klerk, V. 1997. Encounters with English over three generations in a Xhosa family: for better or for worse? In Englishes around the World. E.W. Schneider, Ed. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Finn, P. 2008. Cape Flats English: phonology. In Varieties of English: Africa, South and Southeast Asia. R. Mesthrie, Ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 200–​222. Forman, M. & Neal, M.A. Eds. 2004. That’s the Joint!: The Hip Hop Studies Reader. London & New York: Routledge. Haupt, A. 1995. Rap and the Articulation of Resistance: An Exploration of Subversive Cultural Production During the Early 90s, with Particular Reference to Prophets of da City. Unpublished MA mini thesis. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. Haupt, A. 2008. Stealing Empire: P2P, Intellectual Property and Hip Hop Subversion. Cape Town: HSRC Press. Haupt, A. 2016. Queering hip hop, queering the city: Dope Saint Jude’s transformative politics. M/​C Journal. 19(4). Haupt, A., Williams, Q., Alim, H.S. & Jansen, E. 2019. Neva Again: Hip Hop Art, Activism and Education in Post-​Apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press. Higgis, C. 2009. From Da Bomb to Bomba: global hip-​hop nation language in Tanzania. In Global Linguistic Flows: Hip-​Hop Culture, Youth Identities and the Politics of Language. H.S. Alim, A. Ibrahim & A. Pennycook, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 95–​112. Hunter, M. 2011. Shake it, baby, shake it: consumption and the new gender relation in hip hop. Sociological Perspectives. 54(1): 15–​36. Hurst, E. 2009. Tsotsitaal, global culture and local style: identity and recontextualisation in twenty-​first century South African townships. Social Dynamics: A Journal of African Studies. Cape Town: University of Cape Town, Routledge. 35(2): 244–​257. Kamwangamalu, N.M. 2004. The language policy/​language economices interface and mother-​tongue in post-​ apartheid South Africa. Language Problem & Language Planning. 28(2): 131–​146. Kiessling, R. & Mous, M. 2004. Urban youth languages in Africa. Anthropological Linguistics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 46(3): 303–​341.

349

Quentin Williams Kreuger, A. 2012. Part II: Zef/​poor white kitsch chique: Die Antwoord’s comedy of degradation. Safundi. 13(4): 399–​408. Marx, H. & Milton, V.C. 2011. Bastardised whiteness: “Zef ”-​culture, Die Antwoord and the recon” figuration of contemporary Afrikaans identities. Social Identities. 17(6): 723–​745. McCormick, K. 2002. Language in Cape Town’s District Six. New York: Oxford University Press. McCormick, K. 2008. Cape Flats English: morphology and syntax. In Varieties of English: Africa, South and Southeast Asia. R. Mesthrie, Ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 521–​534. Macdonald, N. 2001. The Graffiti Subculture: Youth, Masculinity and Identity in London and New York. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Morgan, J. 1999. When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost: A Hip Hop Feminist Breaks it Down. New York: Touchstone. Morgan, M. 2009. The Real Hip hop: Battling for Knowledge, Power and Respect in the Underground. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Moses, W. 2019. In the Mix: Expressions of Coloured Identity in Cape Town-​Based Hiphop. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Nkonyeni, Ncedisa. 2007. Da struggle kontinues into the 21st century: two decades of nation conscious rap in Cape Town. In Imagining the City: Memories and Cultures in Cape Town. S. Field, R. Meyer & F. Swanson, Eds. Cape Town: HSRC Press. 151–​72. Omoniyi, T. 2009. “So I choose to do am Naija Style”: hip-​hop and postcolonial identities. In Global Linguistic Flows: Hip-​Hop Cultures, Youth Identities, and the Politics of Language. H.S. Alim, A. Ibrahim & A. Pennycook, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 113–​135. Osumare, H. 2007. The Africanist Aesthetic in Global Hip-​Hop: How Power Moves. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Pardue, D. 2008. Ideologies of Marginality in Brazilian Hip Hop. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. Eds. 2004. Negotiating Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London & New York: Routledge. Pritchard, G. 2009. Cultural imperialism, Americanisation and Cape Town hip-​hop culture: a discussion piece. Social Dynamics. 35(1): 51–​55. Pough, G., Durhamn, A., Raimist, R. & Richardson, E. 2007. Home Girls Make some Noise: Hip Hop Feminism Anthology. Mira Loma: Parker. Potter, R.A. 1995. Spectacular Vernaculars: Hip Hop and the Politics of Postmodernism. New York: SUN Press. Perry, I. 2004. Prophets of the Hood: Politics and Poetics in Hip hop. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Richardson, E. 2007. “She was workin like foreal”: critical literacy and discourse practices of African American females in the age of hip hop. Discourse & Society. 18: 789. Rose, T. 1994. Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press. Roth-​Gordon, J. 2009. Conversational sampling, race trafficking, and the invocation of the Gueto in Brazilian hip-​hop. In Global Linguistic Flows: Hip-​Hop Cultures, Youth Identities, and the Politics of Language. H.S. Alim, A. Ibrahim & A. Pennycook, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 63–​79. Saucier, P.K. Ed. 2011. Native Tongues: An African Hip Hop Reader. Cape Town: Africa World Press. Schloss, J.G. 2009. Foundation: B-​Boys, B-​Girls, and Hip Hop Culture in New York. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shaikjee, M. 2014. Drag Kings: Space and the Performance of Gendered Subjectivities. MA dissertation. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. Sharpley-​Whiting, T.D. 2007. Pimps Up, Ho’s Down: Hip Hop’s Hold on Young Black Women. New York: New York University Press. Singh, J.N. 2021. Transcultural Voices: Narrating Hip Hop Culture in Complex Delhi. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Singh, J.N. 2022. Transcultural Voices: Narrating Hip Hop Culture in Complex Delhi. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Singh, J.N & Campbell, C.M. 2022. The enregisterment of esh in global beatboxing culture. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. Terkourafi, M. Ed. 2010. Languages of Global Hip Hop. London: Bloomsbury Press. Warner, R. 2007. Battles over borders: hip hop and the politics and poetics of race and place in the new South Africa. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Toronto, Ontario: York University.

350

Multilingualism and Hip Hop Warner, R. 2011. Colouring the Cape problem space: a hip hop identity of passions. In Native Tongue: An African Hip Hop Reader. P.K. Saucier, Ed. Cape Town: African World Press. 105–​146. Watkins, L. 2000. Tracking the narrative: the poetics of identity in the rap music and hip-​hop culture of Cape Town. Unpublished Master’s dissertation. Durban, South Africa. Westinen, E. 2014. The Discursive Construction of Authenticity: Resources, Scales and Polycentricity in Finnish Hip Hop Culture. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla. Williams, Q.E. 2012. The enregisterment of English in rap braggadocio: a study from English-​Afrikaans bilingualism in Cape Town. English Today. 28(2): 54–​59. Williams, Q.E. 2018. Multilingual activism in South African hip hop. Journal of World Popular Music. 5(1): 31–​49. Williams, Q.E & Stroud, C. 2013. Multilingualism remixed: sampling texts, braggadocio and the politics of voice in Cape Town hip hop. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics. 42: 15–​36. Williams, Q.E. & Stroud, C. 2014. Battling race: stylizing language and the coproduction of whiteness and colouredness in a freestyle rap battle. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 24(3): 277–​293. Wood, T. 1987. Perceptions of, and attitudes towards, varieties of English in the Cape Peninsula, with particular reference to the ‘Coloured Community’. Master’s thesis. Grahamstown: Rhodes University.

351

23 MEDIA AS SITES OF MULTILINGUALISM Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-​Holmes

Introduction Originally, media were seen as an institution within society (the press, television, radio, etc.) but somehow existing apart from everyday life and the preserve of professionals communicating to a public. While this is still the case, and media institutions such as these continue to exist, the digitization of media and fragmentation of media markets and sites of production mean that there has been a shift to talking about mediation as an omnipresent phenomenon that is increasingly shaped by individuals. As they disseminate information and connect across time and space, media are a key site of multilingualism, and media have a major role to play in maintaining or challenging existing language regimes, attitudes, and ideologies. This role makes it crucial to understand how individuals engage with and are exposed to discourses about multilingualism and multilingual practices in mediated contexts in both the Global South and Global North, recognizing that the latter have informed the majority of theory to date. We understand Global South and Global North as partly geographic distinctions but also partly as determined by political and economic factors as well as by relative prominence and attention in the literature to date and in terms of contributions by scholars. We begin by looking at early developments, charting the change from monolingual media institutions to hybridized and translingual media spaces. We present a continuum ranging from media texts, which are traditional media texts prepared for mass delivery via a media channel, to mediatized texts, which are privately and individually produced texts which can then be distributed by individuals to a small or wide audience as a result of technological changes. The growth of such mediatized texts has resulted in a much greater degree of multilingualism in media spaces and has also changed the nature of what we understand by multilingualism. We then go on to look at some key issues of theory and method involved in studying the media as sites of multilingualism, with input from current and recent studies in a range of geopolitical contexts. Following this, we review some new research directions, largely driven by the digitization of media, and attempt to redress the imbalance in Northern-​driven theory and studies to date by using a Global South example. Finally, we offer a review of our own positionality in relation to the topic.

Early developments in the field The early development of media, in particular mass media such as broadcasting, can in many ways be seen as a negative development from the point of view of multilingualism. Giving a language written form that is to be widely distributed inevitably involves choices about that particular 352

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-27

Media as Sites of Multilingualism

language, which includes some speakers but excludes others (see Pietikäinen & Kelly-​Holmes, 2011a). In practical terms and for reasons of cost as well as ideology (national media being an important vehicle for standardizing language, see Stuart-​Smith, 2011), those who produce media have tended to target geographic areas with standard media in a standardized language (see, e.g. Neyazi, 2010). One result of this early era has been the codification of monolingualism as normal in the media through a variety of explicit and implicit policies and practices, with multilingualism being conceived of as problematic and consequently practised, if at all, as parallel monolingualisms (Heller, 2007a. This clearly differs from many people’s everyday lived experience, which involves much more hybrid practices with differences in Global North and Global South contexts and in different media spaces. This approach has changed enormously with the fragmentation and digitization of media, and in particular the evolution of user-​generated content. It could be argued that standard media have a lower impact compared to social and digital media in the current era, something that has only been enhanced by the isolation of the global pandemic. The speech community (or potential audience) constituted by media could be large, for example, an entire nation, as in the case of the target audience of a national broadcaster or national newspaper. And, with the growth of digital media in particular, there is no limit on the size or location of that group (see, for example, Sheyholislami, 2011; Ogunyemi, 2018). Developments in media in relation to multilingualism are crucially linked to ongoing technological developments, which can impact on both ideologies around language and practical efforts in relation to revitalization. Newer media can challenge the Herderian assumption of one national culture equals one language equals one people, as they have the capacity to address speech communities without regard to territory. For example, representing variation in the media speech community became much more feasible with the development of multi-​channel broadcasting and the dismantling of state monopolies in broadcasting. Similarly, digital technology has led to exponential fragmentation of media audiences and speech communities, as well as the growth of heteroglossic media practices. However, much of the implementation of linguistic human rights in the sphere of media has often reinforced the demarcating and monolingual ideology of one language =​one people. This has in many instances led to multiple, parallel crops, rather than cross-​ fertilization to borrow the biodiversity metaphor. With changing technology and the evolution of user-​generated media content which are now more easily and readily available to speakers of languages other than the dominant media language in a particular society, bottom-​up, heteroglossic and idiolectal practices are possible in new media formats (see Tagg, 2015, Lee, 2016; see below also for more discussion).

Changing theories and methods In many ways, multilingualism in the media could be treated in the same way as multilingualism in any other domain, private or public, in everyday life. Indeed, the distinction between ‘mediated’ and ‘real’ multilingualism has been criticized (see Androutsopoulos (2007) for a discussion). What makes multilingualism in the media different from ‘everyday’ or ‘person to person’ or other occasions of multilingualism is the presence –​seen or unseen, human or technical –​of some intermediary or facilitator or controller. This facilitation or control means that decisions have to be made at a whole range of levels not just about what multilingual practices to adopt, but also about how to depict and value multilingualism in a particular media context or channel. It is worth keeping in mind when researching this topic across sites that differences persist despite globalization in media practices. For example, media in Global South communities rely more on spoken language (hMensa, 2013; Prah, 2010). 353

Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-Holmes

There have been calls for applied linguistics research to adapt newer approaches to media texts (Piller, 2006; Cook et al., 2009) and to develop theories and frameworks that reflect ‘Global South’ perspectives, cultural and historical contexts (Pennycook & Makoni, 2020). For example, Global North scholars have focused on text and/​or audience reception studies for the analysis of media texts such as advertising and argued that language choices are largely for ‘fake’, ‘symbolic’ purposes and are unrealistic representations of linguistic practices (Haarman, 1989; Kelly-​ Holmes, 2005). These findings and frameworks have also been applied in Global South studies such as Higgins (2009), Rosendal (2009) and Kasanga (2010). While such studies are useful in extending the range of contexts that inform research, the next step is building theories from Global South contexts that will be adopted more widely in the field (see for instance Deumert, 2014). For example, using a study of slice-​of-​life radio advertisements, hMensa (2010 & 2013) argues that adverts from the Ghanaian context index the actual sociolinguistic practices of the various target audiences. hMensa (2010, 2013) develops the notion of ‘designed indexicality’, which incorporates the perspectives of producers as well as users and the researcher themselves and both emerges from and recognizes the importance of the oral tradition in Global South media. Participants in advertising discourse contexts, purposively construct and interpret locally meaningful and multimodal indexical resources (hMensa, 2013: 240). The concept of designed indexicality is intended to be applied to other Global South sites and in other mediated or mediatized contexts. The choice of media sites by applied linguists and sociolinguists when expanding to cover contexts beyond the Global North will also have an influence on the findings that will result. For example, where print media are chosen (the case of most contemporary research) for Global South studies, they reveal findings which support Global North theories and frameworks (see, e.g. Rosendal, 2009). However, print media as data are arguably not reflective of the language choices of the average Global South resident if we are considering the cultural, economic and educational dichotomies between North and South contexts. Thinking more broadly about different modalities is important (as designed indexicality shows) as it will provide more innovative frameworks for understanding multilingualism and media that will propel the research of Southern applied linguistics into the global academic mainstream. In terms of looking at multilingual practices and media, it can be useful to think in terms of a continuum of texts, ranging from media texts to mediatized texts. Text here is of course understood as encompassing not just written, but all kinds of modalities. Media texts are understood as specifically related to and in fact inseparable from a medium and would not be possible or would be radically altered without mediation (e.g. news reporting, advertising, television drama, editorials, radio shows, etc.). They tend to be monologic in nature in terms of the relationship between audience and media text –​even though they may contain dialogic speech acts (e.g. soap operas, radio dramas). They are also generally rehearsed, scripted, edited, planned, researched, staged in some way, with attention being given in advance to language choices and audience reception (see hMensa, 2013). The term mediatized texts, on the other hand, can be used to refer to ‘spontaneous’ or ‘real world’ speech acts that become mediated (e.g. texting, email, blogging, vlogging, chat, phone-​in, reality TV) or that take place as person-​to-​person mediated communication in digital networks. They tend to be dialogic in nature in terms of the relationship between media actor and audience and are generally linked to new media. A further feature is that they are characterized by the participation of non-​professionals or a mix of professional and non-​professional, and they are generally subject to (or at least appear to be subject to) less editing and preparation. Radio and television programmes which allow audience phone-​ins are on the rise in African contexts, and due to mediatization (online streaming via YouTube, websites, Facebook, etc), these can then include a global audience 354

Media as Sites of Multilingualism

of diasporic citizens who want to continue to participate in ongoing local discussions. These seem more obviously like ‘real’ sociolinguistic data about multilingualism and linguistic diversity, however there is still some degree of mediation, gatekeeping or editing. Digital media, since Web 2.0 in particular, have facilitated the growth of mediatized texts featuring multilingualism. As mentioned earlier, the distinction between media texts and mediated texts can be seen as more of a continuum than a dichotomy. In terms of multilingualism, top-​down media texts would be situated at the start of the continuum, adhering to a kind of ‘mandatory’ multilingualism (Khubchandani, 1983 in Pennycook & Otsuji, 2020). In general, these are conceived in terms of monolingualism as the norm –​and even where such texts are multilingual, the multilingualism is in fact parallel monolingualisms, with strict borders being maintained between languages. At the other end of the continuum, we have bottom-​up mediatized texts, which feature heteroglossic and mixed forms (what can be termed ‘grassroots’ multilingualism (ibid.).

Changing contexts and research directions Research on multilingualism and media has grown over the last few decades to include varying cultural and geographical contexts, see for example: Japan (Haarman, 1989); New Zealand (Bell, 1992); Germany (Piller, 2001); Brazil (Friedrich, 2002); France (Martin, 2006; Amos, 2020); Russia (Ustinova & Bhatia, 2005); Europe (Kelly Holmes, 2005; Gerritsen et al., 2007); Catalonia (Atkinson & Kelly-​Holmes, 2006); Mexico (Baumgarder, 2008); Australia (Santello, 2015); South Africa, (Kamwangamalu, 2008); Tanzania and Kenya (Mutonya, 2008; Higgins, 2009); Congo D.R. (Kasanga, 2010, 2012, 2019); India (Bhatt, 2003; Bhatia & Ritchie, 2004; Krishnasamy, 2007; Agnihotri & McCormick, 2010), China (Gao, 2014) and South Korea (Lee, 2006, 2016) amongst others. Despite the growth in studies, research on the topic within the Global South is still limited compared to that of the Global North (hMensa, 2013; see also Uribe-​Jongbloed, 2014, in relation to minority language media studies). Multilingualism in the Global South is indelibly marked by the linguistic legacy of colonial rule across so many regions leading to the development of dominant and minority language statuses. Multilingualism is a “site of struggle” (Duchéne, 2020: 3) and in this context of Global North and South divide this is largely driven by capitalism and colonial histories, and with media playing a key role. In relation to minority languages and media, the relationship is a complex one, offering opportunities for small language on the other promoting dominant language ideologies (Cunliffe & Herring, 2005b: 131; see Jones and Uribe-​Jongbloed, 2014 and Moring, 2019 for updated overviews re minority languages and media). Despite initial fears that English would become the normal or default language for digital media and yet another site of linguistic imperialism (Crystal, 2001), studies have shown increasing rather than decreasing linguistic diversity on the World Wide Web (see Lee, 2016) and greater activity by minority language speakers (for an updated overview see Cunliffe, 2019). Pietikäinen and Kelly-​Holmes (2011b) identify three eras in the development of minority language media ‘gifting’, ‘service’ and ‘performance’. The crucial difference between the first two eras and the current one is that the speech community was dependent on media institutions to represent their multilingualism and linguistic diversity in the gifting and service eras, whereas in the performance era, speech communities have the possibility, with obvious limitations, to represent themselves. When thinking about the implications of the third era and applicability to Global South contexts, it’s important to note that financial and infrastructural constraints on internet access persist in many parts of the world. Nonetheless, digitization has given the average Global South resident access to creating and controlling their own content based on their personal linguistic capital. For example, the sudden rise of YouTube content creators from 355

Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-Holmes

Africa has created media communities that are not under institutional or state control and language choices are determined by the creators and their audience. Evolving technology can clearly be seen to have had an impact on normalizing language relations in a number of diglossic or contested contexts. Technical improvements have meant that minority language communities have not had to compromise in terms of omitting special characters, which would fundamentally change and homogenize their alphabets, bringing them visually closer to majority languages and consequently reducing their visibility and the ability to perform meaningful searches in them (Kelly-​Holmes, 2019). For example, diacritics in languages such as Irish affect the meaning of words and so the inability for many years to use diacritics in searches or the disregarding of them by the technology impacted on search results. The technical possibilities afforded by digital technologies also mean that content can now be made available in an economically viable way, not only in any number of languages, but also in ‘small’ languages that do not have large numbers of speakers to support correspondingly large print runs. Such availability inevitably challenges existing hierarchies and the status quo, whereby commonsense assumptions about language are disseminated and reinforced by the ideologies and norms of the publishing and traditional media industries. Online streaming platforms such as YouTube and Facebook have created spaces for minoritized languages to be normalized with content from Global South creators from across the globe (not necessarily based in the country of the language spoken). A good example of the possibilities that now exist is that of a very popular cooking and lifestyle YouTube channel owned by a Nigerian-​born, Spanish-​based content creator, Flo Chinyere, who speaks Igbo, English and Spanish. Igbo–​English code-​switching on her channel is a norm (with or without subtitling), and this contributes to a normalizing of these practices as the language is exposed to over 418,000 subscribers with over 52 million views. The use and indexing of minority languages in web environments can have multiple outcomes and effects: what is used by the commercial content provider to differentiate or authenticate their product can be a feel-​good factor and attractive package for the consumer and may potentially be empowering for minority language speakers, leading either to an up-​scaling of their linguistic resources or conversely a feeling of disenfranchisement if it is depicted as a negative stereotype. It may be all these things –​and more –​at one and the same time. For these reasons, digital media contexts can be a potentially positive development for minority languages and multilingualism in general in terms of making documents and text available in a wider range of languages (cf. for example, Nicholls, Witten, Keegan, Bainbridge & Dewsnip, 2005) A further claim made for the Web and digital technology goes beyond simply the provision of content in a variety of languages (which could be seen to support maintenance or even status aspirations) to predict an active role for new media in promoting revitalization (see Stern, 2017 in relation to Bali). The potential of this role is highlighted by Kalish (2005: 182), who claims that “questions asked by Tribal people who are engaged in revitalizing language and culture, and those that are asked by people who build various language technologies define the revitalization landscape”. Cunliffe and Herring (2005b: 131–​32) also propose expanding the understanding of the digital divide to include the divide between languages that are ‘information rich’ and languages that are ‘information poor’ with regard to online content and services and ways to access what is available (see Ní Bhroin, 2019). From this point of view, another positive outcome has been the ability to develop and disseminate literacies in small languages via user-​generated content and communities on digital media (see Lilliehaugen, 2016; Reershemius, 2017). For all these reasons, digital media have become a particular focus for revitalization efforts and the provision of ‘breathing spaces’ for a number of minority language contexts (see Cru, 2015; Coronel-​Molina, 2019; Belmar & Glass, 2019). One useful direction has been the

356

Media as Sites of Multilingualism

increasing incorporation of production perspectives into such studies, which have previously been dominated by user or content studies (see, for example, Markelin, 2017; Zabaleta et al., 2014; Pietikäinen, 2008). From the user point of view, multilingual use means many things, and since early studies, which were still premised on classifying on the basis of different language varieties (see e.g. Kelly-​ Holmes, 2004), research has evolved in line with a change to focus on ‘individuals’ ontological and stylistic deployment of semiotic resources’ (Parkin, 2016: 77), with current studies reflecting these two approaches as ‘a broad if overlapping shift’ (ibid) (see also Pennycook, 2010 in relation to hip hop, graffiti etc.). For example, a recent study shows how Nordic users are exhibiting bilingualism on Twitter, however they are shifting more towards English than their native languages (Coats, 2019). This demonstrates how the digital media can reinforce existing diglossic situations, as sociolinguistic norms and language ideologies get transferred to a new medium. An additional dimension to multilingual internet use is not just the idea of the multilingual individual using different languages to access different types of content and using the digital media in different ways, but also the provision of multilingual content, not just in terms of content being made available in multiple languages (parallel monolingualism), but also in mixed languages (heteroglossia). (For early, influential studies, see Deumert & Masinyana, 2008 re English–​IsiXhosa usage in mobile messaging; Androutsopolous, 2006 re diasporic websites; Wright, 2006 re writing Occitan online; and, for overviews of the field, Cunliffe & Herring, 2005a; Danet & Herring, 2003, 2007.) The publishing norms of hard copy which previously dictated that a text be in one language or another (a type of ‘mandatory multilingualism’ see Khubchandani, 1983 in Pennycook & Otsuji, 2020: 11) do not necessarily apply in digital media, particularly in bottom-​up type applications such as blogs (and micro-​blogs including Twitter).We are consequently witnessing a huge wave of innovative and emergent heteroglossic practices in such forums, which involve not just mixing between languages but also between a range of semiotic resources, in other words ‘grassroots multilingualism’ (Khubchandani, 1983 in Pennycook & Otsuji, 2020: 11). So, for example, ‘buffalaxed’ videos on YouTube, which involve an assemblage of languages and semiotic resources of the creator’s choice (Leppänen & Häkkinen, 2013); documentation of the endangered Frisian language via virtual communities (Belmar & Heyen, 2021); ‘agentic activism’ on Twitter as a means to stimulating Irish language revitalization (Nic Giolla Mhichíl, Lynn & Rosati, 2018); Facebook as a site for bilingual practices in Low German (Reershemius, 2017); and the networked but individualized multilingual and multimodal practices of Greek German Facebook users (Androutsopoulos, 2015). Such heteroglossic and multimodal practices challenge existing norms, by creating new and flexible normativities in terms not just of mixed language practices, but also of combining language with other modes. This, in turn, poses a challenge to prevailing language ideologies and new ways of thinking about and defining multilingualism (see Chapter 26, this volume).

Example of media as a site of multilingualism In this final section, we focus on a contemporary media site of multilingualism, involving YouTube and Facebook. We focus on these due to their accessibility without restrictions on subscribers and the current global patronage of these sites for academic, social, entertainment, commercial political and religious purposes. The data chosen for analysis below represents, as outlined above, a highly controlled and planned media text, a genre which reflects minute attention to language choices and combinations –​dictated by the cost of prime-​time television advertising (cf. hMensa 2013 on cost and space constraints in advertising).

357

Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-Holmes

The text is a Globacom Nigeria advertisement –​Globacom Limited is a telecommunications company with several million subscribers in Nigeria and Ghana. The advertisement was aired on Nigerian television stations, and on Cable News Network (CNN) International where Glo sponsors the African Voices Changemakers magazine programme. It was subsequently posted on Globacomlimited YouTube channel (available online at www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​336P​rfKd​ BxY last accessed 29 October 2021) and has 570,303 views, 136 likes and 41 comments. The advertisement is also available on Glo World Facebook page with 224,000 views, 3,900 likes and 136 shares and 599 comments. Table 23.1 provides a description of the advertisement and a transcript. Table 23.1 Description and transcription of Globacom Nigeria advertisement Globacom Nigeria CNN TV Advert –​English & Pidgin Duration –​01:00 www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​336P​rfKd​BxY aired from September 2020 Turn Voice

Speech

Translation

Nonverbal Scene

Female biker and mechanic scene –​Motorbike faulty on a highway, mechanic is called and arrives on the scene as female biker is ending a video phone call with friends. Mechanic plans to overcharge and reports faulty parts and his exorbitant costs for the repair. Biker requests for tools and completes the repair with instructions from friends on speaker phone. After the repair, she thanked her friends on the video call and returns the mechanic’s tools with a 1000 naira note advising him to quarantine his tools. She rides away to meet her other biker friends whiles the mechanic runs after her barefooted and angry. You don almost reach abi? Oh okay

1

Female 1

2

Friends on phone

3 4

Female 1 Mechanic

Guys the mechanic is almost here Hey madam ((laughing))

5 6

Female 1 Mechanic

What do you think is wrong? Ahhh aaah Madam no bi small thing ooo we dey worry this your bike ooo carburettor and radiator and babuka If you wan fix am na 50000

7

Female

((smirks)) I guess I have no choice give me size 10 Allen key

Are you almost here? Oh On phone call with okay speaker mode showing contact as Thief Thief mechanic. Phone ringing and receives video call Switches to incoming video phone call with two friends showing contact as Olamide Arrives on a commercial motorbike Madam it is not a Female biker looks at him minor fault ooo skeptically (pragmatic marker) it’s the carburettor and radiator and ‘babuka’ [gibberish word] If you want to fix these it will cost 50000 Mechanic dazed with surprise at her knowledge hands over the tool

358

Media as Sites of Multilingualism Table 23.1 (Continued) Globacom Nigeria CNN TV Advert –​English & Pidgin Duration –​01:00 www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​336P​rfKd​BxY aired from September 2020 Turn Voice 8 9 10

Speech

Translation

Nonverbal Scene

Friends on (on video call speaker phone) Biker attends to fault phone turn the knot a quarter inch.. on the bike as per the ((voice trails off)) voice instructions Mechanic Madam the topple don spoil Madam the topple is also now you need to buy new one, faulty you need to buy na 16000 ((winks slyly)) a new one for 16000 Female (Starts the bikes and it purrs Biker smoothly. She laughs and speaks to her 3 friends on video call) Thanks for your help guys. I’ll be on my way now

11

Friends on Friends smile and make thumbs phone up sign

12

Female biker

(She mounts bike and hands over a 1000 naira note to the mechanic) Quarantine your tools

13

Mechanic

(shouting and running after her with his tool bag on the road) don’t leave me (picks his slippers and throws the pair at the biker as she rode away)

14

Female biker

Female biker caught up with her friends and they drove off as team

15

AVO

(Glo data plans show on screen) For these mega data plans dial star triple 7 hash

Mechanic stands there open mouthed and a surprised look as she rides past him on the motorbike.

The language of this advertisement is Nigerian Pidgin English (NPE) and Standard English. The latter is the national language in Nigeria, while Pidgin English is a lingua franca in three post-​colonial West African countries (Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Ghana) and has mutual intelligibility across these contexts. The use of Pidgin for this advertisement aimed at a global audience (the advertisement was aired on CNN and YouTube) expands the audience range as the international English-​speaking audience will have some understanding of the scenario. NPE is the most widely spoken language in Nigeria although it is not an official or a national language. The language choice of the advert aired on an international television channel reflects the rising status 359

Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-Holmes

of NPE through media which confirms earlier predictions on the role of media, particularly the Nigerian film industry, in the status change of NPE (see Igboanusi, 2008; see also Yakpo, 2020). The advert’s portrayal of the mechanic as the dominant NPE user and the biker and friends as using Standard English reflect the lower status and prestige of NPE (cf. Igboanusi, 2008) since it is used by characters perceived to have lower literacy levels such as the mechanic. Mechanics are ranked as not highly educated and theirs is not considered a prestigious occupation in some African countries. The biker is characterized as highly educated through her Standard English use with her friends (see Turns 3, 8 and 10) and with the mechanic in only one instance of use (see Turn 5). Although the mechanic is speaking mainly NPE indicating the client’s understanding of NPE she uses it only once in the introduction line (see Turn 1). While in previous media eras, advertisements such as this had a brief life on television, now they are rendered ‘eternal’ by being remediated to platforms such as YouTube. Through this remediation, they also generate ‘mediated’ texts in the form of comments (see Kelly-​Holmes, 2017). Interestingly, the comments on YouTube in relation to this advert were not about the language but rather about the overall real-​life scenario depicted. Language choice was thus not an explicit concern for the CNN viewers nor for the YouTube followers. The advert achieved over 500,000 views on the platform, evidence of significant impact and reach within a year of airing on YouTube. However, the language choice, does, it can be argued, contribute to making the scenario realistic (i.e. the depiction of the social and linguistic realities of the target audience) and thus it can be argued that it is implicitly part of the discussion. The associated Facebook page shows a reach of over 240,000 views, 3,900 likes and 599 comments, revealing even more engagement from followers on Facebook. On this platform, audience comments reflect complaints from users, reviews of the scenario depicted, the identity of the actors particularly the lady biker, and appreciation of the advert and complaints about the company. English with NPE code-​switching is used in the comments as shown below: Extract 1 Facebook Follower 1: Na only better advert una Sabi, data suckers. Translation:  You are only focused on excellent adverts, data suckers. Extract 2 Facebook Follower 2: I bought 500mb yesterday e no even reach 2 hours. Translation:   I bought 500mb yesterday and it did not last for 2 hours. Glo World:   … Hello, we empathize. Kindly provide your number for checks. Extract 3 Facebook follower 3: L  ovely advert. Airtel and Glo is [sic] topping in adverts but they are all thiefs [sic] and am [sic] using all of them. The baba of them all is MTN and our yahoo boys in national assembly is doing nothing to regulate them because the network providers are rubbing oil … Translation:

L  ovely advert. Airtel and Glo are excelling in adverts but they are all thieves and I am using all of them. The lord/​father of them all is MTN and our fraudsters in national assembly are doing nothing to regulate them because the network providers are sponsoring them … 360

Media as Sites of Multilingualism

Extract 4 YouTube follower 1: H  onestly u [textese] guys need upgrade. send message it will deliver after days. haba, very slow. Translation: H  onestly you guys need to upgrade. Send a message it will deliver after days, [interjection indicating exasperation as in good grief], very slow. The use of NPE in the audience responses to the advert on both Facebook and YouTube indicate that the ad producer’s design of the advert with NPE and English code-​switching is reflective of the target audience’s language practices. The dominant use of English in the audience feedback is typical of the social media platforms used, as written forms are the norm and only literate audience members can provide comments on these platforms. Audience comments are reflective of their personal linguistic abilities and practices and the dominant use of English (see Extracts 1–​4) is a norm due to its role and official status in post-​colonial contexts such as Nigeria and Ghana. The NPE forms used in these comments for example, ‘haba’, ‘baba’, ‘yahoo boys’ all replicate ‘code-​mixed discourses’ (Martin, 2010: 94). NPE use in the comments show a subtle valorization and empowerment of the NPE through traditional media and mediatized spaces (see Igboanusi, 2008: 70). The scenario depicted generated more interest as illustrated in the YouTube audience comments (see below), which showed more engaged discussion about the scenario design and the audience’s understanding of and appreciation for it. Extract 5 YouTube follower 2: Irritating stereotyping low grade ad. Main character is a cheating clown … Does he have to throw his sandals in despair and run barefoot? What international image is Glo trying to portray?? It is on CNN, no longer a local ad. Disgusting. Extract 6 Youtube follower 3: Oh give it a rest people, its [sic] a joke that’s all, there are some very good engineers no problem but there is also some dodgy ones and I’m from London. Extract 7 YouTube follower 4: The allusions of wrong portrayals by commenter here are highly subjective. I think the advert is a great depiction of the intended message and captures the concept of possibilities enabled by sufficiently available or ‘flowing’ data efficiently. I love it! YouTube comments as illustrated in Extracts 5–​7 above were focused on the designed scenario and the portrayal of a negative practice. Such collaborative interpretation practices were also exemplified in focus group responses to radio adverts in diverse ‘natural’ listening environments reported in hMensa (2013). Though the radio listening practices were oral, and characterized with ‘overlapping speech, partial repetition and building on each others’ turns’ (p. 233), the last two are evident in Extracts 6 and 7 which follow up on an earlier comment in Extract 5 about the

361

Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-Holmes

negative portrayal of the country. The audience feedback in this remediated context is in sync with radio advert focus group responses where hMensa (ibid.: 242) shows that the audience “focus on characters and events were based on the socially-​recognizable scenes familiar to them or relating to their experiences”. This Globacom ad analysis exemplifies the argument for Global South concept of designed indexicality framework (hMensa, 2013), which helps to explain how the resources (i.e. recognizable characters, scenarios, languages, etc.) used by the ad producers are culturally salient, indexical resources carefully selected to communicate with the target audience within the time and financial constraint of a 60-​second video. These indexical resources as shown in the audience responses from Facebook and YouTube do seem to have conveyed readily –​and collaboratively –​ interpretable meanings reflective of people’s everyday lives. The language of the comments posted in response to the advertisement’s remediation to YouTube and Facebook exemplify the phenomenon of mediatized texts, whereby texts can be created by individuals using their own linguistic norms, and without the intervention of a top-​down agent of language policy. The freedom which user-​generated content such as this affords as well as the technology that makes it possible fundamentally alter the relationship between multilingualism and media –​multilingualism becomes a bottom-​up as well as a top-​down phenomenon in media. The language choice in the advertisements also prompts and provides the context for the language choices of the posters commenting on the ad. Any individual (within the significant economic, educational and geographical limits of access) can now create their own multilingual media. Digital multilingualism has evolved to become a rich site where linguistic realities are reflected daily. The bridge between theory and practice in developing and incorporating Global South theory lies in the inclusion of multi-​perspectived methodology with ethnographic underpinnings that focus on data beyond the text and in sync with local practices. Contemporary media research cannot be discussed without mediatization and speech communities in virtual spaces such as exemplified by the Globacom advertisement.

Conclusion and reflection Media are a key site of multilingualism: a place where national and regional policies, practices and ideologies in relation to multilingualism are enacted, where speech communities are constituted, represented, fragmented, and reconstituted, where multilingualism is experienced and learned, and, increasingly too, a place where individuals and groups can represent and also create their own multilingualism. One inevitable conclusion is that this experience will be an increasingly individualized and fragmented one –​for many people if not for everyone in the world given the ongoing digital divide –​which brings positives and negatives. This is potentially positive in the sense that increasingly centralized (mandatory) standards for languages are being challenged and individuals can create their own language –​within limits. There is also greater scope to accommodate a wider conceptualization of language and multilingualism as incorporating multi-​modality. It is potentially negative in the sense that increasingly we may experience the mediated world as a less multilingual place, where we are categorized in terms of our perceived language preference and confined to mediated spaces designed in our linguistic image and likeness (see Kelly-​ Holmes, 2019). Preparing this updated chapter, more than ten years after the first edition and as a team, opened up many opportunities and highlighted a number of issues which we would now like to reflect on briefly. Firstly, the technological evolution since the original chapter was written is phenomenal and has changed so much in terms of multilingualism. This is constantly changing, and it is hard 362

Media as Sites of Multilingualism

to keep up with this pace –​we could write this chapter tomorrow and it would be slightly different again. We have therefore tried to harness a moment in time and to look at the current impacts that multilingualism has on media and how in turn at this moment the evolving technology is changing multilingualism. The second overwhelming impression is how Globally North the previous chapter was in both its content and concepts. That this was entirely implicit, on Helen’s part, and not even commented on or contextualized by her in an explicit way is extremely telling about how and why our field needs to move on and in fact shows the usefulness of this kind of updating process, particularly when it is taken on with a new scholar. The introduction of designed indexicality, which is a theory to emerge from the Global South, into this revised and updated chapter is an initial attempt to show how this deficit might be redressed. However, as our overview shows, there is still much to be done in theory-​building, contexts studied and range of scholars contributing to these processes. There has long been an argument for greater diversity in institutional contexts, as a means to enrich and expand thinking and policies have been introduced to address this. However, in publishing and researching, connections are still left largely to chance, which can reinforce existing gaps and inequalities. We are all key players in changing this, and the policy of the editors in revising the current volume is an example of how to make this happen –​by encouraging scholars from Global North and Global South to collaborate and consider explicitly how to incorporate that coming together into their revised chapter.

Related topics Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing; Chapter 8 Multilingualism and multimodality; Chapter 12 Digital multilingualism.

Further reading Deumert, A. 2014. Sociolinguistics and Mobile Communication. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Higgins, C. 2009. English as a Local Language: Post-​colonial Identities and Multilingual Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters hMensa, P.A. 2013. Mirroring Ghanaian Society through Slice-​of-​life Radio Advertisements. PhD thesis. The Open University. Jones, E.H.G. & Uribe-​Jongbloed, E. Eds. 2012. Social Media and Minority Languages: Convergence and the Creative Industries. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2019. Multilingualism and technology: a review of developments in digital communication from monolingualism to idiolingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 39: 24–​39. Lee, C. 2016. Multilingualism Online. London & New York: Routledge. Tagg, C. 2015. Exploring Digital Communication: Language in Action. London & New York: Routledge.

References Agnihotri, R.K. & McCormick, K. 2010. Language in the material world: multilinguality in signage. International Multilingual Research Journal. 4(1): 55–​81. Amos, W. 2020. English in French commercial advertising: simultaneity, bivalency, and language boundaries. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 24(1): 55–​74. Androutsopoulos, J. 2006. Multilingualism, diaspora and the internet: codes and identities on german-​based diaspora websites. Journal of Sociolinguistics.10(4): 524–​551. Androutsopoulos, J. 2007. Bilingualism in the mass media and on the internet. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach. M. Heller, Ed. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-​MacMillan. 207–​230. Androutsopoulos, J. 2015. Networked multilingualism: some language practices on facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism. 19(2): 185–​205.

363

Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-Holmes Atkinson, D. & Keyy-​Holmes, H. 2007. Linguistic normalisation and the market: advertising and linguistic choice in El Periódico de Catalunya. Language Problems and Language Planning. 30(3): 239–​260. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​lplp.30.3.03atk. Baumgardner, R.J. 2008. The use of English in advertising in Mexican print media. Journal of Creative Communications. 3(1): 23–​48. Bell, A. 1992. Hit and miss: referee design in the dialects of New Zealand television advertisements. Language and Communication. 12(3–​4): 327–​340. Belmar, G. & Hauke, H. 2021. Virtual frisian: a comparison of language use in North and West Frisian virtual communities. Language Documentation and Conservation. 15: 285–​315. Belmar, G & Glass, M. 2019. Virtual communities as breathing spaces for minority languages: re-​framing minority language use in social media. Adeptus. 14. Bhatia. T.K. & Ritchie, B. 2004. Bilingualism in the global media and advertising. In Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. 513–​546. Bhatt, R. 2003. Venerable discourses, local practices, and hybridity: the case of Indian Englishes. In S. Canagarajah, Ed. Negotiating the Global and Local in Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Coats, S. 2019. Language choice and gender in a Nordic social media corpus. Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 42: 31–​55. Cook, G., Reed, M. & Twiner, A. 2009. ‘But it’s all true!’: commercialism and commitment in the discourse of organic food promotion. Text and Talk. 29(2): 151–​173. Coronel-​Molina, S.M. 2019. Media and technology: revitalizing Latin American indigenous languages in cyberspace. In A World of Indigenous Languages: Policies, Pedagogies and Prospects for Language Reclamation. L.T. McCarty, S.E. Nicholas & G. Wigglesworth, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cru, J. 2015. Language revitalisation from the ground up: promoting Yucatec Maya on Facebook. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 36(3): 284–​296. Crystal, D. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Cunliffe, D. 2019. Minority languages and social media. In Hogan-Brun, G. and O’Rourke, B. (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Languages and Communities. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 451–​480. Cunliffe, D. & Herring, S. Eds. 2005a. Minority languages, multimedia and the web (special issue). New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 11:2. Cunliffe, D. & Herring, S. 2005b. Introduction to minority languages, multimedia and the web. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 11:2. Danet, B. & Herring, S. Eds. 2003. The multilingual internet (special issue). Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 9:1. Danet, B. & Herring, S. Eds. 2007. The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and Communication Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deumert, A. & Masinyana, S.O. 2008. Mobile language choices: the use of English and isiXhosa in text messages (SMS): evidence from a bilingual South African sample. English World-​Wide. 29(2): 117–​147. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​eww.29.2.02deu. Duchéne, A. 2020. Multilingualism: an insufficient answer to sociolinguistic inequalities. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 263: 91–​97. Friedrich, P. 2002. English in advertising and brand naming: sociolinguistic considerations and the case of Brazil. English Today. 18(3): 21. Gao, Xuesong. 2014. The ideological framing of ‘dialect’: an analysis of mainland China’s state media coverage of ‘dialect crisis’ (2002–​2012). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. (Ahead-​ of-​print): 1–​15. Gerritsen, M., Nickerson, C., van Hooft, A., van Meurs, F., Korzilius, H., Nederstigt, U., Starren, M. & Crijns, R. 2010. English in product advertisements in non-​English speaking countries in Western Europe: product image and comprehension of the text. Journal of Global Marketing. 23. Haarmann, H. 1989. Symbolic Values of Foreign Language Use, from the Japanese Case to a General Sociolinguistic Perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Heller, M. Ed. 2007. Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-​MacMillan. Higgins, C. 2009. English as a Local Language: Post-​colonial Identities and Multilingual Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

364

Media as Sites of Multilingualism hMensa, P A. 2013. Mirroring Ghanaian Society through Slice-​of-​life Radio Advertisements. PhD thesis. The Open University. hMensa, P.A. 2010. Radio advertising research: a triangular design perspective from an African context. [Special Edition, Radio: challenges and new directions] Communication Journal of New Zealand. 11: 52–​68. Igboanusi, H. 2008. Empowering Nigerian Pidgin: a challenge for status planning? World Englishes. 27: 68–​82. Jones, E.H.G. & Uribe-​Jongbloed, E. Eds. 2013. Social Media and Minority Languages: Convergence and the Creative Industries. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kalish, M. 2005. Immersion multimedia for adult chiricahua language learners. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 11(2): 181–​203. Kamwangamalu, N.M. 2008. From linguistic Apartheid to linguistic co-​habitation: codeswitching in print advertising in post-​Apartheid South Africa. Journal of Creative Communications. 3(1): 99–​113. Kasanga, L.A. 2010. Streetwise English and French advertising in multilingual DR Congo: symbolism, modernity, and cosmopolitan identity. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 206: 181–​205. Kasanga, L.A. 2012. English in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. World Englishes. 31: 48–​69. Kasanga, L.A. 2019. English in advertising in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo. World Englishes. 38: 561–​575. Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2004. An analysis of the languages in students repertoires and the languages they use on the internet. International Journal on Multicultural Society. 6(4): 29–​52. Kelly-​ Holmes, H. 2005. Advertising as Multilingual Communication. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-​MacMillan. Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2017. Brand styling, enregisterment, and change: the case of c’est cidre. In N. Mortensen, J. Coupland & Thøgersen, Eds. Style, Mediation, and Change: Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Talking Media. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 101–​114. Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2019. Multilingualism and technology: a review of developments in digital communication from monolingualism to idiolingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 39: 24–​39. Krishnasamy, K. 2007. English in Tamil: the language of advertising. English Today. 23(3–​4): 40. Lee, C. 2016. Multilingualism Online. Routledge. Lee, J.S. 2006. Linguistic constructions of modernity: English mixing in Korean television commercials. Language in Society. 35(1): 59. Lee, J.S. 2019. Multilingual advertising in the linguistic landscape of Seoul. World Englishes. 38: 500–​518. Leppänen, S. & Häkkinen, A. 2013. Buffalaxed super-​diversity: representations of the Other on YouTube. Diversities. 14(2): 17–​33. https://​unes​doc.une​sco.org/​ark:/​48223/​pf000​0222​415 Lillehaugen, B.D. 2016. Why write in a language that (almost) no one can read? Twitter and the development of written literature. Language Documentation & Conservation. 10: 356–​393. Markelin, L. 2017. Indigenous voices in the global public sphere: analysis of approaches to journalism within the WITBN network. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies. 6(3): 443–​461. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1386/​ajms.6.3.443_​1. Martin, E. 2006. Marketing Identities through Language: English and Global Imagery in French Advertising. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-​MacMillan. Martin, E. 2010. Language policy and multilingual advertising in France. In Language and the Market. H. Kelly-​Holmes & G. Mautner, Eds. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-​MacMillan. 83–​95. Moring, T. 2019. Minority language media: issues of power, finance and organization. In The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Languages and Communities. Palgrave Macmillan, London. 433–​450. Mutonya, M. 2008. Swahili advertising in Nairobi: innovation and language shift. Journal of African Cultural Studies. 20(1): 3–​14. Neyazi, T.A. 2010. Cultural imperialism or vernacular modernity? Hindi newspapers in a globalizing India. Media, Culture & Society. 32(6): 907–​924. Ní Bhroin, N. 2019. Indigenous, Nordic and digital? How Sámi-​language users negotiate access to digital media. In Making Culture: Children and Young People’s Leisure Cultures. A. Sparrman, Ed. Stockholm: Kulturanalys Norden. 115–​126. Nic Giolla Mhichíl, M., Lynn, T. & Rosati, P. 2018. Twitter and the Irish language, #Gaeilge –​agents and activities: exploring a dataset with micro-​implementers in social media. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 39(10): 868–​881.

365

Patience Afrakoma hMensa and Helen Kelly-Holmes Nicholls, D., Witten, I., Keegan, T., Bainbridge, D. and Dewsnip, M. 2005. Digital libraries and minority languages. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 11(2): 139–​155. Ogunyemi, O. 2018. Introduction: mediating identity and conflict through diasporic media. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture. 9(1): 3–​12. Parkin, D. 2016. From multilingual classification to translingual ontology: a turning point. In Language and Superdiversity. K. Arnaut, J. Blommaert, B. Rampton & M. Spotti, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 71–​88. Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a Local Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. & Otsuji, E. 2020. The mundanity of metrolingual practices. In Translinguistics Negotiating Innovation and Ordinariness. J.W. Lee & S. Dovchin, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 9–​23. Pietikäinen, S. 2008. ‘To breathe two airs.’ Empowering indigenous Sámi media. In Global Indigenous Media: Cultures, Practices and Politics. P. Wilson & M. Steward, Eds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Pietikäinen, S. & Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2011a. The local political economy of languages in a Sámi tourism destination: authenticity and mobility in the labelling of souvenirs. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 15: 323–​346. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-​9841.2011.00489.x Pietikäinen, S. & Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2011b. Gifting, service, and performance: three eras in minority-​language media policy and practice. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 21(1): 51–​70. Piller, I. 2001. Identity constructions in multilingual advertising. Language in Society. 30(2): 153–​186. DOI: 10.1017/​S0047404501002019. Piller, I. 2006. Advertising as multilingual communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 10(2): 272–​277. Prah, K.K. 2010. Multilingualism in urban Africa: bane or blessing. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 5(2): 169–​182. Reershemius, G. 2017. Autochthonous heritage languages and social media: writing and bilingual practices in low German on Facebook. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 38(1): 35–​49. Rosendal, T. 2009. Linguistic markets in Rwanda: language use in advertisements and on signs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 30(1): 19–​39. Santello, M. 2015. Advertising to Italian English bilinguals in Australia: attitudes and response to language selection. Applied Linguistics. 36: 95–​120. Sheyholislami, J. 2011. Kurdish Identity, Discourse, and New Media. Springer. Stern, A.J. 2017. How Facebook can revitalize local languages: lessons from Bali. Journal of Multilingual Multicultural Development. 38(9): 788–​796. Stuart-​Smith, J. 2011. The view from the couch: changing perspectives on the role of the television in changing language ideologies and use. In T. Kristiansen & N. Coupland, Eds. Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. Oslo: Novus Press: 223–​239. Tagg, C. 2015. Exploring Digital Communication: Language in Action. London & New York: Routledge. Uribe-​ Jongbloed, E. 2014. Minority language media studies beyond Eurocentrism: Cormack’s seven conditions revisited. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies. 6(1): 35–​54. Ustinova, I. & Bhatia, T K. 2005. Convergence of English in Russian TV commercials. World Englishes. 24(4): 495–​508. Wright, S. 2006. Regional or minority languages on the WWW. Journal of Language and Politics. 5(2): 217–​238. Yakpo, K. 2020. Sociolinguistic characteristics of the English-​Lexifier contact languages of West Africa. In N. Smith, T. Veenstra & E.O. Aboh, Eds. Advances in Contact Linguistics: In Honour of Pieter Muysken. (Contact Language Library) 57: 61–​84. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Zabaleta, I., Ferré-​Pavia, C., Gutierrez, A., Fernandez, I. & Xamardo, N. 2014. Future business innovation in minority language media: back to basics. Journalism Practice. 8(5): 508−518.

366

PART V

Multilingualism in public life

24 MULTILINGUALISM IN THE WORKPLACE Issues of Space and Social Order Kamilla Kraft and Mi-​Cha Flubacher

Introduction: multilingualism in the workplace “You are wanted,” reads a job ad in German for a Swiss call centre, “bilingual in Swiss German and French, Italian is of advantage.” Furthermore, the ad says, you should be flexible, communicative, enjoying customer contact, willing to work in shifts and have solid computer skills. This ad is almost a decade old, gathered in the context of an ethnographic research project of multilingual workers in a call centre, located in an officially bilingual city in peripheral Switzerland (Flubacher & Duchêne, 2012; Flubacher, 2022b). What emerges in the brevity of this ad is the interlinked regulation of this workplace on the level of both banalized multilingual work and flexibilized labour. This chapter evolves around this idea that the multilingual workplace –​formal or informal –​is best understood as a space of multilingualism (Blommaert et al., 2005) where socio-​economic conditions and expectations both enable and disable speakers’ linguistic repertoires and, consequently, their work-​life opportunities, effectively contributing to the selection and distribution processes of material and symbolic resources (Duchêne, 2011). Hence, a workplace is understood as a specific space that comes with a specific language regime (Kroskrity, 2000) –​i.e. “an overarching form of control, of organization of practices” (Costa, 2019: 3) –​that has consequences for the production and reproduction of social order (Gal, 2012). We are building our contribution on the chapter ‘Multilingualism in the workplace’, written by Roger Hewitt for the first edition of The Routledge Handbook on Multilingualism, published in 2012. In his chapter, Hewitt discussed different instances, structures and issues of multilingual workplaces across the globe. Sharing Hewitt’s critical stance and epistemological approach to the field in question, we foreground workplaces as spaces in the context of multilingualism research. This conceptual move allows us to reflect on the institutional and individual interplay of language and work in specific settings, as both elements fundamentally structure and order lives and societies. Also, it will allow for a focus in this extremely productive and broad field which cannot possibly be captured in its entirety. After all, the body of research on multilingual work(places) has become rather vast, including a growing number of edited volumes (Duchêne, Moyer & Roberts, 2013; Gonçalves & Kelly-​Holmes, 2020; Lüdi, Höchle Meier & Yanaprasat, 2016; Meyer & Apfelbaum, 2010), special issues (Angouri, 2014; Dlaske & McLaughlin, 2016; Kraft & Flubacher, 2020; Gonçalves, 2020), and handbook articles (Hewitt, 2012; Lønsmann & DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-29

369

Kamilla Kraft and Mi-Cha Flubacher

Kraft, 2018). The conceptual lens that space is offering us will not only help structure this body of work but will also highlight that workplaces are constituted by social practices, embedded in historical and political contexts and are simultaneously impacting on biographical experiences and trajectories. Thus, we will explore different types of workplaces, in different geographical and political economic settings. This will include a range of examples of how practices and ideas of multilingualism in the workplace –​and multilingualism as work –​create different affordances and constraints for different groups of workers, often based on their status as speakers of specific languages. Finally, foregrounding the idea that multilingualism and work find different forms, we propose to think of these forms as both different and differential spaces and as linked to the social order. This chapter will be structured as follows: Section 2 briefly introduces our concept of the multilingual workplace as space. In Section 3 we zoom in on different spaces where multilingualism and work meet. The final Section 4 contains closing comments.

A focus on space Across history and cultures, multilingualism (together with its ideal-​typical counterpart, monolingualism) has captured and inspired the collective social imaginary, in part because of its material reality for many (if not most) societies, for example in characterizing work processes and conditions. It is safe to assume that from fabled Babel to present-​day industries and markets, multilingualism and work have intertwined in both experience and narrative, albeit not always framed by what is usually considered a ‘workplace’. However, contrary to the biblical story of the megalomaniac and blasphemous building of the tower of Babel and God’s subsequent punishment, multilingualism is nowadays not only conceived of as disrupting collaboration or productivity –​even if, in some instances, the speaking of other languages is still prohibited (e.g. Wu & Del Percio, 2019). But it all depends on what, on whom, on which languages. It is in the face of such questions we propose a focus on spaces of multilingual workplaces, as we believe that this focus broadens the scope for exploring phenomena concerning work and language(s), particularly how the latter is constructed and enacted as part of the former, e.g. adhering to a monolingual or multilingual order. Space is a highly elusive concept, which simply cannot be comprehensively sketched in the framework of this chapter. But what is of most importance to us is that space is (1) socially constituted, (2) a semiotic resource (Blommaert et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2017) and (3) a site of struggle. First of all, this means that space is always connected to, emerging from and impacting the social realities of actors. A particular space is distinct from other spaces in terms of the rules, norms and values that are enacted and/​or enforced. Workplaces come as spaces with their own language regimes, practices and hierarchies (Bourdieu, 1993[1982]) that become particularly salient when changing or crossing over into another space, which is why we see them as suitable examples to illustrate the distinctiveness of space, especially regarding multilingualism. Blommaert et al. (2005: 198) frame this in terms of globalization: “A change in spatial environment clearly affects our capacity to deploy linguistic resources and skills and imposes requirements on us which we may fail to meet –​a quite common globalization experience which we accept as a sociolinguistic problem.” Yet, this “change in spatial environment” need not necessarily involve the crossing of borders or continents but can occur on a much smaller scale as well, e.g. when changing workspaces. Similar to the spatial contingency of linguistic resources and skills, semiotic (re)sources are contextually mobilized in the construction of a space and, indexically shifting across spaces, can result in misunderstandings or communication problems (e.g. Flubacher, 2020). In the end, approaching space as both socially constituted and semiotically charged leads us back to Blommaert et al.’s (2005: 198) question of

370

Multilingualism in the Workplace

“how does space organize regimes of language”. We argue that spaces are inherent sites of struggle over the authority and prerogative of organization, interpretation and determination. Materially this translates to workplaces as spaces in which individuals compete over resources, and access to specific registers is part of that struggle (Duchêne & Heller, 2012). Concluding, we believe that it is important to follow Blommaert et al.’s (2005) creed that the relevant question regarding multilingualism is not about which language(s) an individual can or cannot speak, but which linguistic resources a space allows and/​or prohibits. Emphasizing this point is particularly urgent as many academics, practitioners, and not least politicians, focus on language(s), including multilingualism, as individual proficiencies or skills, and consequently as an individual responsibility. In foregrounding space, we move away from such predispositions and emphasize the socially complex processes that work and language(s) are part of.

Spaces of work and language(s) In the following, we will propose looking closer at three ideal-​typical spaces of work and language(s) as emerging from recent areas of research: (1) spaces of language learning, (2) spaces of valuing multilingualism, (3) spaces of transience and multilingualism. Needless to say, these spaces intersect and overlap in terms of regimes and ideologies as well as practices and processes. Also, any ideal-​typical categorization is biased but can still function as an ordering device in a field that has grown considerably over the last decades. Thus, we believe that especially (1) is useful for demonstrating how multilingual and monolingual ideologies still dominate social orders with major consequences for individual speakers, while (2) and (3) provide insights into how language(s) is used and misused in workplaces. At this point, it might be helpful to explain how to understand ‘workplace’ and how it relates to ‘work’. ‘Work’ most commonly stands for paid employment –​ and ‘workplace’ as the place this paid employment is carried out, whether this is an office, a temporary market stand or one’s home. Critique has extended this economistic understanding of work to include affective and reproductive labour typically carried out by women (e.g. Beneria, 1999; Erdem, 2005). Similarly, researchers working in contexts of informal economies emphasize the blind spots inherent in this terminology bound to industrialized and institutionalized forms of ‘earning a living’ (Vigouroux, 2013) that are not always considered ‘work’ by participants in other cultural contexts. We are thus confronted with potential ambiguities or even differing conceptions of the term ‘work’, which lead us to ask fundamental questions about how we define work in our research and whether a more expansive idea of the term would be worthwhile. We propose to think of ‘work’ broadly as activities that aim for subsistence and recompensation, even if in studies on multilingualism in the workplace, these activities will be most likely couched in formalized economic contexts. Concerning language work, we understand it as a phenomenon of workers using their multilingual competences, or are imagined to, for work purposes. We suggest keeping the following two points in mind: Firstly, the link between language and profit: “How language is conceptualized as labour is a function of the economy within which profits are made and businesses are structured” (Urciuoli and LaDousa, 2013: 175). Secondly, the premise that language work is always connected to the exploitation of speakers on the basis of their language practices and competences (Boutet, 2012 and personal communication, March 2022). These two points already show how neither language nor work are stable objects, but that they come layered with ideologies related to, e.g. economicization, hierarchies and functions. In the end, these ideologies frame multilingual workplaces as spaces.

371

Kamilla Kraft and Mi-Cha Flubacher

Spaces of language learning Studying Western societies marked by late capitalism (Sennett, 1998) and post-​fordism (Fraser, 2003), scholars such as Gee, Hull and Lankshear (1996), Boutet (2012), and Heller (2010) have argued that the labour market –​indeed, the work order –​has undergone a paradigmatic shift, demanding more languages and more communicative competences of workers. While these demands point to an increasing normalization of multilingual competences and practices in the workplace (cf. Heller & Boutet, 2006), there is yet another issue we would like to highlight: Duval-​Couetil and Mikulecky (2011) discuss how jobs that previously required no or little language use nowadays do. On the basis of their quantitative study of the English language requirements imposed by American employers, the authors argue that this poses a special challenge for workers who need to access a –​what we propose to call –​languaged labour market, over-​emphasizing specific language competences, e.g. the local language rather than multilingual competences. As a case in point, the employers in the study argue for English language competence as related to efficiency and workplace safety (cf. also Kraft, 2020c). While Duval-​Couetil and Mikulecky (2011: 220) do not explicitly dismiss such arguments, they suggest that an approach which “fixes the workplace instead of fixing the worker” might be needed in addition to teaching English as a Second Language. This shift in focus from the worker to the workplace is also pursued by Katz (2000: 166), who points out that managers often understand language learning as unidirectional and ‘the duty of workers’ rather than as part of workplace ‘transformation’ processes. A similar critique was raised by Goldstein in her reflections on her role as a language teacher in a Canadian factory (1997) and by Hull (1997) on the influence of language competence ideology on language and workplace research. Ideas of English as a liberating individual resource is also explored by Highet and Del Percio (2021) and Highet (2021), who critically discuss the unequal access to this resource in post-​colonial India or by Anabalon Schaaf (2022), who traces the meaning of English for social mobility for teacher personae in Chile. Canagarajah (2016) elaborates a similar critique in stressing the limitations of monoscalar language pedagogies and their disregard of the multiplicity of workers’ language needs as part of their everyday work life. Others have unpacked the affordances (Tovar & Lockwood, 2020) or the difficulties of actually learning the local language on the job (Flubacher, 2020; 2022a; Serwe, 2020; Strömmer, 2016; Yates, 2018). In sum, we could argue that the main thrust of these authors points to the need to foreground the workplace as a space of language learning along with ideologies of, e.g. the supremacy of ‘the local language’ or that of ‘an international language’ (notoriously English, cf. Gong, 2018 on how Englishization plays a role in the stratification practices of a Chinese company). We thus detect a tension between a highly monolingual norm embedded in a multilingual normal, which is navigated by individuals to various outcomes. Another important point is that while language learning requirements in the labour market are related to globalized processes, the reasons behind are local(ized). Western labour markets have been underpinned by ideas of nationalism and the need for one language, often along with English as the language of internationalization, while the idea of especially English as a useful resource to acquire is often anchored and re-​emerging in neo-​colonial contexts in Southern markets. We will pursue this argument below. While migrants are commonly tasked with learning the locally dominant language, language learning as a necessity for/​at work is by far not exclusive to this group: As mentioned above, languages with a colonial legacy come with high prestige in post-​colonial labour markets, which gives rise to personal investments and linguistically intertwined ambitions of social mobility –​ quite often giving way to desillusion (cf. Highet, 2021; Highet & Del Percio, 2021 or Gong, 2018). Moreover, Western businesses continue to source labour power from these areas, essentializing specific languages. For instance, Pandian and Baboo (2013) assess Malaysian students’ English 372

Multilingualism in the Workplace

skills as insufficient for international settings. They propose that the Malaysian government develop programmes to ensure that future students –​and ultimately future workers –​become multilingual in the ‘right’ languages, i.e. English, for ‘the global labour market’. Exactly this valuation of specific multilingual competences for its proposed usefulness in a global market is the critical vantage point for scholars such as Lorente and Tupas (2013) or Tabiola and Lorente (2017). In their studies of English in the Philippines, they discuss how English language training is inscribed with values of global competitiveness. For individuals this entails investments in order to get the upper hand in a tough labour market dominated by neoliberal austerity policies, ultimately rendering Filipinos “servants of globalisation” (Parreñas, 2001) in the strategies of the Philippine state. Along similar lines, Lorente (2012) characterizes the Philippines as a “labour brokerage state” that produces and provides “workers of the world”. This is in part done by investments not only in workers’ English skills, but also other languages considered relevant, often the dominant languages of the most common overseas destinations for Filipino workers (Lorente, 2017). This line of inquiry, i.e. the valuation of multilingual workers shaped for specific work spaces abroad or at home, is also taken up by Meier (2019) in her work on how Filipino nurses receive language training in German as an entry requirement to work in Germany. In short, imagined labour markets and ideas about local language needs shape spaces of language learning for multilingual workers with specific registers, understood as ‘local’ and ‘useful’ in relation to specific contexts as well as global trends of making workers. In her study of the Filipino call centre industry, Salonga (2016) focuses on workers in the Philippine labour market rather than those bound for overseas ones. Yet, in her analysis of how national identity and English (including specific English accents and styles of caller accommodation) are negotiated by the Philippine state as well as the call centre workers, she pinpoints globalized spaces dominated by capitalist as well as post-​colonialist orders. In addition, she demonstrates the structuring power of the national scale. She summarizes accordingly: “In serving the world, they are able to serve the country as well; English then becomes the language that makes possible their act of nationalism” (Salonga, 2016: 146). These studies succinctly demonstrate how spaces of language and work are deeply embedded in and still structured by historical and post-​colonially marked hierarchies, e.g. between the Global North and the Global South. They also indicate that multilingualism often boils down to the acquisition of specific languages that come with a certain fluctuating prestige and value –​often imagined as ‘the local’ or the ‘international’ language (cf. also Highet & Del Percio, 2021 on the ideological role of English for future workers in India; but see also Lovrits & De Bres, 2021 on the downgraded opportunities for English ‘native speakers’ in a multilingual continental European workplace). This leads to work spaces where access is governed by a norm that demands present as well as future workers to obtain specific competences imagined as relevant for their productivity and/​or successful integration in the labour market (Flubacher, Duchêne & Coray, 2018). As long as these workers do not possess these linguistic competences, they are seen as suffering from a linguistic deficiency within these spaces, i.e. they must improve through language learning. Yet, as Hewitt (2012) discusses in his chapter on multilingual workplaces, this conception is an ideological construction as it is indeed possible for workers to obtain and carry out jobs despite “language shortfalls”, i.e. without command of the local language (Hewitt, 2008).

Spaces of valuing multilingualism It is not uncommon to see examples of workspaces where multilingualism becomes a commodified, coveted skill or an exploited resource. We thus conceive these spaces as valuing multilingualism, 373

Kamilla Kraft and Mi-Cha Flubacher

whether they be interested in profit generation (Duchêne, 2011; Muth, 2018; Schedel, 2018) or consist of humanitarian and social work (Hassemer & Garrido, 2020; Garrido, 2021). Translocal/​ -​national organizations are usually in need of workers with multilingual repertoires (Muth, 2018; cf. also Garrido and Sabaté Dalmau, 2020 for a critical discussion), and they, along with entire countries, brand themselves as places of multilingualism and/​or with easy access to a multilingual workforce (Flubacher & Duchêne, 2012; Del Percio, 2016). As such, discursive constructions of workplaces as (inherently) multilingual spaces can be of benefit to workplaces and workers, providing them with ‘an edge’ on the market or providing them with access to important work-​ related resources (Garrido, 2022). Such perspectives have been used to elucidate individual or institutional uses of multilingualism or/​and argue in favour of its further implementation, or at least its management, in workplaces (Day & Wagner, 2007; Lüdi, Höchle & Yanaprasart, 2010, 2016; Nekvapil & Sherman, 2018; Sherman & Strubell, 2013). The fact that this engagement with multilingualism is mostly reserved to specific languages and specific classes of workers is what Barakos and Selleck (2019) critically discuss in their special issue on ‘elite multilingualism’. It thus emerges that even in this particular space, the value of multilingualism is shifting and ambivalent at best, in connection to the speakers, languages, and markets in question. While some languages become commodities (Duchêne, 2009), others (or rather, their speakers) become the temporary object of exploitation. In his work on Zurich Airport, Duchêne (2011) demonstrates how the airport’s logistics company employs a highly multilingual work staff, not least due to the many baggage workers with diverse ethnic backgrounds. While these workers hardly use their languages for most of their work activities –​unlike the customer-​service employees whose core function is to communicate with customers in many different languages –​they may in certain situations be called upon to aid the service personnel in need of specific language competences, i.e. anything but German, French, English, and maybe Italian. The use of all employees’ languages is carefully organized by the company by the means of a log of all employees and their language repertoires. This log ensures easy overview and access to a variety of languages that may be useful from time to time. The problem, as Duchêne points out, is that this system ends up banalizing and exploiting workers’ language competences as workers are not remunerated for these extra linguistic work activities, while the company itself profits. Duchêne’s study underlines how multilingual workplaces are multiscalar spaces with coveted and highly visible multilingualism as well as insignificant and invisible multilingualism (except for very specific situations). However, both scales are part of the company’s business, emphasizing the homogenizing and stratifying elements of the multilingual workspace. Workspaces are thus often ambivalent in how they value multilingualism. This is also evident in the so-​called ‘migrant economy’, i.e. workplaces run by ‘migrants’ or their offspring and most likely multilingual. Research on these spaces originated in the US, with Light and Gould (2000) calling instances of economic enclaves and niche activities ‘ethnic economies’. While conceptual discussions have shaped this field of study from the beginning (e.g. Pécoud, 2010), the role of languages has been reduced to questions of linguistic integration (cf. Flubacher, 2022a for a discussion), especially in the social sciences. In applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and multilingualism research, language practices have been foregrounded: certain studies explore the conscious commodification of linguistic and cultural/​ethnic elements (Knowles, 2015; Leeman & Modan, 2010), nota bene often a co-​occurrence of gentrification (Stock, 2019), or they focus on multi-​/​translingual practices in these spaces for business (Serwe & De Saint-​Georges, 2014; Tavares, 2020) or how these migrant entrepreneurs make use of semiotic resources and objects to successfully manage their client-​interactions (Serwe, 2020; Zhu et al., 374

Multilingualism in the Workplace

2017). In the end, detailed research on the actual linguistic needs for certain jobs and positions are needed (Serwe, 2020; on linguistic penalty cf. Roberts, 2021 or Pájaro, 2022). While the multilingually rich interactions in these spaces are certainly a fascinating phenomenon to analyze for linguists (similar to urban marketplaces: Blackledge & Creese, 2019; Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015), critical research has emphasized the ambiguous and shifting valorization processes related to communicative and linguistic competences of migrants (Blommaert’s 2007 orders of indexicality comes to mind). For instance, Vigouroux (2013) presents a compelling and multi-​layered analysis of the transformed indexicality of Lingala in South Africa, intricately linked to the entrepreneurial practices of its speakers who are embedded in a particular form of informal migrant economies, which has turned it into the language to learn for migrants not necessarily from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Needless to say, this is not the only instance where migrants realize that it is a different language than the national standard of the ‘host’ country they need to learn in order to have access to the labour market. Whether such spaces that value ‘other’ languages are alternative language regimes (Piller, 2016) or whether they actually reproduce hegemonial language regimes (Sabaté-​Dalmau, 2014) remains an empirical question (cf. Tavares, 2020). Concluding, these spaces of valuing multilingualism are diverse in terms of which languages are spoken and valued. The shifting value attributed to specific languages and their speakers is embedded in the social context of the workplace and the political-​economic conditions of the national context, further embedded in the global logics of capitalism and post-​colonialism. This means that language hierarchies form infrastructures that impact the value accorded to specific languages/​varieties and their (potentially stigmatized, racialized, gendered) speakers (Bourdieu, 1993). Yet, as was shown above, these hierarchies are not rigid in the sense that value cannot change contextually: while a specific language may usually carry no value, in the case of an urgent matter it will become valuable for a company (Duchêne, 2011) or for other entrepreneurs who aim to participate in an economy (Vigouroux, 2013). Still, even if multilingualism is valued on the surface, it does not mean that speakers are (cf. Heller, Kassimir & Ugarte, 2020).

Spaces of managing multilingualism Many workplaces are temporary, configuring and disbanding regularly, thereby forming transient spaces (Mortensen, 2017; Mortensen & Kraft, 2022). In these spaces, multilingualism is somewhat of an inherent phenomenon as soon as a mobile, global workforce gathers for the task at hand. As in all spaces of work, these transient spaces are co-​structured by language needs, requirements and strategies (including strategies of non-​communication, cf. Gonçalves & Schluter, 2017), and it is the subsequent social orders that are of particular interest to critical researchers. In her studies of migrant builders in Norway, Kraft (2019; 2020a) finds that Norwegian (or ‘Scandinavian’) is a requirement for managerial positions and specific tasks. Furthermore, in these settings, lack of the local language is at times considered akin to a professional deficit, and certainly an organizational one. This is why language brokers are of high relevance in transient spaces: according to Kraft, building companies even refuse hiring temporary workers from staffing agencies without guarantees that there will be at least one amongst the workers who speaks Norwegian, or as the bare minimum, English. These workers then become brokers –​in addition to being builders –​who are able to coordinate communication and work across the construction site and its staff due to their multilingual repertoires. Kraft shows that there is some remuneration for this task, but also that brokers do not necessarily see it as adequate (cf. Duchêne’s 2011 375

Kamilla Kraft and Mi-Cha Flubacher

point on the banalization of multilingualism). A similar situation with language brokers is reported by Kahlin et al. (2021), who describe Swedish construction sites that are characterized as being multilingual due to migrant workers. The authors explore translanguaging aspects of individual workers’ communication in the sites and demonstrate how this medium enables smooth work processes and allows workers to solve ad hoc situations (cf. also Hovens, 2023 for a study of machine-​actants in multilingual work interactions), even productive in terms of rapport between workers. Even if no compensation practices nor any language policies seem in place in these sites, there is very little, if any, resistance to these broker practices despite them disabling opportunities for the majority of the migrant workers. Research in officially multilingual environments has shown similar tendencies. For example, Anthonissen (2010) has studied the management of linguistic diversity in a HIV clinic in the Western Cape. She detects a “mismatch between language policy and practice in the workplace” (Anthonissen, 2010: 136), which corresponds to many other instances across the globe, both in official or de facto multilingual contexts. This means that even though official provisions foresee the services of official interpreters, the staff and patients are left to find their own solutions, ranging from the use of code-​switching or a lingua franca (Anthonissen, 2010) to drawing on other staff or patients/​clients bringing along friends or family members for interpretation (cf. B.A.S.S. Meier-​Lorente-​Muth-​Duchêne, 2021 on issues of interpretation). A similar example of workers dealing with multilingualism through ad hoc strategies is Dijkstra et al.’s (2021) study of two warehouses with Polish truck drivers and Dutch logistics professionals who do not share linguistic repertoires. Workers’ decentring of linguistic work activities and focus on translanguaging practices as solidarity-​building is the theme in a study of tunnel miners building the Copenhagen metro in Denmark (Kraft, 2020b). The workplace is officially multilingual and ordered according to different scales: English as the international language, Danish as the language of the national location and Italian as the national language of the contractor. While managers’ work activities primarily revolve around these languages, the tunnel workers are faced with a complex linguistic situation and in many ways given the freedom (or left with the obligation) to make this space work. Brokering activities are unevenly distributed amongst tunnel workers and accommodation (e.g. between Italian and Spanish speakers) play a major role. Interestingly, the workers position these activities as part of their profession and take great pride in being able to carry out their work –​ with whomever and wherever in the world. The company’s leader termed this kind of language use ‘Tunnel Esperanto’ referencing the idea of a shared, transnational code. However, as Mesthrie (2019) discusses, ‘Fanakalo’ developed as a unique mining register that draws primarily on Kiswahili, English and Afrikaans in order to accommodate the highly multilingual South African mining industry, but has come under pressure due to its colonial connotations. These studies serve as powerful reminders that spaces of multilingual work are never neutral even if a focus on communication and function might make them appear so. Altogether these studies attest to how, e.g. global recruitment or other internationalization practices create spaces of multilingual work that can only be managed through individual investments, which are not necessarily officially remunerated or acknowledged. At the same time, these spaces are governed by language ideologies related to an interplay of nationalisms or internationalisms that do not disable access to work per se but can enforce hierarchies and cause additional, unevenly distributed language work.

376

Multilingualism in the Workplace

Conclusion In this chapter we have proposed space as a conceptual lens to ‘categorize’ different forms of mono-​and multilingualisms in the workplace. It is clear that we could only show a glimpse of the issues and the social order related to this, particularly with regards to the processes inherent in these three different spaces that enable and/​or disable multilingual repertoires as well as speakers in their trajectories. After all, access to work is regulated by implicit language regimes manifesting in (overt and covert) language regulations and policies. As such, many multilingual workplaces comprise different spaces that are equally important for the work to be done, yet stand in an asymmetrical status relation. In the highly monolingual space, there is a privileged language –​or a privileged set of languages –​which gives access to (the best) jobs. This space disregards all other languages as non-​relevant –​perhaps even as problematic. Finally, it privileges workers who know the coveted language(s). In other spaces, the multilingual reality is the centrepiece, so workers use a multitude of languages and other modalities to interact, plan, carry out work, etc. Yet, this does not necessarily imply that multilingual competences are valued. On a more epistemological and methodological note, we would like to end our chapter with an invitation to some (self-​)reflection on the role of academia in perpetuating the linguistic structuration of the work order: To what extent do we as scholars fundamentally question the ideological constructs of ‘multilingualism’, ‘the local language’, ‘international languages’, ‘work’ and ‘the global market’? As this chapter has attested to, much research in workplace studies revolves around these concepts –​some critically, others as a reason for why multilingualism and/​or language training in the workplace are necessary. We do not believe that one approach is necessarily better than the other, but we do find it important to reflect on these forms of research that make use of these concepts and their roles in social processes, especially those of inequality. Finally, we also think that the recent uptake of affect in sociolinguistic studies is highly productive in showing how multilingualism as and at work is infused with affective components, shaping not only work but also subjectivities (e.g. Barakos, 2019; Flubacher, 2020 or the special issue by Dlaske and Del Percio 2022). We hope that such reflections will eventually push beyond the structuring logics and help us collectively re-​imagine spaces of multilingualism and work.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the editors to be included in this handbook –​and for their patience. We also thank our wonderful reviewer. Lastly, we are indebted to our peers from the Language & Work-​ group who never cease to inspire us.

Related topics Chapter 19 Multilingualism, the new economy and the neoliberal governance of speakers; Chapter 20 Sociolinguistics and (in)securitization as another mode of governance; Chapter 26 Multilingualism in asylum and migration procedures.

Further reading B.A.S.S. Meier-​Lorente-​Muth-​Duchêne. Eds. 2021. Figures of Interpretation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Goldstein, T. 1997. Two Languages at Work: Bilingual Life on the Production Floor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gonçalves, K. & Kelly-​Holmes, H. Eds. 2020. Language, Global Mobilities, Blue-​Collar Workers and Blue-​ Collar Workplaces. London & New York: Routledge.

377

Kamilla Kraft and Mi-Cha Flubacher Kraft, K. & Flubacher, M. 2020. The promise of language: Betwixt empowerment and the reproduction of inequality. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 264: 1–​23. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ ijsl-​2020-​2091 Vine, B. Ed. 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Language in the Workplace. London & New York: Routledge.

References Anabalon Schaaf, R. 2022. The pedagogy of love: a register of precarised English teachers in Chile. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2022(276): 15–​39. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ ijsl-​2021-​0095. Angouri, J. Ed. 2014. Multilingualism in the workplace: language practices in multilingual contexts. Multilingua. 33(1–​2). Anthonissen, C. 2010. Managing linguistic diversity in a South African HIV/​AIDS day clinic. In B. Meyer & B. Apfelbaum, Eds. Multilingualism at work: from policies to practices in public, medical and business settings. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 107–​139. B.A.S.S. Meier-​Lorente-​Muth-​Duchêne. Eds. 2021. Figures of Interpretation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Barakos, E. 2019. Multilingual language trainers as language workers: a discourse-​ethnographic investigation. Language and Intercultural Communication. 19: 184–​ 200. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14708​ 477.2018.1487​971. Barakos, E. & Selleck, C. 2019. Elite multilingualism: discourses, practices, and debates. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 40 (5): 361–​74. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​632.2018.1543​691. Beneria, L. 1999. The enduring debate over unpaid labour. International Labour Review. 138(3): 287–​309. Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. 2019. Voices of a City Market: An Ethnography. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Blommaert, J. 2007. Sociolinguistics and discourse analysis: orders of indexicality and polycentricity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 2: 115–​130. DOI: 10.2167/​md089.0. Blommaert, J., Collins, J. & Slembrouck, S. 2005. Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication. 25: 197–​216. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lang​com.2005.05.002. Bourdieu, P. 1993. Language and symbolic power. In J. Thompson, Ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Originally published in 1982 as Ce que parler veut dire. Boutet, J. 2012. Language workers: emblematic figures of late capitalism. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller, Eds. Pride and Profit: Language in Late Capitalism. London & New York: Routledge. 207–​229. Canagarajah, S. 2016. Shuttling between scales in the workplace: reexamining policies and pedagogies for migrant professionals. Linguistics and Education. 34: 47–​57. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ ged.2015.08.002. Costa, J. 2019. Introduction: regimes of language and the social, hierarchized organization of ideologies. Language & Communication. 66: 1–​5. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lang​com.2018.10.002. Day, D. and Wagner, J. 2007. Bilingual professionals. In P. Auer & L. Wei, Eds. Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 391–​404. Del Percio, A. 2016. Branding the nation Swiss multilingualism and the promotional capitalization on national history under late capitalism. Pragmatics and Society. 7(1): 82–​103. doi:10.1075/​ps.7.1.04del. Dijkstra, B., Coler, M. & Redeker, G. 2021. The multilingual workplace realities of Polish truckers: a case study in the Netherlands. Multilingua. 40(5): 589–​616. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​multi-​2020-​0038. Dlaske, K. & Del Percio, A. Eds. 2022. Special issue: language, work and affective capitalism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2022(276). Dlaske, K. & McLaughlin, M. Eds. 2016. Special issue: languaging the worker –​globalized governmentalities in/​of language in peripheral spaces. Multilingua. 35(4). Duchêne, A. 2009. Marketing, management and performance: multilingualism as commodity in a tourism call centre. Language Policy. 8: 27–​50. Duchêne, A. 2011. Neoliberalism, social inequalities, and multilingualism: the exploitation of linguistic resources and speakers. Langage et Société. 136(2): 81–​108. Duchêne, A. & Heller, M. 2012. Language policy in the workplace. In B. Spolsky, Ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 323–​334. Duchêne, A., Moyer, M. & Roberts, C. Eds. 2013. Language, Migration, and Social Inequalities: A Critical Sociolinguistic Perspective on Institutions and Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

378

Multilingualism in the Workplace Duval-​Couetil, N. & Mikulecky, L. 2011. Immigrants, English, and the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning. 23(3): 209–​223. Erdem, E. 2005. Migrantinnen in der ethnischen Ökonomie. In IFADE, Ed. Insider-​Outsider. Bilder. Ethnisierte Räume und Partizipation im Migrationsprozess. Bielefeld: transcript. 100–​118. Flubacher, M. 2020. Desire and confusion: a sociolinguistic ethnography on affect in the ethnic economy of Thai massage. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2020(264):115–​135. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1515/​ijsl-​2020-​2096. Flubacher, M. 2022a. The politics of migrant economies: applied linguistics looking into Thai massage in Vienna. In C.W. Chun, Ed. Applied Linguistics and Politics. London: Bloomsbury. 89–​108. Flubacher, M. 2022b. Scripting Swiss smiles: a sociolinguistic analysis of affective-​discursive practices in a Swiss call centre. International Journal for the Sociology of Language. 2022(276): 93–​116. https://​doi. org/​10.1515/​ijsl-​2021-​0094. Flubacher, M. & Duchêne, A. 2012. Eine Stadt der Kommunikation: urbane Mehrsprachigkeit als Wirtschaftsstrategie? Bulletin de la VALS/​ASLA –​Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée. 95: 123–​142. Flubacher, M., A. Duchêne & Coray, R. 2018. Language Investment and Employability: The Uneven Distribution of Resources in the Public Employment Service. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fraser, N. 2003. From discipline to flexibilization? Rereading Foucault in the shadow of globalization. Constellations. 10: 160–​171. DOI: 10.1111/​1467-​8675.00321. Gal, S. 2012. Sociolinguistic regimes and the management of ‘diversity’. In A. Duchêne and M. Heller, Eds. Pride and Profit: Language in Late Capitalism. London & New York: Routledge. 22–​42. Garrido, M.R. 2021. Community, Solidarity and Multilingualism in a Transnational Social Movement: A Critical Sociolinguistic Ethnography of Emmaus. London & New York: Routledge. Garrido, M.R. 2022. The evolution of language ideological debates about English and French in a multilingual humanitarian organisation. Language Policy. 21: 47–​73. Garrido, M.R. & Sabaté-​Dalmau, M. 2020. Transnational trajectories of multilingual workers: sociolinguistic approaches to emergent entrepreneurial selves. International Journal of Multilingualism. 17(1): 1–​10. Gee, J.P. Hull, G. & Lankshear, C. 2018. The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitalism. London & New York: Elsevier. Goldstein, T. 1997. Two Languages at Work: Bilingual Life on the Production Floor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gonçalves, K. Ed. 2020. Special issue: managing people with language: language policy, planning and practice in multilingual blue-​collar workplaces. Language Policy. 19(3). Gonçalves, K. & Kelly-​Holmes, H. 2020. Language, Global Mobilities, Blue-​Collar Workers and Blue-​ Collar Workplaces. London & New York: Routledge. Gonçalves, K. & Schluter, A. 2017. ‘Please do not leave any notes for the cleaning lady, as many do not speak English fluently’: policy, power, and language brokering in a multilingual workplace. Language Policy. 16: 241–​265. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​993-​016-​9406-​2. Gong, E.Y. 2018. Neoliberal Self, Struggles in L2 Learning, Strategies of Investment: Englishization in Chinese Transnational Companies. Unpublished MA thesis. London: UCL Institute of Education. Hassemer, J. & Garrido, M.R. 2020. Language as a resource with fluctuating values: Arabic speakers in humanitarian and social work. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2020(264): 137–​61. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ijsl-​2020-​2097. Heller, M. 2010. Language as resource in the globalized New Economy. In N. Coupland, Ed. Handbook of Language and Globalisation. Oxford: Blackwell. 350–​365. Heller, M., Kassimir, R. & Ugarte, R. Eds. 2020. Special issue: sociolinguistic frontiers: imagining language and society since the 1960s. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2020(263). Heller, M. & Boutet, J. 2006. Vers de nouvelles formes de pouvoir langagier? Langage(s) et économie dans la nouvelle économie. Langage et Société. 118: 5–​16. Hewitt, R. 2008. The capital’s ‘language shortfall’ and migrants’ economic survival. UK Research Report: RES-​000-​22-​1846. Swindon: ESRC. Hewitt, R. 2012. Multilingualism in the workplace. In M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge and A. Creese, Eds. The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. London & New York: Routledge. 267–​280. Highet, K. & Del Percio, A. 2021. Hard work, growth mindset, fluent English: navigating neoliberal logics. In M. Sardoč, Ed. The Impacts of Neoliberal Discourse and Language in Education. London & New York: Routledge. 100–​119.

379

Kamilla Kraft and Mi-Cha Flubacher Highet, K. 2021. When linguistic capital isn’t enough: personality development and English speakerhood as capital in India. In J. Petrovic & B. Yazan, Eds. The Commodification of Language. London & New York: Routledge. 127–​143. Hovens, D. 2023. Breakdowns and assemblages: including machine-​actants in sociolinguistic ethnographies of blue-​collar work environments. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 27(1): 3–​23. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​josl.12565 Hull, G. 1997. Changing Work, Changing Workers: Critical Perspectives on Language, Literacy, and Skills. New York: State University of New York Press. Kahlin, L., Keevallik, L., Söderlundh, H. & Weidner, M. 2021. Translanguaging as a resource for meaning-​ making at multilingual construction sites. Multilingua. 41(3): 261–​280. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ multi-​2021-​0125. Katz, M. 2000. Workplace language teaching and the intercultural construction of ideologies of competence. Canadian Modern Language Review/​La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes. 57(1): 144–​72. Knowles, C. 2015. Young Chinese Migrants in London. London: Runnymede Trust. Kraft, K. 2019. Language policies and linguistic competence: new speakers in the Norwegian construction industry. Language Policy. 18: 573–​591. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​993-​018-​9502-​6. Kraft, K. 2020a. Trajectory of a language broker: between privilege and precarity. International Journal of Multilingualism. 17(1): 80–​96. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14790​718.2020.1682​256. Kraft, K. 2020b.Transience and tunnel Esperanto: a study of multilingualism, work and relationship-​building on a tunnel mining project. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2020(264): 163–​86. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ijsl-​2020-​2098. Kraft, K. 2020c. Linguistic securitisation as a governmentality in the neoliberalising welfare state. In L. Martín Rojo & A. Del Percio, Eds. Language and Neoliberal Governmentality. London & New York: Routledge. 29–​48. Kraft, K. & Flubacher, M. 2020. The promise of language: Betwixt empowerment and the reproduction of inequality. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2020(264): 1–​23. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ ijsl-​2020-​2091. Kroskrity, P.V. Ed. 2000. Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe & Oxford: SAR Press & James Currey. Leeman, J. & Modan, G. 2010. Selling the city: language, ethnicity and commodified space. In E. Shohamy, B.R. Eliezer and M. Barni, Eds. Linguistic Landscape in the City. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 182–​198. Light, I. & Gould, S. 2000. Ethnic Economies. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Lønsmann, D. & Kraft, K. 2018. Language Policy and Practice in Multilingual Production Workplaces. Multilingua. 37(4): 403–​427. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​multi-​2017-​0088. Lorente, B.P. 2012. The making of workers of the world: language and the labor brokerage state. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller, Eds. Pride and Profit: Language in Late Capitalism. London & New York: Routledge. 183–​206. Lorente, B.P. 2017. Scripts of Servitude: Language, Labor Migration and Transnational Domestic Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lorente, B.P. & Tupas, T.R.F. 2013. (Un)Emancipatory hybridity: selling English in an unequal world. In R. Rubdy & L. Alsagoff, Eds. The Global-​Local Interface and Hybridity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://​doi.org/​10.21832/​978178​3090​860-​005. 66–​82. Lorey, I. 2012. Die Regierung des Prekären. Wien: Turia +​Kant. Lovrits, V. & De Bres, J. 2021. Prestigious language, pigeonholed speakers: stances towards the ‘native English speaker’ in a multilingual European institution. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 5(3): 398–​417. DOI: 10.1111/​josl.12431. Lüdi, G., Höchle, K. & Yanaprasart, P. 2010. Plurilingual practices at multilingual workplaces. In B. Meyer & B. Apfelbaum, Eds. Multilingualism at Work: From Policies to Practices in Public, Medical and Business Settings. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamin. 211–​234. Lüdi, G., Höchle Meier, K. & Yanaprasart, P. Eds. 2016. Managing Plurilingual and Intercultural Practices in the Workplace. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mesthrie, R. 2019. Fanakalo as a mining language in South Africa: a new overview. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2019(258): 13–​33. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ijsl-​2019-​2027 Meier, S. 2019. Language Education and Labour Migration –​The Preparation of Philippine Care Workers for Germany and Switzerland. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Basel: University of Basel.

380

Multilingualism in the Workplace Meyer, B. & Apfelbaum, B. Eds. 2010. Multilingualism at Work: From Policies to Practices in Public, Medical and Business Settings. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mortensen, J. 2017. Transient multilingual communities as a field of investigation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 27: 271–​288. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​jola.12170 Mortensen, J. & Kraft, K. Eds. 2022. Norms and the Study of Language in Social Life. Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​978150​1511​882. Muth, S. 2018. ‘The ideal Russian speaker is no Russian’: language commodification and its limits in medical tourism to Switzerland. Language Policy. 17(2): 217–​237. Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. 2018. Managing superdiversity in multinational companies. In A. Creese & A. Blackledge, Eds. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. London & New York: Routledge. 329–​344. Pájaro, V. 2022. ‘Model minorities’ in a ‘sociolinguistic paradise’: How Latin-​American migrants talk about job interviews in Norway. In P. Lane, B. Kjelsvik, & A.B. Myhr, Eds. Negotiating Identities in Nordic Migrant Narratives. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3-​030-​ 89109-​1_​4. Pandian, A. & Baboo, B.S. 2013. Ready for the workplace? English language and literacy skills among public university students in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Languages and Linguistic. 2(1): 56–​71. Parreñas, R.S. 2001. Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration, and Domestic Work. Servants of Globalization. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Pennycook, A. & Otsuji, E. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the City. London & New York: Routledge. Piller, I. 2016. Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, C. 2021. Linguistic Penalties and the Job Interview. London: Equinox. Sabaté-​ Dalmau, M. 2014. Migrant Communication Enterprises: Regimentation and Resistance. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Salonga, A. 2016. Serving the world, serving the nation: everyday nationalism and English in Philippine offshore call centers. In K. Mirchandani & W.R. Poster, Eds. Borders in Service: Enactments of Nationhood in Transnational Call Centers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 121–​151. Schedel, L.S. 2018. Negotiating the boundaries and value of bilingual skills in a recruitment process at the language border. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée. 108: 75–​90. Sennett, R. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. W.W. Norton: New York. Serwe, S. 2020. Investigating language use in immigrant businesses. Workplace practices of a Thai massage salon owner in Germany. In K. Gonçalves & H. Kelly-​Holmes, Eds. Language, Global Mobilities, Blue-​ Collar Workers and Blue-​Collar Workplaces. London: Routledge. 107–​127. Serwe, S. & de Saint-​Georges, I. 2014. “Ohne Glutamat/​Without MSG”: shelf label design in a Thai supermarket. In K. Horner, I. de Saint-​Georges & J. Weber, Eds. Multilingualism and Mobility in Europe: Policies and Practices. Frankfurt/​Main: Peter Lang. 221–​246. Sherman, T. & Strubell, M. 2013. Multilingualism in Companies. Taylor & Francis Online. Stock, M. 2019. From authentication to distinction –​consuming Arabic in Berlin’s gentrifying falafel economies. In T. Heyd, F. von Mengden & B. Schneider, Eds. The Sociolinguistic Economy of Berlin: Cosmopolitan Perspectives on Language, Diversity and Social Space. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 223–​246. Strömmer, M. 2016. Affordances and constraints: second language learning in cleaning work. Multilingua. 35(6): 697–​721. Tabiola, H.B. & Lorente, B. 2017. Neoliberalism in ELT aid: interrogating a USAID ELT project in Southern Philippines. In M. Flubacher & A. Del Percio, Eds. Language, Education and Neoliberalism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 122–​139. https://​doi.org/​10.21832/​978178​3098​699-​009. Tavares, B. 2020. Multilingualism in Luxembourg: (dis)empowering Cape Verdean migrants at work. International Journal for the Sociology of Language. 2020(264): 95–​114. Tovar W., J. & Lockwood, J. 2020. Affordances for language learning in a call centre. English for Specific Purposes. 60: 159–​178. Urciuoli, B. & LaDousa, C. 2013. Language management/​labor. Annual Review of Anthropology. 42: 175–​ 190. https://​doi.org/​10.1146/​annu​rev-​ant​hro-​092​412-​155​524. Vigouroux, C. 2013. Informal economy and language practice in the context of migrations. In A. Duchêne, M. Moyer and C. Roberts, Eds. Language, Migration and Social Inequalities: A Critical Sociolinguistic Perspective on Institutions and Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 225–​247.

381

Kamilla Kraft and Mi-Cha Flubacher Wu, M. & Del Percio, A. 2019. Serving people. Consumer economies, classed bodies and the disciplining of female labor. Language, Culture and Society. 1(2): 194–​218. Yates, L. 2018. Language learning on-​the-​job. In B. Vine, Ed. The Routledge Handbook of Language in the Workplace. London & New York: Routledge. 425–​435. Zhu Hua , Li Wei & Lyons, A. 2017. Polish shop(ping) as translanguaging space. Social Semiotics. 27(4): 411–​ 433. DOI: 10.1080/​10350330.2017.1334390.

382

25 MULTILINGUALISM DURING DISASTERS AND EMERGENCIES Jia Li, Jie Zhang and Ingrid Piller

Introduction In the early 2020s, the COVID-​19 pandemic devastated economies and societies around the world. By mid July 2023, there had been over 700 million confirmed cases of COVID-19, including nearly 7 million deaths (WHO, 2023). The global pandemic highlights the necessity of taking linguistic diversity seriously when the world grapples with disasters and emergencies. Global health communication is ideologically structured and the world’s eight billion people with their 6,000 languages are addressed by public health communication available in a much lower number of languages (Piller, 2020). A disaster like COVID-​19 raises serious issues of equity and social justice for the poor and for minority language speakers whose access to healthcare, medication, vaccinations, social welfare, and other critical information is hindered by language barriers and other structural inequalities. Accessibility and effectiveness of crisis communication is central to help linguistic minorities to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters and emergencies but has been found wanting in relation to epidemics of cholera (Briggs, 2004), influenza (Lin et al., 2014), Ebola (O’Brien & Cadwell, 2018), other health emergencies (Chang et al., 2021), as well as natural and man-​made disasters such as earthquakes (Uekusa, 2019), tsunamis (Tan & Sai, 2015) and conflicts (Declerq & Federici, 2020). Multilingual communication during disasters and emergencies supports marginalized populations’ access to key messages and raises new issues on what counts as success in disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. This chapter reviews research on the crisis communication experiences of linguistic minorities with access to public health information during the COVID-​19 pandemic with a focus on China. Our focus on China’s emergency language services is motivated by a desire to diversify the knowledge base related to multilingual crisis communication and enriching it with Chinese epistemologies as one of many marginalized perspectives in the Anglo-​and Eurocentric academy (Piller et al., 2022).

Multilingual communication challenges during crises Multilingualism during disasters and emergencies is mostly absent: linguistic minorities are widely excluded from timely high-​quality information related to disaster preparation, response and recovery. This section will start by reviewing the communication challenges faced by linguistically diverse populations as they sought access to public health information during the COVID-​19

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-30

383

Jia Li, Jie Zhang and Ingrid Piller

pandemic. Built on multilingual studies conducted in the Global South with a particular focus on Chinese research, the section will then elaborate how specific responses were activated to overcome multilingual communication challenges in China. Linguistic minorities are confronted with a series of language barriers. First and foremost, the key challenge is constituted by limited or no public health information available to linguistic minorities (Abbasi, 2020; Chen, 2020a; Haimovich & Mora, 2020; Sengupta, 2022). For instance, in a study of indigenous groups from rural Mexico, Haimovich & Mora (2020) show that indigenous languages are heavily underrepresented in health care. The lack of indigenous language services poses a great threat to many citizens, particularly the elderly who have limited or no proficiency in Spanish. Similarly, Abbasi (2020) reports a lack of service provision to the linguistically and culturally diverse population in Pakistan’s North-​West Frontier Province. There, the literacy rate in Urdu is between 9% and 50% and without provision in local languages and in oral formats, millions of people find themselves excluded from government health information. Linguistic service provision intersects with other forms of disadvantage, and Sengupta (2022) found that in India low-​skilled migrant workers with limited proficiency in the dominant language, lower caste status and precarious living conditions experienced the highest mortality rates from COVID-​19 of any group in the country. Apart from indigenous groups and internal migrants, transnational migrants constitute another vulnerable groups and often suffer linguistic exclusion. Public health communication in English is widely seen as universal solution to serve their needs, but English-​centric multilingualism may create further health disparities and exacerbate the severity of a crisis (Piller et al., 2020; Shen, 2020; Zhu, 2020). For example, although transnational migrants speaking over 100 different first languages make up almost 90% of the total population in some Gulf states (Piller, 2016), public health communication in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates was almost exclusively in Arabic and English (Ahmad & Hillmann, 2021; Hopkyns & van den Hoven, 2022). Despite these shortcomings, the need to disseminate health information in multiple languages gained greater visibility in many national contexts during the COVID-​19 pandemic. However, simply increasing the number of languages on the list is insufficient. As demonstrated by Piller et al. (2020) and O’Brien et al. (2018), the quality of multilingual crisis communication needs to take the message platforms and modes into consideration. For example, Hidayat’s (2020) study with Indonesian villagers in a low-​literacy and low-​technology context shows that the reliance on written text and online delivery can be problematic and out of the reach of many citizens. Considering the accessibility and affordability of social media, other modes of communication are recommended for effective oral communication. Loudspeakers from mosques and temples may work better than online written texts (Hidayat, 2020). In another context, blue collar migrant workers in Qatar find radios a helpful tool to receive timely health information (Ahmad & Hillmann, 2021). Apart from considering the relevant modes of disseminating health information, the translation quality also matters (Zhang & Wu, 2020). In addition to considering the modes and mediums for information dissemination, multilingual crisis communication also involves the challenge of building solidarity and trust with appropriate affective repertoires. For example, Chen’s (2020b) study demonstrates that East Asian people feel emotionally connected through the use of ancient Chinese poetry to build up and strengthen intercultural relationships in fighting the COVID-​19 pandemic. In another example, the use of traditional folk language and arts to create emotional responses to fight the virus is also reported in Bai’s (2020) study with minoritized Mongolians in China. In yet another context, Bangladeshi students of Muslim backgrounds in China found comfort in the religious messages from the Quran

384

Multilingualism During Disasters and Emergencies

in Arabic and in Bangla during lockdowns (Li et al., 2020a). Similarly, the deployment of community religious leaders and preachers to deliver health-​related information is reported as helpful and effective to construct credibility and trust between foreign migrant workers and local government (Ahmad & Hillman, 2021). In a similar way, in China’s minority-​centred regions, ethnic minority leaders and folk artists play an important role in disseminating public health messages and mobilizing the local historical and cultural resources to yield the collective actions and promote public acceptance of and compliance with government policy at the individual level (Wang et al., 2022).

Responding to the challenges of multilingual crisis communication Multilingual crisis communication is undoubtedly highly complex and differs from context to context, as we showed in the previous section. Therefore, we will now turn to review how diverse social actors in a variety of networks have made great efforts to help linguistic minorities overcome their language-​related challenges. A series of grassroots responses have been reported in the global academic community and these grassroots strategies range from creating ethnic online communities to dealing with health information disparities (Jang & Choi, 2020; Zhao & Zhang, 2020), recruiting language speakers including crowd-​sourced translators (Zhang & Wu, 2020), foreign language university students (Zheng, 2020) to provide emergency language services, and working collaboratively with community leaders and activists (Ahmad & Hillmann, 2021). Such grassroots responses may not only provide timely and high-​quality information for minoritized populations but may also lead to greater public recognition of multilingual practices and speakers. However, their reach is usually limited. In a small number of cases internationally, multilingual emergency communication was initiated in a top-​down manner by the State and such necessarily had much greater reach and impact. One such exception is China, where a concerted effort between government and the masses has emerged and was transformed into a nation-​wide response. The groundwork for China’s linguistic emergency response had been laid many years prior through the concept of 语言服务 (meaning ‘language services’), an indigenous framework. The concept of language services was first proposed and developed against the historical backgrounds of China’s modernization and internationalization (Zhang, 2021). Language services cover a broad range of topics including language knowledge services, language-​related technology services, language tool services, language use-​related services, language rehabilitation services and language education services (Zhao, 2012; Zhang, 2021). The scope of language services includes language education, language planning, sociolinguistics, language information processing, and computational linguistics (Qu, 2007). China’s language services industry received a significant boost when China held the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. This was followed by a period when other world events were held in China. To serve these international events, many government institutions, universities, enterprises and individuals were mobilized to provide language services. Thousands of language translation and consultation institutions have emerged since the 2008 Beijing Olympics (Zhang, 2021). Academic conferences on language services were held one after another in Beijing in 2010, Nanjing in 2011 and Guangzhou in 2012. With the clear vision of serving China’s social and economic development, language services scholars have worked closely with diverse social actors contributing to China’s social development. The development of emergency language services is closely associated with China’s socio-​ economic transformation and increasing status in the world. Different from the other language

385

Jia Li, Jie Zhang and Ingrid Piller

services, emergency language services carry an additional meaning of manifesting the humanistic principle, sharing global responsibility and supporting people of diverse linguistic and social backgrounds in times of disasters and emergencies. The importance of emergency language services first received wider attention during severe earthquakes in multilingual regions in Wenchuan 2008 and Yushu 2010 (Fang, 2018; State Language Commission, 2011). Consequently, emergency language services were included in the 13th national Five-​Year Plan (2016–​2020) (Ministry of Education, 2012). The inclusion of emergency language services into China’s national policy and planning is an indication of the recognition of the importance of including marginalized groups to pursue the national interest. This confluence of the individual and national interest has been well addressed by Chinese sociolinguists who consider it their social responsibility to raise the awareness of government to solve practical problems and calling individuals’ attention not to simply care about self-​protection but contributing to the common good (Li, 2020; Wang, 2020; Zhao, 2020). China’s language services have been framed as a key aspect of China’s national language competence to cope with various aspects of domestic and foreign affairs (Li, 2011; Zhao, 2016; Wen, 2021). Emergency language services have been conceptualized as an indispensable part of China’s national emergency competence in mobilizing various social resources and working together in times of crisis (Li et al., 2020b). With this groundwork in place, the importance of emergency language services gained paramount importance in China during the COVID-​19 pandemic. A range of emergency language services activities have been systematically and collaboratively implemented by diverse social actors including government agencies, Chinese sociolinguists, information technology professionals, and volunteers. In February 2020 when the outbreak of COVID was first observed in Hubei Province, the Chinese Ministry of Education and the State Language Commission mobilized a range of national resources to work together to assist with the disaster response (Li, 2020). With the collaboration of diverse social actors, a series of language services products were delivered to the public serving people of diverse backgrounds between February and April 2020. The first language materials as part of the emergency response were developed to facilitate communication between doctors and patients in clinical communication (Li, 2020). In addition to developing language service materials, Chinese academics organized special issues, conferences and webinars, which were central to raising awareness of linguistic diversity in emergency communication. Between 2020 and 2022, six special issues on emergency language services were published with various themes in widely cited Chinese journals (Wang et al., 2020; Xu, 2020; Wang, 2020a; Wang & Kang, 2020; Zhao, 2020; Wang, 2022). Apart from publishing special issues, conferences, symposia and webinars have been organized to contribute to the disciplinary development of emergency language services in China. Perhaps the most influential conference is “Language Services China 40”, given its wide circulation on various Chinese mass media, the participation of Chinese sociolinguists in public debate, the mobilization of social resources including language volunteers, and the design of translation apps. (Wang, 2020b). Besides conferences, many symposia and webinars have been organized and collaborated by Chinese and international scholars. Among these academic activities, the symposium entitled “Linguistic Diversity in a Time of Crisis” deserves the credit given the number of participants and the social impacts it created among Chinese sociolinguists and international sociolinguists. This symposium was based on the academic publications of a special issue devoted to “Linguistic Diversity in a Time of Crisis” and published in Multilingua edited by Piller, Zhang & Li (2020) (Vol. 39 No.5). The symposium not only created an inclusive platform for Chinese and international sociolinguistic 386

Multilingualism During Disasters and Emergencies

scholars sharing their research worldwide but also brought to the fore Chinese research, thus bridging the dialogue between the East and the West and expanding the knowledge base of sociolinguistics which has long been dominated by West–​European paradigms (Piller, 2016). Such collaboration between Chinese and international sociolinguistic academics not only sets up a model to overcome the Eurocentrism and foreground the indigenous practices but also transcends the national boundary and prejudice during the critical period of infodemics and rise of nationalism worldwide. While gaining the disciplinary acknowledgement among Chinese academic community and raising the public awareness of serving the language needs of minoritized populations, emergency language services have been widely promoted and responded by folk efforts, local institutions and local communities. Language volunteers constitute a major social force responding to the call of serving the public. Prior to the COVID-​19 pandemic, China had actively engaged in establishing programmes in languages other than English at Chinese universities (see the description of foreign language revitalization in Li et al., 2020a; Zhang, 2021). Students majoring in different foreign languages were mobilized to participate in delivering emergency language services. Ten traditional Chinese universities cultivated foreign language students in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Tianjing, Dalian, Chonging and Xi’an and provided the first group of volunteers working online and offline for foreigners with limited or no proficiency in Chinese or English. The role of information technology companies engaging in the design of language materials and resources must also be acknowledged (Wang, 2020b). While working as volunteers, their language services experiences created a new space to prove their moral and social value beyond seeking academic and economic profits. According to Wang (2020b), both Chinese teachers and students invested significant amounts of time into volunteer services while also maintaining their commitments to their teaching workload and other tasks. A Chinese teacher of Russian, for instance, edited over 10,000 words updating COVID-​19 information materials in Russian on a daily basis from February to April while training and supervising his students’ translation works and witnessing their progress in Russian language translation (Wang 2020b: 66). Working as a language volunteer in times of crisis also nurtures a sense of care and responsibility among Chinese students. Gong Tiantian, majoring in Persian language from Shanghai International Studies University (SISU), gave up her profitable job working as a part-​time Persian translator and decided to participate in serving the local needs and spreading China’s anti-​COVID-​19 efforts against the infodemic. Gong Tiantian reflected upon her motivation: “I’m a volunteer not because I want to gain anything in return, but because I’m one of SISU and a member of Shanghai” (Wang, 2020b: 57). Working with her teachers and classmates, they designed a bilingual medical vocabulary pamphlet in Chinese and Persian with 213 frequently used terms. Besides, she and her team worked together making online videos showing Persian speakers in China to take self-​protection measures. The urgency of delivering emergency language services shifted from China’s central cities to China’s peripheral regions when an increasing number of COVID-​19 cases were reported in China’s border provinces. Given the diverse multilingual profile of China, the demographic and social structure of indigenous and foreign residents in China’s border provinces are different from China’s central and metropolitan cities (Li et al., 2020a). The capacity to mobilize peripheral linguistic resources constitutes a new challenge for China’s emergency language services. To respond to the new task serving the needs of linguistic minorities in China’s peripheral regions, local forces emerged to complement the national relief efforts. Teachers and students of so-​called small languages worked collaboratively with the local government institutions in undertaking translation and interpreting work. In the China–​Myanmar border region, for example, over 100,000 Burmese 387

Jia Li, Jie Zhang and Ingrid Piller

migrants work as low-​skilled migrants. Most of them have little or no Chinese proficiency. To support them, thousands of Chinese teachers and students majoring in Burmese language were deployed by the local universities to work with medical doctors and other volunteers to translate public health information (Yunnan Daily, 2021). The instant deployment of matched emergency language services (Chinese teachers and students majoring in Burmese to serve the linguistic needs of Burmese migrants) in Yunnan was made possible by China’s strategic investment in foreign language educational resources in border provinces. Located in China’s southwest, Yunnan shares a borderline of over 4,000 kilometers with Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam and is next to Thailand, Cambodia and India. Given its strategic location, Yunnan has become the most important province for teaching and learning Southeast Asian languages in China (Wang & Xia, 2019). According to the recent China Language Situation report (Li & Li, 2021), the most popular small languages in Yunnan are Thai, Burmese and Vietnamese, followed by Lao, Khmer, Hindi, Indonesian, Malay, Bengali, Sinhalese, Nepalese, Urdu, Filipino, Tamil and Pashto. In 2020, there were 21 universities offering Thai undergraduate and postgraduate programmes with 3,590 Chinese students enrolled, 12 universities with Myanmar undergraduate and postgraduate programmes (1,283 students enrolled) and 11 universities with Vietnamese undergraduate programmes (1,239 students enrolled). These small language students are discursively constructed as ‘Rencai’ (talent) for China’s global expansion serving the language needs of Chinese companies established in peripheral countries. In times of crisis, China’s small language resources are activated to serve the emergency needs and mitigate the national disaster relief efforts. The development of emergency language services is keenly followed by emerging academic empirical studies conducted in China’s minority-​centred peripheral regions. For instance, Shi (2021) examined the accessibility of multilingual resources available to local residents, the appropriateness of language materials and the promotion channels available to local people in Liangshan, the largest Yi-​centred minority region in China. Similarly, Li (2021) and Li & Zhang (2021) evaluated emergency language services in Yunnan during a COVID outbreak there in July 2021. They found that the pattern of offering complementary multilingual services was an effective approach in the borderland. Chinese university teachers and students who major in Burmese language are specialized in Burmese literacy with their years of academic training, but they comparatively lack Burmese oral communication competence, especially their lack of capacity understanding ‘non-​ standard’ Burmese language. Their unsatisfactory Burmese oracy is complemented by Burmese migrants who take up cross-​border businesses and who speak fluent Chinese without receiving formal education (see the detailed description of Burmese migrants’ multilingual development in China, Li & Zhang, 2020). These two groups of language volunteers worked together and were allocated to different language-​related tasks according to their talents. Chinese teachers and students were responsible for translating Chinese policy and prevention measures into Burmese written materials while Burmese migrants were in charge of spontaneous interpretation and other urgent requests on the spot. As such, the complementary multilingual practices constitute an effective model for offering emergency language services in China’s borderland. The collaborative achievements of language emergency services from diverse social actors have gained official responses from Chinese government and many practices have been formalized and enshrined into relevant policies and procedures. On 24 June 2020, the preparatory working group for national emergency language services was officially launched to set up the organization structure, guidelines and content (Ministry of Education, 2020a). The report included the needs of linguistically diverse populations into all levels of the Chinese national emergency preparation, response and recovery plan. In September 2020, the development of emergency 388

Multilingualism During Disasters and Emergencies

language services was categorized as an essential part of strengthening China’s national strategy (Ministry of Education, 2020b). In September 2020, the official responses were delivered both from Ministry of Education and National Health Commission on establishing the emergency language centres in Chinese universities, developing a series of language materials, building multilingual corpora for medical communication and cultivating the language personnel for various types of crisis communication (Ministry of Emergency Management Department, 2021). In December 2021, new language policy and planning during the 14th Five-​Year Plan (2021–​2025) was issued by the State Council (Ministry of Education, 2021). The construction of national emergency language services and the cultivation of national language volunteer groups were both officially institutionalized. In February 2022, emergency language services were included in China’s emergency system planning (State Council of China, 2022). The formalized language issues contain clearer and more detailed guidance: increasing the number of languages for crisis communication, optimizing crisis communication channels and modes, enhancing the capacity of delivering accurate and timely messages to target populations in the right place at the right time, improving the supply of emergency management standards in foreign languages, improving the multilingual competence of emergency workers and preparing a professional group of emergency language services with the help of universities, research centres, medical institutions and volunteer organizations.

Implications and future challenges This chapter has reviewed the emerging studies of multilingual crisis communication during the COVID-​19 pandemic with a particular focus on two aspects: challenges confronting linguistic minorities and efforts to overcome barriers to effective crisis communication, particularly in China, where the framework of emergency language services is highly developed. Our review demonstrates that the key multilingual crisis communication challenges relate to (1) providing information in a sufficient number of languages, (2) problematizing English-​centric multilingualism, (3) ensuring language service provisions and (4) performing culturally and linguistically appropriate repertoires. Our review cautions against the superficial embrace of multilingual communication by simply increasing the number of minority languages in times of crisis. In other words, it is not sufficient just to offer translations for minoritized populations. Instead, it is necessary to address the importance of the translation quality and modes and channels of delivering languages and taking into consideration the cultural and affective factors to ensure the quality and effectiveness of multilingual provisions. Another implication drawn from reviewing China’s emergency language services is the new way of seeing multilingualism as collaborative distribution of social resources rather than separated entity. Following a post-​structural paradigm conceptualizing language as linguistic and semiotic assemblages across time and space (Canagarajah, 2018; Pennycook, 2017), we argue that Chinese research not only constitutes a new voice from the Global South but also provides a refreshing lens on seeing multilingualism as collaborative engagement of historical, sociopolitical and technical factors to make concerted efforts and create social impacts and effective responses. China’s emergency language services act as a brokering platform to launch, activate, and work with diverse actors to participate in the fight against the pandemic. In times of crisis, Chinese sociolinguists have been working with other social actors from political, industrial and academic circles within and across China to promote emergency language services and participate in the fight against the COVID-​19 pandemic. The concerted efforts are made by the central government institutions, research institutions and local communities, information technology 389

Jia Li, Jie Zhang and Ingrid Piller

companies and language volunteers. The collaborative efforts have not only raised the public awareness of addressing language needs for minoritized groups, but also created a space for language teachers, students and other volunteers to participate on an equal basis to prove their multilingual competence beyond the capitalist pursuit of profit. Such concerted efforts have produced social impacts and have been transformed into official recognition as part of China’s new Five-​ Year language policy and planning. A third implication to address is the sociopolitical conditions that enable China’s emergency language services to mobilize social resources and other actors to work together in times of crisis. The capacity of nationwide deployment of multilingual resources is mediated in China’s shifting investment of foreign language education from orienting towards West–​European and Anglophone countries to the peripheral world (Zhang, 2021). Prior to the COVID-​19 pandemic, China established over 100 peripheral language programmes at Chinese universities while receiving international students from the corresponding countries, over 70% of them from Asia and Africa (Li et al., 2020a). The strategic educational investment driven by China’s global market expansion provides emergency language services with multilingual capital to work with diverse social actors to yield distinct influences on social outcomes during the COVID-​19 pandemic. It is noted that we do not intend to follow the optimistic discourses of celebrating the revitalization of multilingual education in China; we are well aware of the underlying forces of operating the political economy of linguistic exchange driven by neoliberal rationale as critiqued in our previous work (Li & Han, 2020; Li & Zheng, 2021). However, we do believe that to better prepare for future crisis communications, years of serious and sustainable investment into cultivating multilingual personnel should be formalized and implemented by government institutions rather than remaining as lip service or relying on grassroots efforts alone. As argued by Piller, Zhang & Li (2020), China’s emergency language services set up a positive model to create the desirable social impact and bridge the dialogue between academic community and government institutions. The emergency language services are beginning to have an impact outside China, too (Civico et al., 2022). That being said, we do not suggest that the collaborative efforts in emergency language services are without problems. Emergency language services –​in China and elsewhere –​will require ongoing refinement, implementation and practice-​based services in local contexts to remain fit for purpose and deliver better outcomes in future disasters.

Related topics Chapter 2 Looking at multilingualisms from the Global South; Chapter 5 Unequal Englishes in the Global South; Chapter 27 Multilingualism and translation.

Further reading Li, Y., Rao, G., Zhang, J. & Li, J. 2020. Conceptualizing national emergency language competence. Multilingua. 39(5): 617–​623. Piller, I. 2016. Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Piller, I., Zhang, J. & Li, J. 2020. Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis. Multilingua. 39(5): 503–​515. Piller, I., Zhang, J. & Li, J. 2022. Peripheral multilingual scholars confronting epistemic exclusion in global academic knowledge production: a positive case study. Multilingua. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ multi-​2022-​0034. Zhang, J. 2021. Language Policy and Planning for the Modern Olympic Games. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.

390

Multilingualism During Disasters and Emergencies

References Abbasi, K.A. 2020. Mismatched public health communication costs lives in Pakistan. Language on the Move. www.langua​geon​them​ove.com/​mis​matc​hed-​pub​lic-​hea​lth-​commun​icat​ion-​costs-​lives-​in-​pakis​tan/​. Ahmad, R. & Hillman, S. 2021. Laboring to communicate: use of migrant languages in COVID-​19 awareness campaign in Qatar. Multilingua. 40(3): 303–​337. Bai, G. 2020. Fighting COVID-​19 with Mongolian fiddle stories. Multilingua. 39(5): 577–​586. Briggs, C.L. 2004. Stories in the Time of Cholera: Racial Profiling During a Medical Nightmare. Oakland: University of California Press. Canagarajah, S. 2018. Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics. 39(1): 31–​54. Chang, H., Hutchinson, C. & Gullick, J. 2021. Pulled away: the experience of bilingual nurses as adhoc interpreters in the emergency department. Ethnicity & Health. 26(7): 1045–​1064. Chen, C. 2020a. Public health messages about COVID-​19 prevention in multilingual Taiwan. Multilingua. 39(5): 597–​606. Chen, X. 2020b. Fighting COVID-​19 in East Asia: the role of classical Chinese poetry. Multilingua. 39(5): 565–​576. Civico, M, Gialdini, C., Gazzola, M. & Marnoch, G. 2022. Emergency language policy: principles and lessons from the COVID-​19 pandemic. www.uls​ter.ac.uk/​_​_​d​ata/​ass​ets/​pdf_​f​ile/​0010/​1215​883/​REA​L22-​3.pdf. Declercq, C. & Federici, F.M. 2020. Intercultural Crisis Communication: Translation, Interpreting and Languages in Local Crises. London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Fang, Y. .2018. 实现‘通事’与‘通心’新知新觉：提升突发事件的语言应急能力(Bridging “communication” and “mindset” and creating new knowledge and new feelings: enhancing the capacity of emergency language in times of crisis). http://​the​ory.peo​ple.com.cn/​n1/​2018/​0309/​c40​531-​29857​171.html. Haimovich, G. & Mora, H.M. 2020. Why it’s important to use indigenous languages in health communication. Language on the Move. www.langua​geon​them​ove.com/​why-​its-​import​ant-​to-​use-​ind​igen​ous-​langua​ ges-​in-​hea​lth-​commun​icat​ion/​. Hidayat, Y. 2020. Why Indonesian villagers don’t know how to protect themselves against COVID-​19. Language on the Move. www.langua​geon​them​ove.com/​why-​ind​ones​ian-​villag​ers-​dont-​know-​how-​to-​ prot​ect-​the​msel​ves-​agai​nst-​covid-​19/​. Hopkyns, S. & van den Hoven, M. 2022. Linguistic diversity and inclusion in Abu Dhabi’s linguistic landscape during the COVID-​19 period. Multilingua. 41(2): 201–​232. Jang, I. & Choi, L. 2020. Staying connected during COVID-​19: the social and communicative role of an ethnic online community of Chinese international students in South Korea. Multilingua. 39(5): 541–​552. Li, J. & Han, H. 2020. Learning to orient toward Myanmar: ethnic Chinese students from Myanmar at a university in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum. www.tand​fonl​ine.com/​doi/​full/​10.1080/​07908​ 318.2020.1858 095?src=​. Li, J. & Li, L. 2021. 云南高校南亚东南亚语专业教育现状 (The educational status quo of universities offering South Asian and Southeast Asian language degree programs in Yunnan). In 国家语言文字工作委 员会 (State Language Commission, Ed.) 中国语言生活状况包括 (Language Situation in China: 2021), 商务印书馆 (The Commercial Press). 81–​87. Li, J., Xie, P., Ai, B. & Li, L. 2020a. Multilingual communication experiences of international students during the COVID-​19 pandemic. Multilingua. 39(5): 529–​539. Li, J & Zhang, J. 2020. 云南瑞丽缅甸籍流动人口的语言能力与职业发展 (The interplay of Burmese migrants’ language competence and employment trajectory at Ruili Yunnan). 语言战略研究. Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning. 6(5): 69–​77. Li, J. & Zhang, J. 2021. 瑞丽为边境口岸应急语言服务建设提供示范 (Making Ruli as model for developing emergency language service at China’s borderland). 语言战略与研究 (Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning). 6(5): 76. Li, J. & Zheng, Y. 2021. Enacting multilingual entrepreneurship out of class: an ethnography of language learning of Myanmar university students. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://​dx.doi.org/​ 10.1080/​14790​718.2021.1976​785. Li, Y. 2011. 提升国家语言能力的若干思考 (Reflections on promoting state language competence.) 南开语 言学刊 (Nankai Linguistics). 17(1): 1–​8. Li, Y. 2020. Language lessons of COVID-​19 and linguistic disaster preparedness. Language on the Move. www.langua​geon​them​ove.com/​langu​age-​less​ons-​of-​covid-​19-​and-​lin​guis​tic-​disas​ter-​prepa​redn​ess/​.

391

Jia Li, Jie Zhang and Ingrid Piller Li, Y. 2021. 边境语言的‘睦邻戍边’作用 (Loving neighbours and safeguarding country: borderland linguistics). http://​news.cssn.cn/​zx/​bwyc/​202​107/​t20210​709_​5346​279.shtml> Li, Y., Rao, G., Zhang, J. & Li, J. 2020b. Conceptualizing national emergency language competence. Multilingua. 39(5): 617–​623. Lin, L., Savoia, E., Agboola, F. & Viswanath, K. 2014. What have we learned about communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Public Health. 14: 484. Ministry of Education. 2012. 国家中长期语言文字事业改革和发展规划纲 (2012–​2020) (National medium and long-​term plan for renovation and development of language and literacy). www.moe.gov.cn/​srcs​ite/​ A18/​s3127/​s7072/​201​212/​t2012​1210​_​146​511.html. Ministry of Education. 2020a. 国家应急语言服务团筹建工作组正式成立 (The formal establishment of the preparatoory working group for national emergency language services). www.moe.gov.cn/​s78/​A19/​A19_​ z​tzl/​ztzl​_​yyw​zfw/​yingj​ifw/​202​007/​t2020​0706​_​470​547.html. Ministry of Education. 2020b. 国务院办公厅关于全面加强新时代语言文字工作的意见 (Suggestions from the office of State Council on enhancing the overall capacity of language and literacy in a new era). www.moe.gov.cn/​jyb_​x​xgk/​moe_​1​777/​moe_​1​778/​202​111/​t2021​1130​_​583​564.html. Ministry of Education. 2021. 教育部、国家语委负责人就《国务院办公厅关于全面加强新时代语言文 字工作的意见》答记者问 (Representatives from Ministry of Education and State Language Commission responding to the questions of news reporters on ‘suggestions from the office of Sate Council on enhancing the overall capacity of language and literacy’). www.gov.cn/​zhen​gce/​2021-​12/​01/​cont​ent_​5655​297.htm. Ministry of Emergency Management Department. 2021. 对十三届全国人大四次会议第 8680 号建议的答 复 (Response to the suggestions of No. 8680 on the fourth session of the 13th National People’s Congress). www.mem.gov.cn/​gk/​zfxxg​kpt/​fdzdg​knr/​202​109/​t2021​0916​_​398​604.shtml. O’Brien, S. & Cadwell, P. 2018. Translation facilitates comprehension of health-​related crisis information: Kenya as an example. Journal of Specialised Translation. 28(1): 23–​51. O’Brien, S., Federici, F., Cadwell, P., Marlowe, J. & Gerber, B. 2018. Language translation during disaster: a comparative analysis of five national approaches. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 31: 627–​636. Pennycook, A. 2017. Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism. 14(3): 269–​282. Piller, I. 2016. Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Piller, I. 2020. Covid-​19 forces us to take linguistic diversity seriously. Language on the Move. www.langua​ geon​them​ove.com/​covid-​19-​for​ces-​us-​to-​take-​lin​guis​tic-​divers​ity-​seriou​sly/​. Piller, I., Zhang, J. & Li, J. 2020. Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis. Multilingua. 39(5): 503–​515. Piller, I., Zhang, J. & Li, J. 2022. Peripheral multilingual scholars confronting epistemic exclusion in global academic knowledge production: a positive case study. Multilingua. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ multi-​2022-​0034. Qu, S. 2007. 语言服务研究论纲 (The guiding principles for doing language service studies),” 江汉大学学 报(人文科学版) (Journal of Jianghan University (Humanities Sciences)). (6): 56–​62. Sengupta, P. 2022. Language, communication, and the COVID-​19 pandemic: criticality of multi-​lingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14790​718.2021.2021​918. Shen, Q. 2020. Commentary: directions in language planning from the COVID-​19 pandemic. Multilingua. 39(5): 625–​629. Shi, L. 2021. 突发公共事件中民族地区的语言应急与公共服务研究—​—​以凉山彝族自治州为例 (The investigation of language emergency and public services in times of emergencies and public crisis: A case study of Yi autonomous region in Liangshan) 西南民族大学学报 (人文社会科学版). (Journal of Southwest Minzu University (Humanities and Social Science)). 1: 197–​204. State Language Commission. 2011. 中国语言生活状况报告 2011 (Green Paper on Language Situation in China 2011). 商务印书出版社 (The Commercial Press). Tan, M.S. & Said, S.B. 2015. Linguistic landscape and exclusion: an examination of language representation in disaster signage in Japan. In R. Rubdy & S.B. Said, Eds. Conflict, Exclusion and Dissent in the Linguistic Landscape. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 145–​169. Uekusa, S. 2019. Disaster linguicism: linguistic minorities in disasters. Language in Society. 48(3): 353–​375. Wang, C. 2020a. 战疫语言服务团:实践、经验与启示 (Epidemic fighting language service group: practice, experience and enlightenment). 云南师范大学学报（对外汉语教学研究版）(Journal of Yunnan Normal University (Teaching and Research on Chinese as a Foreign Language)). 18(4): 1–​5.

392

Multilingualism During Disasters and Emergencies Wang, C. 2022. 建构分场景地域的应急语言服务体系 (Constructing emergency language services system in terms of dimensions and places), 江汉学术 (Jianghan Academic). 41(3): 92–​93. Wang, G., Bahry, S.A. & An, W. 2022. Minority language revitalization and social media through the lens of Covid-​19 in Yunnan and Gansu, Western China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​632.2022.2042​541. Wang, H. & Xia, J. 2019. 高校‘一带一路’非通用语人才培养与市场需求调查研究 (The cultivation of university peripheral language personnel for China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the investigation of market demands. 外语电化教学 (Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education). 1: 30–​36. Wang, L. 2020b. 战役”应急语言服务报告 (Report on anti-​Coronavirus emergency language services). 北 京：对外贸易经济法学出版社 Beijing: University of International Business and Economics Press. Wang, L., Ren, J., Sun, J. & Meng, Y. 2020. 应急语言服务的概念、研究现状与机制体制建设 (Concept, developments, system, and mechanism construction of emergency language services). 北京第二外国语 学院学报.( Journal of Beijing International Studies University). 42(1): 21–​30. Wang, M. & Kang, Z. 2020. 由语言应急引出的语言服务问题 (The language service questions caused by language for emergency). 天津外国语大学学报 (Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University). 27(3): 32–​39. Wen, Q. 2021. 实现国家语言能力与综合国力的相适应 (Making national language competence adaptable for comprehensive national power). https://​epa​per.gmw.cn/​gmrb/​html/​2021 11/​14/​nw.D110000gmrb_​ 20211114_​4-​05.htm. WHO. 2023. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. https://covid19.who.int/​ Xu, D. 2020. 语言研究充实社会应急机制 (Social Emergency Response Mechanism Got Enhanced with the Study of Language Strategies). 语言战略研究. (Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning). 5(3): 10–​11. Yunnan Daily. 2021. 扎牢防线构筑“铜墙铁壁 (Safeguarding the border and building ‘bronze-​and-​iron-​ made wall’). http://​yn.gov.cn/​ztgg/​yqfk/​zsdt/​202​104/​t2021​0427​_​221​262.html. Zhang, J. 2021. Language Policy and Planning for the Modern Olympic Games. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Zhang, J. & Wu, Y. 2020. Providing multilingual logistics communication in COVID-​19 disaster relief. Multilingua. 39(5): 517–​528. Zhao, S. 2012. 从服务内容看语言服务的界定与类型 (Definition and types of language service from the perspective of the content). 北华大学学报. (Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences)). 13(3): 4–​6. Zhao, S. 2016. National language capacity in global competition. Social Sciences in China. 37(3):93–​110. Zhao, S. 2020. 应急语言研究的三大视域 (Three principal domains for emergency language study). 语言战 略研究 (Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning). 5(5): 11–​12. Zhao, S. & Zhang, T. 2020. Diaspora micro-​influencers and COVID communication on social media: the case of Chinese-​speaking YouTube vloggers. Multilingua. 39(5): 553–​563. Zheng, Y. 2020. Mobilizing foreign language students for multilingual crisis translation in Shanghai. Multilingua. 39(5): 587–​595. Zhu, H. 2020. Countering COVID-​19-​related anti-​Chinese racism with translanguaged swearing on social media. Multilingua. 39(5): 607–​616.

393

26 MULTILINGUALISM IN ASYLUM AND MIGRATION PROCEDURES Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-​Khan and Marie Jacobs

Introduction This chapter investigates the institutional management of multilingualism in asylum and migration procedures. Asylum bureaucracies receive migrants from all over the world, who bring along complex repertoires of sociocultural and linguistic resources (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011). Language diversity and multilingualism are therefore more prominent in these procedures than in any other type of legal-​institutional environment. Research in the field of language and migration has revealed, however, that asylum institutions largely underestimate the nature of linguistic diversity and the way in which it shapes the interaction with applicants, the processing of discursive input in asylum files and, subsequently, in legal argumentation in the decision-​making process. Scholarship has been reporting on the way in which language plays a critical role in shaping the refugee identity, on the one hand, and in rendering personal events and experiences into legal categorizations, on the other. Yet, the implications of the way in which multilingual discourse functions as a constitutive and decisive resource within the high-​stakes and delicate context of refugee status determination remains unaddressed. Consequently, scholarship in the field of language and society characterizes the asylum procedure as a site of linguistic inequality (Blommaert, 2003; Maryns & Blommaert, 2001; Pöllabauer, 2004, Inghilleri, 2003; Murray, 2018). A central focus in these studies has been the institutional hegemony of monolingual ideologies that persistently disadvantage speakers of minority varieties in procedural contexts: discourse analysts in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology have investigated how monolingual ideologies inform asylum institutions and affect the evaluation of multilingual competences in the procedure (Maryns, 2006, 2017; Smith-​Khan, 2019, 2017a, 2017c). Critical scholars in the field of interpreting studies have been similarly concerned with the ideological underpinnings of what counts as legitimate language use in asylum and migration encounters: their analysis of interpreting as a ‘monologizing’ practice that reinforces a one-​ sided treatment of multilingualism in the procedure, has challenged the more canonical views of interpreting in terms of bilingual mediation between two neatly separated monolingual codes (Inghilleri, 2003; Wadensjö, 2004). Building on the language ideological topics raised in these writings, this chapter deals with the ways in which the asylum system manages and controls the multilingual performance of its clients. Throughout the asylum process, applicants for international protection have to explain their situation in various institutional encounters, which have a direct or indirect impact on their

394

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-31

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures

application. Inspired by Goffman’s metaphor of front-​and backstages of social settings (Goffman, 1959), we make an analytical distinction between (a) ‘frontstage’ performance, in interviews between applicants and asylum officers as part of the examination of refugee status, and (b) ‘backstage’ performance, on the counselling side of the procedure involving a support person or confidant (often a guardian in the case of unaccompanied minors) or, most commonly, a lawyer (Jacobs & Maryns, 2021; Jacobs, 2022). Our chapter addresses both types of interaction to examine how the management of the multilingual performance of applicants and other stakeholders in these encounters affects the asylum process. To do so, we examine data from the Belgian and the Australian asylum settings, collected in the context of sociolinguistic–​ethnographic research projects conducted by the three authors in Belgium (authors 1 and 2) and Australia (author 3). Author 1 draws from a corpus of audio recordings of authentic asylum interviews, as part of two research projects that yielded ethnographic data collected at the Belgian asylum agencies, comprising a corpus of 39 authentic asylum hearings (2001–​2002) and a corpus of 8 hearings (2011–​ 2012). The data provided by author 2 are part of a corpus of 72 legal advice meetings between Belgian immigration lawyers and their asylum and refugee clients, gathered in two Belgian law firms during 2018–​2020. Author 3 draws primarily on qualitative interviews with eight Australian registered migration agents and lawyers who assist asylum seeker clients, alongside a corpus of published decisions and institutional rules from the Australian tribunal responsible for reviewing unsuccessful asylum applications (2015–​2017). While the Australian and Belgian asylum systems are geographically distant, they display very similar features when it comes to the discursive (re)construction and assessment of asylum narratives. Both systems are interview-​based: applicants must submit personal documents and explain their motivation for seeking international protection, and if unsuccessful, have opportunities to have the decision reviewed by separate decision-​making bodies, and ultimately reviewed in court (although, judicial review in Australia is relatively infrequent and rarely successful (see Smith-​Khan, 2022). In Belgium, EU minimum standards dictate that asylum seekers have the right to an interpreter, either provided by the authorities or of their own choice. Belgian law also safeguards the right to legal counsel for all applicants in the asylum procedure. Australian law also generally recognizes the need to provide interpreting for linguistic minorities. However unlike in Belgium, there is no inherent right to legal assistance: government funding supports legal assistance for only a small number of particularly ‘vulnerable’ applicants. This raises the seminal question of how ‘vulnerability’ is actually defined –​ a topic that has received considerable scholarly attention, as asylum seekers as a group are often characterized as ‘vulnerable’ by definition. International law as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognizes them as “members of an underprivileged and vulnerable population group in need of special protection” (European Court of Human Rights, 2011). Some asylum seekers are, however, institutionally categorized as ‘particularly vulnerable’ because of a specific characteristic (e.g. people applying for international protection on the basis of a gender or sexuality claim –​see Jacobs & Maryns, 2022a), or based on their personal characteristics and living circumstances in the host country (see e.g. the use of vulnerability assessment tools by international development organizations in Crock et al., 2017, p. 81 onwards). This bureaucratic label often entails additional support –​ hence, the access to free legal assistance in the Australian context. Although such measures are implemented to safeguard protection for specific groups, scholarly literature is concerned with the essentializing effects this discourse of vulnerability might have (for more information see Jacobs & Maryns, 2022b).

395

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs

In the Australian context, government funding for interpreting during legal consultations is also rare. This means that asylum seekers or the organizations assisting them often need to pay for interpreting themselves or rely on volunteer assistance when accessing legal advice. Further, in Australia, if an applicant exhausts their appeal options, they are generally not permitted to make a fresh application for asylum. In contrast, Belgian law permits a new application where an asylum seeker has new information relevant to their claim. Our approach focuses on the multilingual repertoires drawn upon by different participants in the asylum process and analyzes the ways in which language choice is negotiated across counselling and adjudication stages of the procedure. We depart from two Belgian case studies, the first from a counselling (‘backstage’) encounter and the second from the adjudication (‘frontstage’) of the procedure. The first case study examines how language choice is negotiated in a legal consultation between a Belgian lawyer and his Afghan client, assisted by a confidant. The second case study also deals with the challenges of language selection but examines how these challenges are addressed in the asylum interview of a West African applicant. In each case, the examples are discussed and compared to the Australian asylum context. This comparative examination of how authorities, advisors, and applicants deal with the multilingual organization of asylum encounters reveals how the process of language choice and the provision of linguistic support are not merely about ensuring the functional purpose of getting meaning across. They are also impacted by structural and practical considerations and can be integral to identity construction. This means that language choice is fundamental to the production of credible claims in multiple ways. As the analysis will show, this dynamic entails that an applicant’s credibility might be undermined by the fact that, although various considerations point applicants to different choices of language, the system stipulates that an applicant must choose one.

Backstage management: negotiating language choice for the asylum interview during lawyer–​client encounters Legal consultations between immigration lawyers and their clients are linguistically very diverse and this is why language choice, and the provision of linguistic support are commonly discussed during these meetings. Our first case study examines the ways in which language choice for an upcoming interview with Belgian asylum authorities is negotiated during a legal consultation between a young, male applicant from Afghanistan, his confidant (a Dutch-​speaking woman) and his lawyer (male, Dutch-​speaking). Similar institutional structures, ideologies and practices are evident in the Australian context. Interviews conducted by author 3 with Australian migration practitioners have identified them playing a similar role advising their asylum-​seeking clients on choosing a language for asylum interviews and review hearings (see also Smith-​Khan, 2020, 2021). In both Belgium and Australia, when an asylum interview or hearing is being arranged, two key language choices need to be made. First, applicants (and/​or their lawyers) must decide whether they are comfortable using the procedural language, or if they require interpreting. If they require it, they must choose one language and make a request in advance so that the relevant authorities can arrange an appropriate interpreter to attend. The Belgian and Australian data revealed similar ideologies and competing priorities at play in the advice and decision-​making surrounding these two choices. In the Belgian case study, the participants are discussing language choice for an upcoming interview with the asylum authorities, noting that the lawyer has already decided to request an interpreter for this encounter. This differs slightly from the Australian data where practitioners report advising their clients about deciding whether to book an interpreter, but ultimately regarded this as being the client’s choice. 396

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures

Managing linguistic resources Excerpt 1 1) Lawyer: je spreekt heel goed Nederlands maar je spreekt nog beter Dari denk ik (laughs) =​ you speak Dutch very well but you speak Dari even better, I think (laughs) 2) Client: Ja ja (.) Yes yes (.) 3) Lawyer: Hé (?) Dus kan je dat best denk ik in het Dari zeggen (.) Right (?) So it’s best if you say everything in Dari (.) 4) Confidant: Ja ja (.) Yes yes (.) 5) Lawyer: Maar het is wel heel belangrijk en jij begrijpt ook Nederlands dus jij kan de tolk een beetje controleren (.) als er een probleem is moet je dat zeker zeggen (.) But it is very important and you understand Dutch as well so you can check the interpreter a little (.) if there’s a problem you definitely have to say so (.) 6) Client: Ja waarom is het altijd kon niet euhm bijvoorbeeld Farsi Yes why is it always why can it not be erm for example Farsi 7) Lawyer: Ja als je dat zou willen dan kan dat maar spreek jij beter Farsi dan Dari (?) Yes if you would want that then that’s possible but do you speak Farsi better than Dari (?) 8) Client: Superbeter (.) Superbetter (.) 9) Lawyer: Beter Farsi (?) Farsi better (?) 10) Client: Super ja (.) Super yes (.) 11) Lawyer: Ah ja (.) Ah yes (.) 12) Client: Ik woonde hier al ja ik gestudeerd (.) I lived here already yeah I have studied (.) 13) Lawyer: Ben je zeker beter (?) Beter Farsi (?) Are you better for sure (?) Farsi better (?) 14) Client: Ja ja een supergrote kans ja beter beter dan Dari (.) Yes yes a superbig chance that it’s better than Dari (.) The client’s previous consultations at the same law firm were mediated by a Dari–​Dutch interpreter, but as this is the asylum seeker’s second application and as his Dutch language proficiency has improved since, the interactants have decided to communicate in Dutch, without an interpreter. While the lawyer and the confidant adapt their language use to accommodate the client’s emerging proficiency, Dutch functions relatively well in this backstage setting. However, discussing the upcoming asylum interview with the authorities, the lawyer instructs his client to employ a different linguistic strategy for the frontstage communication, i.e. to only use Dari (turn 01) (the language of the interpreter) but to ‘check’ the quality of the interpreter’s Dutch renditions by drawing on his own proficiency. The lawyer, in other words, singles out two varieties from his client’s repertoire to serve specific functions: he selects Dari because he believes this will enable the client to express himself most fully, and he acknowledges the client’s Dutch as a valuable resource to monitor interpretation quality. In the Australian study, similarly, the practitioners indicated that they generally advised all their clients to request an interpreter for asylum interviews, even when they had English proficiency and had been using English in legal consultations. Their reasons for doing so were similar to those identified in Excerpt 1. The third practitioner interviewed (P03) provides an apt example.

397

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs

Excerpt 2 1) P03: he used to be a student, he passed the IELTS (English) test and it was just that, you can’t, even with [that] client he didn’t want the interpreter but I was, I just told him look I think that we should get an interpreter no matter what. 2) L: yeah 3) P03: um you’re going-​um you’re probably going to get nervous and you can use it, you just, if you need anything just just speak to the interpreter 4) L: yep 5) P03: um see what . . you know and you get a lot of legal jargon that comes up at the tribunal that needs an interpreter there . . to kind of assist in the process so I think that the interpreter is really important even when they do speak English uhm, just in case anything comes up In justifying this choice, the basic communicative function of language is again prioritized. However, P03 also demonstrates an appreciation of the impact of social context on language proficiency, emphasizing that language use in the adjudication setting can be technical (turn 5), and also predicting that the client will be nervous, assuming that this would make them less capable of relying on their second language) (turn 3). When it involves proficiency in a procedural language, asylum seekers’ multilingualism is clearly framed as an asset in both the Belgian and Australian studies; at several moments throughout the consultation, the Belgian lawyer compliments the asylum seeker on his broad linguistic repertoire. All interactants are aware that the asylum seeker holds an advantage over other applicants who do not have this type of proficiency and therefore cannot monitor interpreting quality. It also creates an additional advantage in that applicants proficient in the procedural language have more time to reflect on questions before answering (see also Smith-​Khan, 2017b; Smith-​Khan, 2020). On the other hand, this advantage further exacerbates the precarious position of applicants who cannot rely on their linguistic resources in the same way, especially when they lack legal assistance and are unable to effectively identify or address such issues, a very real possibility in the Belgian and the Australian context.

Using one language only From turn 6 of Excerpt 1, however, it becomes clear that the language selection process is actually less obvious than the lawyer presumed. The client speaks both Farsi and Dari, the use of which is functionally and contextually segmented (Maryns & Blommaert, 2001; Blommaert & Backus, 2011), as he explains in Excerpt 3. Choosing between Farsi and Dari is necessary in Belgium because, unlike in other European contexts, the Belgian asylum authorities call upon separate interpreters for Farsi and Dari. In the light of linguistic (human) rights, this is an important distinction because Dari and Farsi, while being considered dialects of the same language, are only “mutually intelligible when written, but very different when spoken” (Translators without Borders 2017, para 1). This means that while elsewhere asylum seekers would not be guaranteed one or the other, in Belgium, they must select (and therefore limit themselves to) whichever they feel most comfortable using. Farsi and Dari are also categorized separately in Australia, along with a further variety, Hazaragi. The Belgian confidant wants to ensure that Farsi is the language in which the applicant can express himself most fully by asking him some additional questions about his language use.

398

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures

Excerpt 3 1) Confidant: Met je papa en mama spreek je wat welke taal spreek je (?) With your dad and mom you speak which language do you speak (?) 2) Client: In huis (?) In the house (?) 3) Lawyer: Ja (.) Yes (.) 4) Confidant: Ja (.) Yes (.) 5) Client: In thuis wij Dari praten en mijn papa heeft gezegd xxxx Farsi prate In the home we speak Dari and my dad has said xxxx to speak Farsi 6) Confidant: ah ja xxxx buiten (.) Okay yes xxxx outside (.) 7) Client: Buiten ons niemand kent (.) Outside no one knows us (.) 8) Confidant: dus jij bent in Farsi naar school alles? So you went to school in Farsi and everything? 9) Client: Ja naar school ja allemaal (.) Yes to school yes everything (.) 10) Confidant: Het gaat er denk ik over wat de advocaat ook zegt dat je je daar het zekerst voelt I think it’s about what the lawyer says as well that you feel the most confident in it 11) Lawyer: Ja (.) Yes The applicant explains how –​ before his arrival in Belgium –​ he spoke Dari at home, yet Farsi in the community and at school. His choice for Farsi seems confident, as he repeatedly uses the intensifier ‘super’ (turns 7 and 9, Excerpt 1). Still, the fact that a Dari interpreter was used for the client’s previous counselling interactions and previous asylum interview (from his first application) seems to make the lawyer and confidant uncertain about his language choice. In Excerpt 2, the Australian lawyer’s reference to education –​that their client had studied in Australia –​is similar to the references made by the client in the Belgian example (Excerpt 1) and by his confidant (Excerpt 3), mentioning his having studied in Farsi in Iran as a reason for his high proficiency. While multiple participants acknowledge that education may create the expectation of proficiency in a host country language, they balance this against competing priorities by emphasizing the need to select the language in which the applicant is most fluent. Although applicants can only choose one language for asylum interviews, there still seems to be a certain degree of flexibility regarding language choice, as Belgian officers allow applicants to switch from one interview language to another (e.g. in the case study, from Dari in the first registration interview to Farsi during the second interview at the review level). In the Australian data there is a similar flexibility, with applicants able to have an interpreter present on standby and either use them or not, as needed. Still, this flexibility has its limits, because multilingual applicants are expected to select one ‘named language’ to use throughout an encounter (García & Lin, 2017). There is no option to communicate in a ‘space of multilingualism’ in which all kinds of linguistic resources are welcome in the pursuit of mutual understanding and interactional common ground (Blommaert, Collins & Slembrouck, 2005; Reynolds, 2020). In other words, while lawyer–​client meetings often allow for greater linguistic flexibility, the language regime of asylum procedures creates the need for explicit language choice discussions between lawyers and their clients that conclude with selecting a single language for official encounters.

Identity implications of language choice Only a few turns later in the Belgian consultation, the client himself addresses the topic of language choice, arguing Farsi might be better, not only for reasons of language proficiency but also with regards to the credibility of his claim to have lived in Iran as an Afghan refugee. 399

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs

Excerpt 4 1) Client: Farsi is beter weet je waarom (?) Farsi is better you know why (?) 2) Lawyer: Ja (.) Yes (.) 3) Client: Omdat het commissariaat zegt ik mensen commissariaat niet geloven dat ik woonde in Iran omdat ze ik ik Because the commission says that I that people the commission don’t believe that I lived in Iran because they I I 4) Lawyer: Maar daar moet je niet aan denken (.) het belangrijkste is welke taal spreek jij het beste (.) hé want Afghanen in Iran spreken ook Dari onder elkaar spreken ook niet altijd Farsi (.) soms spreken ze hé Afghanen met de mama en de papa spreken wel nog Dari en op straat spreken ze dan Farsi (.) dus je moet niet nadenken van welke taal moet ik best kiezen om mijn verhaal te bewijzen dat moet je niet doen (.) je moet de taal kiezen die voor jou het gemakkelijkste is (.) But you don’t have to think about that (.) the most important question is which language do you speak best (.) because Afghans in Iran also speak Dari with each other not always Farsi either (.) sometimes they speak right Afghans do speak Dari with their mom and their Dad and then on the street they speak Farsi (.) so you don’t have to think about which language is my best choice for proving my story you don’t have to do that (.) you should choose the language that is the easiest for you (.) 5) Client: Voor mij is Perzisch is beter (.) For me Persian is better (.) The client is aware that the government rejected his previous application because they did not believe parts of his refugee narrative where he claimed to have spent time living in Iran as a refugee. Therefore, this time he assumes that the authorities might find his story more credible if he conducts the official interview in Farsi, a language commonly associated with residency and schooling in Iran –​rather than in Dari, which is alluded to have a more logical link to life in Afghanistan. Thus, the client anticipates that the authorities view ‘language’ as directly connected to particular nations and identities (García & Lin, 2017; Blackledge & Creese, 2008) –​although he is of course aware that his own linguistic resources are more fluid and diverse than this picture suggests. The lawyer, however, argues that the linguistic situation of Afghans who live in Iran is highly complex and that there are many residents of Iran (especially with Afghan roots) who speak both Farsi and Dari (turn 4). Presumably the lawyer does this in order to discourage the client from selecting Farsi for what he considers a ‘wrong’ reason (i.e. its indexical value), or to still allow him to select Dari without feeling that it would undermine his identity claims. Thus, the lawyer prioritizes linguistic functionality over other functions which particular forms of language proficiency might play. In the Australian data, the expected functional superiority of using one’s single strongest language is also preferred over the indexical value of using a language of study. For example, P05 describes two extreme examples of asylum seekers, e.g. “a farmer from the middle of nowhere … probably not comfortable speaking English in that kind of setting”, and “high level government operatives who’ve got on the wrong side of someone”. He opines that an asylum seeker’s institutional language choices should align with their persecution claims. In the case of a highly qualified person who has fallen afoul of the government in their home country, the expectation that they are likely to be highly proficient in English could mean that they might be discouraged from requesting interpreting services. However, even in this extreme example, P05 suggests that booking an interpreter is still possible and acceptable. This is most likely thanks to the generally widespread institutional acceptance –​at least in the Australian data –​of standby interpreting.

400

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures

In each example, it is evident that the lawyers recognize the indexical values of language but in the end, because of the requirement to choose a single language in which to communicate, they explicitly prioritize ease of communication.

Practical implications of language choices In the next part of the Belgian case study, presented in Excerpt 5, it becomes clear that –​ along with being an interactional tool and an index of identity –​language choice also has more logistic, pragmatic dimensions. Excerpt 5 1) Lawyer: Oké dan ga ik dan ga ik vandaag nog een berichtje sturen (.) nu omdat het interview wel vrijdag al is=​ Okay then I will then I will already send a message today (.) well because the interview is already this Friday=​ 2) Client: Ja (.) Yes (.) 3) Lawyer: kan het zijn dat ze dan misschien het interview gaan uit stellen (.) It is possible that they will maybe postpone the interview (.) 4) Client: xxxx Dari Dari is beter (laughs) xxxx Dari Dari is better (laughs) 5) Lawyer: neeneeneeneenee het belangrijkste is de taal (laughs) dus ik ga het vragen en dan zullen we zien wat dat ze zeggen (.) Nonononono the most important thing is the language (laughs) so I will ask and then we will see what they say (.) The last-​minute rescheduling of an interpreter for a language that is not widely available in Belgium comes with practical repercussions. The lawyer flagging possible delays because of this switch in language prompts the client to, at least jokingly, suggest changing his mind and staying with Dari, thus indicating his reluctance to experience the inconvenience of having to wait for a new interpreter to be booked. The lawyer again discourages the client from making a language choice based on elements extraneous to using the code he is most comfortable with and most proficient in. In arguing that “the most important thing is the language” (turn 5), he acknowledges the pragmatic, efficiency-​oriented arguments in relation to the language choice of the interview yet gives more weight to ensuring proficiency. Australian practitioners and their clients are also affected by similar practical considerations when making language choices, with similar tensions arising, as P02 explains in Excerpt 6. Excerpt 6 1) P02: during an asylum interview, if there’s an issue with the interpreter, we’ll ask the client whether there’s any other dialects which they’d be comfortable talking if we think there’s gonna be a long delay… in getting an interpreter or an interpreter might not be available [in their language of choice] 2) L: yeah so there’s that tension between-​ 3) P02: that’s yeah and [bu-​but you] you’re very cautious with=​ 4) L: [the best case and] 5) P02: =​doing that because . . you wanna make sure the client’s understanding . . everything . . so. 6) L: exactly 7) P02: if it’s a dialect that they don’t speak all the time then what’s the point 401

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs

Here, P02 recognizes the potential for her clients to be comfortable enough to communicate in more than one language. On the other hand, she does emphasize the need to ensure that the client’s ‘second choice’ is still one in which they are able to communicate adequately. This resonates with the concern of the Afghan client in the Belgian case: as delays are a real concern they could –​and perhaps should –​influence language choice. As the Australian participants raise, this needs to be understood against the larger procedural context in which asylum decisions are made: in recent years, asylum seekers are facing increasingly extended periods of time –​ sometimes, years –​ to have their applications decided, in some cases while also in immigration detention. This can cause significant distress and harm to asylum seekers, and could lead to negative consequences in terms of access to justice (Laban et al., 2007). Applicants may end up having multiple lawyers due to staff turnover and may even have to have their review applications re-​heard because of officers finishing their appointments and needing to hand over their caseload to a new officer to consider afresh. Waiting for an interpreter in a preferred language can contribute to such delays and can thus have serious consequences. This explains why asylum seekers, or their lawyers, may sometimes feel pressured to compromise on language choice to facilitate case progression. Similar to the situation with carefully choosing between Dari and Farsi in the Belgian context, the Australian practitioners demonstrate an appreciation of how institutional classification systems restrict how interpreters can be booked. There are limitations in terms of what language, dialect or variety can be specified, and to what extent personal characteristics of a desired interpreter can be requested. Language classifications within the organization that provides interpreters, TIS, create limits on what can be requested, as in the case of needing to choose, for example, between Dari, Farsi and Hazaragi. Arabic provides another apt example, showing the varying levels of distinction across different languages. Excerpt 7 1) P08: yeah unfortunately, so the only thing in TIS that you can request for different Arabic dialects is Sudanese Arabic. so there’s Arabic, and you can request Sudanese Arabic because I guess they’ve managed to, uhm ... I don’t know how it happened, but Sudanese 2) L: yeah, lobby for 3) P08: have their own, yep This classification system effectively means that it is impossible to book an Arabic interpreter proficient in a particular dialect or variety. Given the wide variation among different Arabic varieties or dialects (Alosh, 2005), this means that there is the potential for significant communication challenges. On the other hand, however, asylum seekers and lawyers mobilizing their agency in such situations can lead to a change in institutional practice, even where bureaucratic classifications persist, as demonstrated in Excerpt 8. Excerpt 8 1) L: yeah okay. yep. so you can always put in a request and there’s the potential for them to accommodate them right? [but it’s not necessarily] 2) P08: [yeah and I think um] my feeling is that the department has become aware of this because um, mainly Iraqi applicants have, complained about it, so maybe they have certain interpreters that are quite good at dealing with it, or they do the right interpreting or whatever 402

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures

3) L: alright 4) P08: so it doesn’t become an issue, because it’s a headache for the department too if you think about it, they’ve gotta reschedule 5) L: yeah 6) P08: and it just becomes a logistical nightmare that could have been really, uhm alleviated However, even while discussing the linguistic concerns about how different languages and dialects are classified by the interpreting provider, the migration practitioners demonstrate an appreciation of the overlapping and interconnected sociolinguistic needs and experiences of their clients. Although, even then, they identify the need to frame these as language-​related, as exemplified in Excerpt 9. Excerpt 9 1) P08: um, so that’s a huge problem we’ve seen in interviews, and even like no sorry, with us as lawyers when we’re meeting with our clients and also at the interview, they’ll be like “can I get, can you make sure you get an Iraqi? I don’t want a Lebanese, or an Egyptian,” um, so ... 2) L: so you can specify that when you put in your request for what interpreting you want? 3) P08: yeah, we do, but we always tell the clients we can’t cause actually with the interpreting service 4) L: yeah 5) P08: the interpreting service, according to anti-​discrimination laws they can’t actually specify we want a Palestinian interpreter or an Iraqi interpreter so, or an Iraqi dialect, so we’ll try and ... we’ll put it down in terms of what interpreting you want, we’ll put Iraqi dialect only. The analysis here demonstrates that there is significant scope at the backstage of asylum processes to navigate institutional language choice requirements and to overcome some of the challenges that they may present for applicants. However, importantly, it also suggests substantial variation. Applicants’ power to advocate for their procedural language needs and make informed decisions about language choice can be dependent on (i) their access to legal support (not guaranteed in Australia) and (ii) the experience and beliefs of their advisors. Challenges related to language choice do not end here: applicants and their lawyers continue to negotiate language choice at the frontstage, during official encounters themselves, as the second case study will demonstrate.

Frontstage management: negotiating language choice in the asylum interview The data for this third section are taken from a second Belgian case study, involving a two-​hour interview between a West African applicant for international protection and a Flemish officer at the asylum agencies in Brussels. Once again it is compared with interview data from the Australian study. The hearing at the heart of this second Belgian case study is the applicant’s second interview with the authorities. Belgian law requires asylum applications to be examined in either Dutch or French, Belgium’s official languages. This language is formalized as the procedural language, i.e. it is used by the asylum agencies throughout the procedure for both spoken and written communication with the applicant. Applicants who do not speak Dutch or French can be assisted by an interpreter. In this case, Dutch was formalized as the procedural language and the applicant had selected English as language of interrogation. Strictly speaking, the interaction between the 403

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs

applicant and the asylum officer requires interpretation into the procedural language, but it is common practice for asylum officers to do the interview in English if either the applicant or the interpreter speak English (Maryns, 2017). During the interview, however, it turns out that, although the applicant (referred to in the excerpts as ‘AS’) had selected English as language of interrogation, the asylum officer (‘AO’) and the applicant experience a lot of difficulty understanding each other’s Englishes. The officer therefore decides to deviate from the standard procedure according to which the interlocutors stick to the applicant’s initial language choice in subsequent hearings. What actually makes him reconsider the formalized language situation is the presence of a Krio interpreter (‘INT’), booked for one of the interviews scheduled later that day. Similar to the backstage examples discussed above, language choice –​switching from English to Krio –​is affected by structural, practical factors, viz. the immediate availability of a Krio interpreter. Probably because Krio is a West African creole language widely spoken in Sierra Leone, the asylum seeker is expected to express himself better in Krio than English. However, like in the Dari–​Farsi example above, the language repertoire of the asylum seeker is much more complex than presumed: the use of several subvarieties of Krio (Maryns, 2006), its internal variation and its social use, in combination with the interference of other languages in the speaker’s repertoire –​ such as ‘Njala’ –​ reveals socio-​linguistically a much more nuanced reality. Moreover, the interpreter decides to interpret from Krio into French, instead of English or Dutch (the procedural language). (After the interview, the interpreter told author 3 that he had wanted to practise his French.) The use of French causes the applicant to be entirely excluded from the translation process. Using English as a target not only would have involved the applicant more closely in the interaction, but also would have offered him the opportunity to exercise more control over the quality of the translation through monitoring it (as discussed in the backstage analysis above). Also, for the officer and the interpreter, the use of French renders the process unnecessarily complex because they each need to switch between an extra language. At a certain point in the interaction, it can be seen how the officer and interpreter talk to each other in English instead of French (turns 11–​13). The interpreter uses a mixture of English and Krio with the applicant (turns 39, 43) and even addresses the applicant in French instead of Krio, which only adds to the confusion (turn 33). What is particularly striking here is that while the applicant is urged to use only one language, the two other actors are free to mobilize their multilingual resources in three to four languages to express themselves. Excerpt 10 1) AO: My question was .. Njala. in what chiefdom is that … 2) AS ((Krio)): We dé we dé under Kabala … . we we dé under Kabala … . we dé under Kabala… We are we are under Kabala … we we are under Kabala … We are under Kabala 3) AO: Kabala Chiefdom … 4) AS: Ka hen… no 5) INT ((French)): C’est ça oui That’s it yes 6) AS ((Krio)): Wara Wara .. di Wara Wara … The Wara Wara ((mountains)) 7) AO: Wara Wara 8) AS ((Krio)): Di Wa di di Wara Wara ………… The Wa the the Wara Wara 9) AO: yes … 10) AS ((Krio)): xxxxx Wara is xxx … so. we de under… xxxxx Wara is xxx … so we are under… 11) AO: ((to INT)) Do you exp =​do you understand him 404

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures

12) INT: I understand him 13) AO: Yeah.. what is he saying … 14) INT ((French)): He deee this. this this uhm … place xxx où là on a des Mende là Place xxx where there they have Mende there 15) AS: uhum 16) AO ((French)): C’ est dans quel It is in what… chiefdom … so this is down Kabala. chiefdom uhum 17) INT ((French)): C’est tout les … It is all the 18) AO: Try. I’m not sure. if I understand you well … 19) AS: Mansara 20) AO: Mansara 21) AS: Hen in Mansara. 22) AO: Uhum …… 23) AS: We have Mansara we have Mara … Mansara people … 24) AO: Uhum 25) AS Mansara people … xx di Wara Wara … and then the chiefdom CHIEFdom of Wara Wara … Mansara … 26) LAWYER ((French)): Est -​ce qu’il ne sait pas expliquer ça dans la langue .. maternelle à vous. le Creole Can’t he ((does he not know how to)) explain this in the language … that is your mother tongue. creole 27) INT ((French)): C’est Creole=​It is creole 28) AO ((French)): Mais oui mais But yes but 29) INT ((French)): Il ne sait pas le Krio même He doesn’t know Krio itself/​he doesn’ even know Krio 30) AO ((French)): Il ne parle pas bien He doesn’t speak well 31) INT ((French)): Il ne parle pas bien. je ne comprends pas He doesn’t speak well. I don’t understand ((to AS in mix English/​Krio)) bekos what they aks you what they aks you .. you said you said uhm Mara uuhm because what they ask you what they ask you.. You said you said uhm Mara uuhm 32) AO: No no no no Njala 33) INT ((French)): Ah Njala c’ est dans quel chiefdom … Ah Njala in what chiefdom is it 34) AS: Njala no chiefdom 35) INT: No no xxxxx 36) AO: Yes … ok … take your time. explain me … what happened. in your country.what the problems were. thee the problems from which you left your country=​ 37) AS: =​The RUF … 38) AO: Yeah … 39) AS: RU RUF this xxxx 40) AO: I would prefer you to speak in your mother language Krio ok … 41) AS ((Krio)): We lef we lef di village … We left we left the village … 42) INT ((Krio)): Tok Krio … tok Krio to him beco xxx Speak Krio … speak Krio to him becau xxx 43) AS ((Krio -​English)): We lef we lef di village .. Kaba uhm we left to flee to Kabala We left we left the village … 44) AO: Uhum… 45) AS: Ka Kabala Kaba uhm … RUF di RUF ……… 46) INT ((Krio)): Us language you de speak Whose language do you speak? 405

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs

47) AS: I speak. Krio little. I speak … because we … we speak. uhm . a little bit little words 48) INT ((English/​Krio)): What I want to aks you.us language do you speak … us language do you speak with What I want to ask you. whose language do you speak … whose language do you speak with 49) AS: We speak the Njala language … 50) INT: xxx language 51) AS: xxx ………… 52) AO: Hold on please …… yeah y you are not really speaking Krio hen … 53) AS: Because people … 54) AO: Only a few words I heard but. otherwise you don’t speak Krio … tell me what it is NJALA language… 55) AS: Uhum. we speak the language=​ 56) AO: What is that … it’s a language 57) AS: Uhm … Njala people speak Njala … 58) AO: NJALA .. . 59) AS: In Njala people speak Njala. language 60) AO: Ok …… 61) AS: We come. but to do to do something with. uhm to do something … uhm … for people … we speak Krio … to =​to talk to people. say business .. we do Krio ………… 62) AO: Are you explaining me that Krio is the language that YOU use=​ 63) AS: We we use 64) AO: For business=​ 65) AS: We use=​ 66) AO: With other people=​ 67) AS: xx to sell we want to sell we=​ 68) AO: =​But. in reality you’re speaking Njala … Njala Language … now. who is speaking Njala language. only in Njala. or in other parts 69) AS: Some some people speak … 70) AO: Njala language……… .. but you told me … that your parents. they speak Krio … 71) AS: They speak because we speak we speak together … 72) AO: yes 73) AS: We speak together … 74) AO: Uhum 75) AS: So when when we sell market. speak … 76) AO: When we? 77) AS: When we sss sell ma 78) AO: When you SELL on the market 79) AS: Aha 80) AO: You speak … Krio 81) INT: You speak Krio xxxx … 82) AS: (to sell) …… 83) AO: But I asked you what is … the language of your father and your mother and you told me .. the language of my father and my mother 84) AS: Nono 85) AO: Is Krio 86) AS: No no we speak with people …… we=​

406

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures

87) AO: So I ‘m gonna going to ask you the question again … what is the language of your father and your mother 88) AS: We speak Njala … 89) AO: ((makes gesture that he has not understood)) 90) AS: NJALA 91) AO: Njala 92) AS: Yeah but we speak creole to people………… ((AO expresses lack of understanding but leaves it for what it is and moves on to the next question)) Excerpt 10 occurs at the point where the officer asks the applicant to situate the chiefdom he was born in. Although the interpreter has entered the conversation, the applicant directly answers the question, not waiting for the Krio translation. In fact, at no point in the interview does the interpreter actually translate what the primary participants say. Instead, his interventions are mere comments (e.g. turns 5 and 12), which raises concerns about his professional behaviour and the quality of interpreting during asylum interviews. (In 2007 a deontological code for interpreters was introduced at the CGRS and the situation has improved.) It also demonstrates a clear disadvantage for applicants not proficient in the procedural language, as discussed in section 2. The applicant refers to a place in the Wara Wara Mountains, situated northwest of the Kabala district in northern Sierra Leone. As the officer does not understand him, he constantly repeats himself (turns 2, 6, 8). The interpreter’s interventions only add to the confusion: despite the officer’s metapragmatic comment, literally asking the interpreter to translate (turns 11, 13), the interpreter still does not translate. Instead, he refers to ‘Mende’, one of Sierra Leone’s largest ethnic groups, without explaining the relevance of this self-​initiated information (turn 14). Despite the presence of an interpreter, the interlocutors get stuck in a situation where every attempted exchange of information leads to difficult meta-​linguistic negotiations. This confusion is what eventually encourages the lawyer to intervene and directly address the interpreter in French, asking if his client cannot express himself in the interpreter’s mother tongue (turn 26). The lawyer’s phrasing in French (“est-​ce qu’il ne sait pas expliquer ça”) can have different meanings here. The lawyer may want to express his concerns about the complexity (and even messiness) of the linguistic situation where four different languages are being used (the procedural language, Dutch, not even included). His question could then be interpreted as a request to “keep it to Krio”, suggesting that it should be made clear to his client that he can make use of the interpreter and thus feel free to express himself in Krio (“does he not know that he is allowed to speak Krio?”). Alternatively, the lawyer’s question could also refer to his client’s capability of speaking the interpreter’s creole variety (“is he not capable of speaking Krio?”). It is not entirely clear which of the two meanings the lawyer is using here, it could just as well be both. (The use of ‘savoir’ (know) in the broad sense of ‘pouvoir’ (can) is common in the Belgian variety of French.) The fact that the encounter proceeds from here with the officer and the interpreter prompting the applicant to continue in Krio (turns 40 and 42), suggests that they interpret this interjection as the first meaning. The lawyer’s interjection also elicits a professionally unwarranted value judgment on the part of the interpreter (turn 29 and 31), which suggests a proficiency problem (“he doesn’t speak well”). In any case, the lawyer’s interjection prompts an explicit meta-​linguistic discussion about language choice and language proficiency, which clearly reflects a preference for using one language, rather than mixing and changing between languages. This also resonates with the way the immigration lawyers in the backstage lawyer–​client encounters advise their clients to carefully select one language for the upcoming asylum interview, and generally favour the use of an interpreter in the client’s ‘first’ or maternal language –​ a code which they consider to be a prerequisite for 407

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs

enabling communication, thereby affirming institutional language ideologies. However, although the applicant and the interpreter do not seem to speak the same creole variety, the officer resumes the interview and explicitly asks the applicant to explain in Krio why he left his home country. What is evident both here, and in the Australian data is that lawyers can play a key role in monitoring the communication, alerting participants to any communication-​related issues, and encouraging them to change their approach. Communication challenges may relate to code choice or interpreter conduct, as in the Belgian case study, or to the decisionmaker’s lexical choice, as in many examples given by the Australian research participants where officers inappropriately use technical legal terminology. Or they may relate to some other aspect of the officer’s linguistic profile, as exemplified in Excerpt 11. Excerpt 11 1) P02: I have seen some clients really struggle um, if, especially if one, one member has a REALLY thick European accent and even I was struggling and the speed at which he was talking yeah it made it really difficult 2) L: yeah, so-​so you don’t really feel like you can interject unless there’s . . something you consider . . really . . 3) P02: yeah well you can say, look I think you should repeat the question, um, is there another way that you can explain that or can I interrupt and explain it to the client in a different way, and normally that’s fine, uhm but . . yeah I just think of all the clients that wouldn’t have interpreters I mean or lawyers there to DO that and suddenly that puts a huge amount of stress on them. In both the Belgian case study above, and throughout the Australian data, professional assistance mitigates communication issues as lawyers can interject and prompt a change in language practice or raise such issues in later appeals. The discussions between the officer and interpreter in Excerpt 10, which are held on behalf of and even beyond the control of the applicant, demonstrate a rather static conception of language that ignores some fundamental sociolinguistic realities (i.e. the conceptualization of languages as dynamic constructs that display regionally, socially and situationally defined variation and the idea that multilingual users draw on functionally organized repertoires of speech). Questions can be raised about the way in which the intrinsic heterogeneity of world Englishes (Bhatt, 2002), which obviously applies to the use of West African and Flemish varieties of English, is addressed in this interview. The officer identifies the asylum seeker’s use of English as a problem. Therefore, while the officer continues in English, the applicant is encouraged to switch to Krio. It thus seems to be taken for granted that somebody who claims to come from Sierra Leone should be proficient enough in Krio to do an asylum interview in this language. Moreover, by initiating this switch from English to Krio, the officer seems to presuppose a native monolingualism on the part of the asylum seeker, that is, full proficiency in at least one of the languages spoken in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone’s sociolinguistic situation, however, is much more complex than presumed and although Krio has come to gain unofficial recognition as a national language, it does not occupy an equally important place in the linguistic repertoire of every Sierra Leonean citizen (Maryns, 2000, Eades & Arends, 2004). Factors such as interference from the applicant’s repertoire of codes other than Krio or the applicant’s limited exposure to Krio –​ which may be confined to a particular domain such as selling on the market –​ cannot be ignored. This could possibly explain why, despite insistent urges to speak Krio (the officer in

408

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures

turn 40 and the interpreter in turn 42), the applicant keeps on using English. This is what eventually prompts the officer to start an inquiry into the ‘true’ native language of the applicant. In fact, what the officer expects is a plain answer to the apparently simple question: “What is your native language?” The subsequent negotiation, clearly reminiscent of the interaction between the confidant and client in the backstage case study, reveals a more sophisticated picture of the applicant’s multilingualism which is functionally and contextually organized. What is clearly different from the backstage interaction, however, is that the asylum officer does not accept the applicant’s multilingual functioning. The reported and/​and situation (turns 90–​94: “we speak Njala … but we speak creole to people”), no matter how natural for the asylum seeker, is considered unnatural and contradictory by the officer. At stake here is the relevance of the term ‘native language’ to the applicant’s multilingual repertoire: the officer expects the asylum seeker to speak either Njala or Krio to address his parents, and for his parents to have one main language (turn 84), but this requirement clashes with the asylum seeker’s flexible –​ topically and situationally organized –​ multilingualism. No matter how hard the asylum seeker tries to explain the functional segmentation of his linguistic repertoire (turns 62, 68), he is eventually forced to isolate one language variety from his total range of resources. However, as was the case in the lawyer–​client interactions, language choice is not merely about the functional purpose of achieving mutual understanding. In this asylum interview, it is also influenced by practical considerations –​ such as the presence of a Krio interpreter. Even more importantly, language choice and proficiency are associated with origin claims, and therefore credibility. In turn 53, a turning point in the officer’s understanding of the asylum seekers’ language situation, it could be seen how the officer developed his own sociolinguistic inquiry from a question suggesting insincerity on the part of the asylum seeker (turn 53: “you are not really speaking Krio then?”). The underlying idea –​which is made plain by the interpreter –​is that not being fluent in Krio may cast doubts on a person’s true Sierra Leonean identity. The question is whether this instance of meta-​linguistic examination provides adequate evidence to make such a claim. Moreover, it is obvious that according to his professional code of conduct, the interpreter is not entitled to make claims about origin based on language. Although ‘Njala’ is not listed as one of the official languages of Sierra Leone, it is the name of a town in Moyamba District in southern Sierra Leone and is home to Njala University, the second largest university in Sierra Leone (https://​njala.edu.sl/​). Understanding the connection between the language and the region in the light of claims about origin and citizenship would require thorough investigation. What this negotiation of language choice brings to the fore is that the power to evaluate language use and to choose the language of the encounter is ultimately in the hands of the officer. It reveals a strong imbalance between on the one hand, the applicant’s limited ability to draw on multilingual resources, and to be judged on their (restricted) use of these, and on the other hand, the other participants’ use of multilingual resources, their ability and freedom to do so and the fact that this is not judged in the same way. The variation between the different Englishes in the interactional encounter led the officer away from allowing the applicant to use English in the first place. This failure to find common ground was implicitly attributed to the applicant, whose English was not considered ‘good enough’ to continue and who therefore had to switch to another language, Krio. In contrast, the officer uses non-​standard English (e.g. turn 36), but at no time was his English proficiency or ability to use English in an intercultural communication setting examined (for a more elaborate discussion of the unequal treatment of ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’ Englishes see Maryns, 2017). Of course, this goes back to the idea of monolingual, standard languages, but it

409

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs

also highlights the linguistic and socio-​legal vulnerability of asylum seekers who are being judged and constantly must prove themselves, from a position of being suspected.

Discussion Multilingualism is prevalent in the observed Belgian and Australian contexts of asylum interaction, both on the backstage counselling and the frontstage adjudication side of the procedure. There is, however, no consistency in what this multilingualism means to the different participants involved in the interaction. For the linguistic minority participants, this multilingualism takes the shape of a fused repertoire of socially, regionally and situationally defined varieties and it is precisely the interplay between these varieties that causes each variety to be conditioned by the entire repertoire it belongs to (Maryns, 2005; Blommaert, Van der Aa & Spotti, 2016). The multilingual performance of applicants is essential to their polycentric identity and functions as the most natural and necessary resource for them to manage the complex translocal situation they must operate in. This flexible multilingualism, as a set of complementary partial competences, runs up against a conception of multilingualism that assumes full proficiency in at least one of the languages of the multilingual repertoire. The underlying idea here seems to be that by nature all language users have a native monolingual language –​preferably a national standard language –​ that covers their whole range of resources needed to express themselves to the best of their ability. This ideological assumption is manifestly articulated in the statutorily based imposition of monolingual standard usage for procedural interaction. The effects of this ‘common sense’ ideology are particularly pertinent to the use of interpreters in these encounters: the conceptualization of multilingualism as the coexistence of neatly separated monolingual standard codes underlies the generally held belief among institutional representatives and, often, lawyers too, that the interests of linguistic minority speakers are best served if they express themselves in their ‘native’ language (and their ‘native language’ only) through an interpreter. The observed tensions between flexible and delineated forms of multilingualism create linguistic inequalities within the asylum procedure, as it disadvantages applicants with ‘less straightforward’ language repertoires, including speakers of dialects or minority languages or people whose repertoires are made up of partial competences in multiple ‘languages’ (such as the applicants in our data excerpts). Put into practice, multilingual asylum seekers are compelled to distil one single variety from their total set of linguistic resources. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this seriously diminishes their chances to express themselves and motivate their claim. Further, this divergence between actual and expected competences comes to be made indexical of speaker identity, the inference being that certain forms of language variation raise conjectures about the true (linguistic) identity of the asylum seeker. The question is to what extent this perceived indexicality between language and identity is sociolinguistically justified. Communicative behaviour reflects speaker identity indeed: the asylum seekers’ segmented repertoires index their language socialization in communities where linguistic multiplicity is the norm rather than the exception. However, rather than an indicator of fragmentation and unreliability, the applicants struggle to make the most ‘convenient’ language choice –​a choice that has functional, structural-​logistic and indexical dimensions to it –​and perform ‘adequately’ in the locally defined regimes of language, could just as well reflect the specific conditions of displacement in time and space (Maryns & Blommaert, 2001). The communicative repertoire of people on the move undergoes a reallocation of its functional potential and in this way, no matter how valuable elsewhere, loses a great deal of its functionality in the legal-​bureaucratic environment it must operate in (Blommaert, 2003; Blommaert et al., 2005). The bottom line: in bureaucratic settings such as asylum encounters, in which individuals of 410

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures

different social, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds have nothing but their ‘voice’ to motivate their claim, sticking to a one-​sided assessment of this indexicality between language and identity may lead to dangerous conclusions with far-​reaching consequences for the applicants. The analysis has also highlighted the influential role that immigration lawyers play ‘backstage’ in decision-​making processes about which language and which form of language assistance work best in the given situation. In giving advice and managing the linguistic resources of their clients, lawyers can be seen to indirectly perpetuate institutional ideologies. Although there is room for linguistic flexibility and inclusion of all kinds of discursive resources on the counselling side of the procedure (i.e. during lawyer–​client communication), lawyers anticipate the fact that applicants must adhere to the ‘one language’ requirement during the asylum interview with the authorities. This requirement indeed becomes more imperative in the frontstage interaction, as was demonstrated in the second Belgian case study, where the lawyer intervened to encourage more ‘neatly organized’ multilingual practice, by which his client and the interpreter speak the same creole language. The lawyers display awareness about the indexical function of language as well as the more logistic, practical implications of certain linguistic choices. For example, the fact that in the first case study, the lawyer, confidant and client enter into an elaborate and complex discussion about how Afghans who live in Iran are often proficient in both Dari and Farsi, demonstrates how all participants appreciate the significance of language choice as an index of identity, or even as proof of lived experiences in a certain environment. Still, the lawyers we observed and/​or interviewed in our studies, could be seen to prioritize functional motivations when deciding on a single language. This may be understood as a difficult balancing act for lawyers: they do their best to advocate for their clients’ needs and push for institutional change, but also must pragmatically advise them to successfully navigate within the system such as it is, and thus act as quasi-​institutional gatekeepers (see also Smith-​Khan, 2021). The constraints imposed by the current institutional context in both Australian and Belgian asylum systems thus compels lawyers to advise their clients to select one language from their repertoire, even when they appreciate the complex facets of language choice and use. The functional value of language, i.e. the degree to which applicants can comprehend and express themselves, is prioritized over identity indexicalities and other considerations, simply because a choice must be made.

Concluding remarks and further research directions This chapter has examined the institutional management of linguistic diversity and multilingualism in asylum encounters. Drawing on ethnographic data from Belgian and Australian contexts, collected both from the backstage counselling and the frontstage adjudication side of the asylum procedure, we have argued that the management of multilingualism in asylum settings is bound up in relations of authority and power. It is by now generally accepted that in our ever more global society, the multilingual institutional space is increasingly the norm. Still, no matter how valuable for speakers to constitute their identity, their multilingual repertoires remain to be underrated as meaningful functional resources in legal-​bureaucratic encounters. Procedural language regulations, notwithstanding the fact that they apply to migrants and refugees with increasingly multi-​ethnic and multilingual contexts, entail deeply ideologized interpretations of the relationship between language and identity. This chapter has shown that the opportunity for asylum applicants to express themselves is thwarted by a curtailing ideology of language that assumes choice where linguistic minority participants face constraints. On the adjudication side of the procedure, language choice is institutionally formalized, which means that applicants, by law, must 411

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs

select a language for communication with the asylum authorities, if needed, with the assistance of an interpreter. However, what generally passes as the multilingual space par excellence, a legal-​ administrative space where the right to an interpreter is foundational, structurally disadvantages linguistic minority participants, for this ultimate orientation towards the institutionalized standard forces them to make choices that, in any case, keep them from using the full range of their semiotic potential. Immigration lawyers on the counselling side of the procedure, on the other hand, are less bound by language regulations in their everyday practice. Still, as their counselling takes the form of helping their clients to comply with institutional standards, they implicitly perpetuate monologizing ideologies. Raising awareness among practitioners on both the counselling and the adjudication side of the procedure about how language choice affects institutional processes will continue to be one of the greatest challenges for linguists today. A more refined understanding of the dynamics of linguistic diversity and multilingualism is crucial here, for as long as imposed homogeneity is considered an inevitable prerequisite for the production of bureaucratically manageable accounts, linguistic minority speakers will remain persistently disadvantaged.

Related topics Chapter 20 Sociolinguistics and (in)securitization as another mode of governance; Chapter 24 Multilingualism in the workplace: issues of space and social order; Chapter 27 Multilingualism and translation,

Further reading Inghilleri, M. 2017. Translation and Migration. London & New York: Routledge. (Examination of the impact of translation in situations of migratory movement.) Jacobs, M. & Maryns, K. 2021. Managing narratives, managing identities: language and credibility in legal consultations with asylum seekers. Language in Society. 51(3): 1–​28. (A linguistic ethnographic analysis of the counselling interactions between lawyers and asylum seekers.) Smith-​Khan, L. 2020. Migration practitioners’ roles in communicating credible refugee claims. Alternative Law Journal. 45(2): 119–​124. (Inquiry into the communicative roles of migration lawyers, with a focus on how they contribute to the construction of applicant credibility.)

References Alosh, M. 2005. Using Arabic: A Guide to Contemporary Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhatt, R.M. 2002. Experts, dialects, and discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 12(1): 74–​109. Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. 2008. Contesting ‘language’ as ‘heritage’: negotiation of identities in late modernity. Applied Linguistics. 29(4): 533–​554. Blommaert, J. 2003. Commentary: a sociolinguistics of globalization. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 7: 607–​623. Blommaert, J. & Backus, A. 2011. Repertoires revisited: ‘knowing language’ in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies. 67. www.kcl.ac.uk/​ldc. Blommaert, J., Collins, J. & Slembrouck, S. 2005. Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication. 25: 197–​216. Blommaert, J. & Rampton, B. 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities. 13(2): 1–​21. Blommaert, J., Spotti, M. & Van der Aa, J. 2016. Complexity, mobility and migration. In S. Canagarajah, Ed. The Routledge Handbook of Migration and Language. London & New York: Routledge. Copland, F. & Creese, A. 2015. Linguistic Ethnography: Collecting, Analysing and Presenting Data. London: SAGE. Crock, M., Smith-​ Khan, L., McCallum, R. & Saul, B. 2017. The Legal Protection of Refugees with Disabilities: Forgotten and Invisible? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

412

Multilingualism in Asylum and Migration Procedures Eades, D. & Arends, J. 2004. Using language analysis in the determination of national origin of asylum seekers: an introduction. Journal of Speech, Language and the Law. 11(2): 179–​199. García, O. & Lin, A.M. 2017. Translanguaging in bilingual education. Bilingual and Multilingual Education. 117–​130. Gill, N. & Good, A. 2019. Asylum Determination in Europe: Ethnographic Perspectives. London: Springer Nature. Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor. Inghilleri, M. 2003. Habitus, field and discourse: interpreting as a socially situated activity. Target. 15(2): 243–​268. Inghilleri, M. 2017. Translation and Migration. London & New York: Routledge. Jacobs, M. 2022. The metapragmatics of legal advice communication in the field of immigration law. Journal of Pragmatics. 32(4): 537–​561. Jacobs, M. & Maryns, K. 2021. Managing narratives, managing identities: language and credibility in legal consultations with asylum seekers. Language in Society. 1–​28. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S00474​0452​ 1000​117 Jacobs, M. & Maryns, K. 2022a. Mediated disclosure in asylum encounters. Multilingua. 1–​21. Jacobs, M. & Maryns, K. 2022b. Agency and vulnerability in the field of immigration law: a linguistic-​ ethnographic perspective on lawyer-​client interaction. Journal of Law and Society. 49(3): 542–​566. Laban, C.J., Gernaat, H.B., Komproe, I.H. & De Jong, J.T. 2007. Prevalence and predictors of health service use among Iraqi asylum seekers in The Netherlands. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemioly. 42(10): 837–​844. Maryns, K. 2000. English in Sierra Leone: A Sociolinguistic Investigation. Studia Germanica Gandensia. Ghent: Ghent University. 52. Maryns, K. 2002. Pretextuality and pretextual gaps: on de/​refining linguistic inequality. Journal of Pragmatics. 12(1): 11–​30. Maryns, K. 2005. Monolingual language ideologies and code choice in the Belgian asylum procedure. Language & Communication. 25: 299–​314. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lang​com.2005.03.009. Maryns, K. 2006. The Asylum Speaker: Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure. London & New York: Routledge. Maryns, K. 2013. Theatricks in the courtroom: the intertextual construction of legal cases. In C. Heffer, F. Rock & J. Conley, Eds. Legal-​lay Communication: Textual Travel in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 107–​26. Maryns, K. 2017. The use of English as ad hoc institutional standard in the Belgian asylum interview. Applied Linguistics. 38(5): 737–​758. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​lin/​amv​061. Maryns, K. & Blommaert, J. 2001. Stylistic and thematic shifting as a narrative resource: assessing asylum seekers’ repertoires. Multilingua. 20(1): 61–​84. Maryns, K. & Jacobs, M. 2021. Data constitution and engagement with the field of asylum and migration. Journal of Pragmatics. 178: 146–​158. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2021.03.008. Murray, D.A. 2018. Learning to be LGBT: sexual orientation refugees and linguistic inequality. Critical Multilingualism Studies. 6(1): 56–​73. Pöllabauer, S. 2004. Interpreting in asylum hearings: issues of role, responsibility and power. Interpreting. 6(2): 143–​180. Reynolds, J. 2020. Investigating the language-​culture nexus in refugee legal advice meetings. Multilingua. 39(4): 395–​429. Smith-​Khan, L. 2017a. Different in the same way?: language, diversity and refugee credibility. International Journal of Refugee Law. 29(3): 389–​416. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​ijrl/​eex​038. Smith-​Khan, L. 2017b. Negotiating narratives, accessing asylum: evaluating language policy as multi-​level practice, beliefs and management. Multilingua. 36(1): 31–​57. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​multi-​2015-​0072. Smith-​Khan, L. 2017c. Telling stories: credibility and the representation of social actors in Australia asylum appeals. Discourse & Society. 28(5): 512–​534. https://​doi.org/​10.1177%2F0​9579​2651​7710​989. Smith-​Khan, L. 2019. Why refugee visa credibility assessments lack credibility: a critical discourse analysis. Griffith Law Review. 28(4): 406–​430. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​10383​441.2019.1748​804. Smith-​Khan, L. 2020. Migration practitioners’ roles in communicating credible refugee claims. Alternative Law Journal. 45(2): 119–​124. https://​doi.org/​10.1177%2F1​0379​69X1​9884​205. Smith-​Khan, L. 2021. ‘I try not to be dominant, but I’m a lawyer!’: advisor resources, context, and refugee credibility. Journal of Refugee Studies (online). https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​jrs/​feaa​102.

413

Katrijn Maryns, Laura Smith-Khan and Marie Jacobs Smith-​ Khan, L. 2022. Incorporating sociolinguistic perspectives in Australian refugee credibility assessments: the case of CRL18. Journal of International Migration and Integration (online). https://​doi. org/​10.1007/​s12​134-​022-​00937-​2. Translators without Borders. 2017. Language factsheet. Online: https://transl​ator​swit​hout​bord​ers.org=​wp-​ cont​ent=​uplo​ads=​2017=​07=​Farsi-​and-​Dari-​Factsh​eet-​Engl​ish.pdf. Wadensjö, C. 2004. Dialogue interpreting: a monologising practice in a dialogically organised world. Target. 16: 105–​123.

414

27 MULTILINGUALISM AND TRANSLATION Philipp Angermeyer

Introduction Multilinguals everywhere engage in practices of translation and interpreting, yet these are only rarely explored systematically in research on multilingualism. Handbooks or other introductory volumes on topics such as bilingualism, multilingualism, language contact, or sociolinguistics typically do not include chapters on translation or interpreting, and some do not even include these terms in their index. In turn, the discipline of translation studies has until recently had only limited ties to linguistics and sociolinguistics, as scholars have tended to focus on literary translation, or on the training and working conditions of professional interpreters. Yet, translation plays an important role in the social life of individuals in multilingual societies, as well as in processes of language contact and language change. Moreover, translation is shaped by the specific sociolinguistic conditions of contact and provides evidence of linguistic inequalities and their underlying language ideologies. This chapter aims to illustrate these points by discussing research that has shown the relevance of translation for sociolinguistic studies of multilingualism, and the benefit of examining what is or is not translated, by whom, how, and to what end. Research on bilingualism and multilingualism does frequently mention translation phenomena, though often in indirect ways. For example, translation tasks are a common experimental method of psycholinguistic studies of bilingual cognition, and bilinguals have been shown to exhibit priming effects from lexical items that are deemed translation equivalents. Similarly, in language acquisition, the existence of lexical pairs of translation equivalents provides evidence of early language differentiation by bilingual children, as does their ability to translate for interlocutors with distinct language preferences (Köppe & Meisel, 1995). Furthermore, studies of code-​switching in conversation often include examples of quasi-​translation. For example, Auer (1998: 4–​5) describes a type of code-​switching he calls “non-​first firsts”, where a speaker repeats the first part of an adjacency pair (e.g. a question) in a new language, after the first utterance was not met with a response. He notes that this pattern “is frequent and has been reported in many bilingual communities all over the world”. Bilingual children in contexts of migration have also been observed to engage in language brokering, that is, facilitating understanding across linguistic and cultural difference, whether between members of different generations within their families or between family members and outsiders, such as teachers or doctors (Reynolds & Faulstich Orellana, 2009; Bolden, 2012).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-32

415

Philipp Angermeyer

Such observations of ‘natural’ translation events point towards an inherent metalinguistic function of translation, as a practice that creates and sustains language boundaries, explicitly differentiating and juxtaposing languages as distinct codes that are potentially interchangeable, yet clearly distinct in how they can be used and with whom (see Blommaert, 2006). This juxtaposition is often strongly asymmetrical, as a result of the different affordances of the respective named languages and of individuals’ differences in the need and desire to understand speakers of another language, or to be understood by them. As a consequence, translation may be predominantly unidirectional, for example from an official state language into a minority language. Even when translation is bidirectional, as in community interpreting, there are often still asymmetries in how it is done (e.g. which interpreting mode is used) and how participants are able to interact with the interpreter. Where translation occurs in institutional contexts, such as in interactions in the judicial process or in health care, these asymmetries relate not only to the status of the languages, but also to the relative power of the individual participants, with institutional agents speaking a state-​sanctioned language and lay participants speaking a minoritized language. In such situations, the social role and identity of interpreters and translators may be of particular interest to scholars of multilingualism, as they can be understood as exemplifying the competing allegiances of bilinguals who may be members of a minoritized community while being employed by an institution that functions in the dominant language. In view of such considerations, this chapter provides a survey of studies in applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology that do engage with translation in spoken and written contexts, ranging from studies of interpreter-​mediated interaction to sociolinguistic approaches to translation in film and literary works, to studies of linguistic landscape or language change. These show that translation and interpreting can be seen as falling firmly within the scope of research in bilingualism and multilingualism (Angermeyer, 2010), as they can be studied in a wider context and in relation to phenomena such as code-​switching, translanguaging, second language acquisition, mock languages and language shift. This includes exploring the role of interpreters as mediators, advocates or institutional gatekeepers (Valdés & Angelelli, 2003), but also the use of machine translation that is becoming more and more ubiquitous in this age of globalization. And while translation may be invoked as a remedy to linguistic inequality, it is typically deeply embedded in power asymmetries between languages and their speakers, especially in institutional contexts, such as the judicial system, or medical or educational settings. This chapter will begin with an overview of theoretical approaches to translation in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, drawing particular attention to the translation of social meaning. I will then turn to the discussion of interpreter-​mediated interaction in institutional contexts, focusing especially on the judicial process. This is followed by a section on the relevance of the social identity of the translator or interpreter, before finally turning to a discussion of the role of translation in the field of linguistic landscape studies. The chapter concludes with an outlook on future directions.

Translation, indexicality and social meaning As noted above, translation and interpreting have often been absent from theoretical debates in studies of multilingualism and language contact, as well as sociolinguistics and linguistics more generally. By contrast, translation has received considerable attention from linguistic anthropologists, perhaps because it is a common method in anthropological fieldwork and is also sometimes taken as a metaphor for the ethnographic research process as whole (see e.g. Silverstein, 2003; Gal, 2015; Severi & Hanks, 2015). Observing translation in situations of contact 416

Multilingualism and Translation

between highly distinct cultures, often in the context of European colonialism in the Global South, linguistic anthropologists have consistently questioned assumptions about the translatability of referential content and have examined the role of translation in cultural and linguistic change. For example, analyzing archival records of early Christian missionaries in Central America, including dictionaries and grammars of Mayan languages, Hanks (2010, 2015) describes a process of commensuration in which a “neologized” form of Mayan was developed that minimized ontological differences to Spanish and thereby made translation from Spanish easier to achieve. Similarly, Mannheim (2015: 206) notes how the translation practices of Spanish missionaries in colonial Peru that were aligned to Spanish semantics and contexts of use, gave rise to a new register of “Spanish-​inflected Quechua”. As Hanks (2015: 38) notes, “in cases of commensuration … it is the subordinate language that is altered.” While such phenomena develop gradually over time, they have been examined not only through archival research, but also through analyses of spoken language use. Drawing on four decades of ethnographic fieldwork in Bosavi, Papua New Guinea, Schieffelin (2007) examines the role of translation in the process of Christianization and the resulting linguistic and cultural transformation. Noting that evidential marking is obligatory in the local Kaluli language, Schieffelin describes how a cultural taboo against reporting others’ thoughts represented a challenge for pastors in early church services recorded in 1975, as they were sight translating the bible from Tok Pisin into Kaluli. Comparing translations of the same bible passages over the course of two decades, Schieffelin shows that pastors developed calques from Tok Pisin that enabled the expression of reported thought by locating it in the person’s heart or belly, so that “what others were thinking became an explicitly interior act that could be reported” (p. 152).1 Such observations about incommensurability led Michael Silverstein (2003) to theorize cross-​ cultural translation within the wider context of his approach to semiotics, distinguishing between three different ways of producing “interlingual glosses”. Emphasizing the distinction between denotational and indexical meaning, Silverstein proposed to reserve the term translation for the glossing of denotational meaning of the source text, but to speak of transduction when indexical meaning is reproduced. In transduction, “source-​text indexical values have to be reconstructed in indexical systems of another culture as these can be made relevant to shaping the target text to be doing effectively equivalent ‘functional’ work” (p. 87). Finally, in a third strategy, which he calls transformation, material from the source language is recontextualized for the target audience, such as when anthropologists use untranslated source-​language terms in their ethnographic analyses. From the perspective of multilingualism studies, Silverstein’s transformation can be seen as akin to translanguaging in how it challenges language boundaries and draws on a multilingual repertoire, and the relationship between translanguaging and translation is increasingly being investigated, particularly where translation occurs in multilingual contexts (Baynham & Lee, 2019; Sato, 2022). Silverstein describes translation, transduction and transformation as alternative processes, but given the language ideology of referentialism that is prevalent in Europe and North America, translation is often prioritized over the other two. For example, Haviland (2003) identifies what he calls an ideology of referential transparency in his examination of language ideologies around multilingualism and translation in the American justice system. Examining comments on translation and bilingualism by American judges, for example in the murder trial of a Mixtec-​speaking suspect, Haviland finds that court interpreting is viewed purely as a word-​matching exercise, “substituting one language’s word for another’s, as though the word, or code, is merely an exotic costume for a shared meaning” (p. 772). Pritzker (2012) finds a similar ideology among American students of traditional Chinese medicine, who expect Chinese medical terms to be straightforwardly and consistently matched to corresponding English terms. 417

Philipp Angermeyer

The challenges around the translation (or transduction) of indexical meaning have also been addressed in sociolinguistic studies of translation, notably by Blommaert (2006: 173). Moreover, where translators perceive indexical parallels between source and target culture phenomena, this often provides rich data for the examination of language ideologies. For example, several scholars have examined the translation of African American Vernacular English into other languages when it appears alongside other varieties of English in American film or literature, and they have linked the translational choices to language ideologies about race, gender, politeness and non-​standard language use more generally (Berthele, 2000; Inoue, 2003; Queen, 2004; Hiramoto, 2009). Inoue (2003) shows how in the Japanese translation of the novel Gone with the Wind, stylistic features of so-​called “women’s language” index race along with gender as they are limited to white women, whereas African American characters are not represented as speaking in a gendered style. Inoue notes that “[w]‌hiteness is translated into ‘Japanese womanness’ by assigning women’s language exclusively to white women, while blackness, whiteness’ diametric other, is represented in Japanese not only by non-​standard variations, but, more critically, by cancelling gender marking” (2003: 327). Similarly, Queen (2004), analyzing German-​language versions of American movies (including work by the African American director Spike Lee), finds a gendered pattern of stylistic representation as well. While differences between African American English and other varieties of English are often erased in German translation, this is not the case for young male African American characters with ties to urban street culture of drugs and crime. Such characters are represented in German as using features of a colloquial urban speech style that is associated with working-​class youths, yet the same features are also found in the dubbing of white characters with similar street affiliations. These studies show that such choices of indexical transduction are rooted in stereotypes about language varieties and their speakers, in both the source and target language. In both cases, African American English is not translated as such, but rather for its higher order indexical values that relate to gender, politeness and social class.

Translation and interpreting in institutional contexts The study of interpreter-​mediated interaction in institutional contexts is arguably the area of research where exchanges between translation studies and sociolinguistics/​multilingualism studies has been the most widespread and fruitful. This applies in particular to examinations of language use in judicial contexts, such as police interviews (see e.g. Berk-​Seligson, 2009; Nakane, 2014), court proceedings (see e.g. Berk-​Seligson, 1990; Hale, 2004; Angermeyer, 2009; Ng, 2009, 2018), or asylum hearings (e.g. Blommaert, 2009; Jacquemet, 2009; Maryns, 2013; Haviland, 2019), but also in medical (Bolden, 2000; Davidson, 2000; Pasquandrea, 2011), educational (Valdés, Chávez & Angelelli, 2003; Reynolds, Orellana & García-​Sánchez, 2015) or a range of other institutional contexts (Wadensjö, 1998; Baraldi & Gavioli, 2012). All these have in common that the hierarchical relationship between languages within the institution and the society at large is mirrored by power asymmetries between participants, with institutional representatives such as police officers, judges or doctors speaking the dominant language and lay participants speaking a minoritized language. As a consequence, the provision of interpreting and translation for individuals with limited or no proficiency in the institutional language becomes a human rights issue. Without it, there is no due process in the legal system, nor equitable access to medical care or to educational or governmental resources. In the legal sphere, uses of translation and interpreting are also found in jurisdictions with official bi-​or multilingualism, such as Canada, Hong Kong, South Africa or Wales, where interpreting 418

Multilingualism and Translation

may occur between co-​official languages and may be done for the benefit of monolingual judges rather than defendants or witnesses. Interpreting may also occur in contexts where all participants could speak in a shared common language, but a different language is required for the legal record. This is particularly common in post-​colonial societies where a former colonial language continues to have a dominant status in the legal system, such as for example in Malaysia (Powell & Hashim, 2011), or South Africa (Moeketsi, 1999). Moreover, when institutional representatives in such contexts understand the vernacular, they may not see a need for interpreting, even if lay participants have limited proficiency in the administrative language (see for example Brown-​Blake, 2008 on language choice in Jamaican courts). At the same time, such multilingual and cross-​cultural interactions in court are impacted not only by lexico-​grammatical differences between language varieties, but also by cultural differences between ways of speaking (Richland, 2008; Ng, 2009). In particular, the specific jurisdictional conventions of courtroom talk often make it difficult for outsiders to speak in ways that conform to the expectations of legal decision makers, as shown for example by García (2019) in her analysis of the testimony by Ixil Maya witnesses in the 2013 trial of the former Guatemalan leader Ríos Montt for genocide. Studies of interpreting in institutional contexts have often examined how the interpreters’ performance changes the interaction and potentially interferes with the goal of equitable access, both by comparing the interpreter’s renditions to their corresponding source utterances, but also by drawing on findings from research on unilingual institutional talk, particularly in the area of language and law. For example, in her influential early study of court interpreting, Berk-​Seligson (1990) found that stylistic features such as hedging or other hesitation markers in the speech of interpreters could have a negative impact on the perception of a witness’s credibility by jurors. Interpreters have also been found to produce grammatical features that alter the pragmatic force of their utterances compared to the source utterance. For example, the attribution of blame might be mitigated when interpreters choose constructions that downplay agency, such as passives or datives of interest in Spanish (Berk-​Seligson, 1990) or subject ellipsis in Korean (Lee, 2009). In another influential study that examined the ways in which the form of a question constrains the range of possible answers, Hale (2004) found that interpreters in her study had a tendency to use less constraining question forms than those intended by questioning attorneys. Hale also found that interpreters tended to omit discourse markers, a finding also made by Leung and Gibbons (2009) regarding Cantonese utterance particles. In both cases, such omissions do not alter the referential content, but do affect discourse coherence and speakers’ ability to express affective stances. More generally, coherence is also adversely affected by consecutive interpreting mode, when speakers are required to subdivide extended turns into multiple short segments in order to pause for the interpreter. This makes it particularly difficult to narrate, also because the resulting pauses may invite interruptions by other participants (D’hondt, 2004; Angermeyer, 2015; Nakane, 2020). The adverse effect of short consecutive interpreting mode on discourse coherence shows that poor outcomes in interpreting cannot be understood as resulting purely from the performance of individual interpreters but must also be seen as conditioned by other participants and by institutional practices of translation and interpreting. For example, court interpreting in many jurisdictions is characterized by an asymmetrical distribution of interpreting modes, where testimony in minoritized languages is interpreted consecutively, but speakers of the institutional language are often interpreted simultaneously. In Angermeyer (2015), I argue that this distribution systematically disadvantages speakers of minoritized languages because they are the only speakers required to pause, while as listeners, they suffer from the disadvantages of simultaneous interpreting that frequently cause interpreters to omit or abbreviate information. Another common institutional practice that affects the ways in which speakers of minoritized languages 419

Philipp Angermeyer

can participate in interaction is the use of remote interpreting via video teleconferencing technology. This may occur when interpreters are not locally present, or when an accused is kept in prison rather than being present in court. As shown by Licoppe and associates in a series of publications, this has profound implications for the organization of turn-​taking and participants’ ability to provide and interpret contextualization cues, while the physical separation of interpreter and defendant makes simultaneous chuchotage interpreting largely unsustainable (Licoppe & Verdier, 2013; Licoppe, 2021).

Translation and social identity Related to investigations of how translators or interpreters affect communication is the question of their social identity in relation to the communities in contact and to the institutions within which they work. As noted by Valdés and Angelelli (2003: 62), “interpreters are individuals who, as the locus of language contact, have much to teach us about the nature of this contact and about the characteristics of bilingual individuals who broker interactions between monolingual members of groups in contact.” Reflecting the power asymmetries of many language contact situations, public service interpreters are often bilinguals for whom the minoritized language is an L1, and who have academic proficiency in the institutional language yet may be perceived as speaking it ‘with an accent’. By contrast, institutions like the European Union that engage conference-​style simultaneous interpreters typically prefer them to translate only into their L1. Such differences can be related to language ideologies about accented speech and about the ‘visibility’ of the interpreter, and they also correspond to different degrees of professionalization, training, certification and remuneration. While conference-​style simultaneous interpreting is highly professionalized, this is often not true in face-​to-​face public service interpreting. Depending on the language pair and the institutional context, interpreting may be conducted by trained specialists or by part-​time, ad-​hoc interpreters with little or no training. In medical contexts, interpreting may be done by full-​ time interpreters, including interpreters working remotely, but it is also often conducted by bilingual staff or by patients’ family members or companions (Angelelli, 2004; Meyer, 2004; Briggs, 2017; Cox & Maryns, 2021). In the judicial context, interpreting has been professionalized in many jurisdictions, though not always equally at all stages of the judicial process (Morris, 2008; Marszalenko, 2014). While courts may employ full-​time, professionally trained and licensed interpreters for frequently requested languages to work in trials, such standards may not be upheld in other contexts. Examining police interrogations of Spanish-​speaking suspects in the US, Berk-​ Seligson (2009) discusses several cases in which police officers with varying degrees of bilingual proficiency acted partially as interpreters. In a detailed analysis of several recorded police interrogations, she argues that the blurring of the distinction between interrogator and interpreter has a coercive effect on the suspect. It is particularly problematic when bilingual police officers type up suspects’ ‘confession statements’ in English, which the latter are then asked to sign, often without having read or heard a back translation made by a neutral interpreter or translator. Cases such as those described by Berk-​Seligson (2009) demonstrate the value and importance of ethics norms for interpreters and for institutional translational practices more generally. Whether codified in law or set by professional organizations, professional interpreters in many instances are bound by explicit norms that require them to translate ‘faithfully’ and ‘accurately’ and compel them to confidentiality as well as impartiality regarding the matter in which they translate. Yet, interpreters who are employed by the institution are likely to prioritize the interests of the institution over those of the other-​language speaker, putting them in the position of gatekeepers (Davidson, 2000; Inghilleri, 2012; Angermeyer, 2016). The interpreters’ neutrality or impartiality 420

Multilingualism and Translation

and their relationship with the other participants in the interaction may also be complicated by other aspects of their social identity, such as gender, ethnicity, or social class. For example, Inghilleri (2012: 88) reports on tensions between Polish-​speaking Roma refugee claimants and non-​Roma Polish interpreters. Maryns (2013) discusses the potential impact of the interpreter’s gender in cases that involve testimony by victims of gender-​based violence. These examples show that, while institutions may want interpreters to act as machine-​like conduits of information, this goal conflicts with the reality that interpreters are social actors who participate in an interaction. Moreover, as demonstrated by Wadensjö (1998), as well as Baraldi and Gavioli (2012), public-​ service interpreters in face-​to-​face interaction are inherently involved in coordinating the participation of other participants. As there is often only one participant who understands all other participants, they gauge others’ comprehension and coordinate their turn-​taking accordingly (Davidson, 2002). When multiple participants compete for the floor, interpreters select whose voices to translate and in what order. The interpreter’s interactional role has also been studied especially in relation to their deictic stances vis-​à-​vis both the speaker of the source talk and the recipient of their target rendition. Wadensjö (1998) identifies a continuum between the acts of “replaying” and “displaying”. In “relaying by replaying” interpreters are “re-​presenting the whole appearance of another person’s utterance” (p. 19). By contrast, in “relaying by displaying”, interpreters are “presenting the other’s words and simultaneously emphasizing personal non-​involvement in what they voice”. This distinction involves a range of communicative resources, such as changes in vocal pitch, gaze direction, or gestures, and in particular also the grammatical forms used to refer to participants, especially pronominal reference. When “replaying”, interpreters speak in the voice of the source speaker, who is referred to in the first person (“I swear to tell the truth”). Alternatively, when “displaying”, interpreters may use first person to refer to themselves, and often use reported speech to relay the propositional content of the source (“he says he swears to tell the truth”). Professional guidelines for interpreters often explicitly renounce the use of reported speech and require interpreters to use the deictic frame of the source. This is especially common in court interpreting, where it is also motivated by the fact that, when translating testimony given in another language, the interpreter’s speech enters the record in lieu of the witness’s own words (Berk-​Seligson, 1990). By contrast, the use of reported speech is much more common in healthcare interpreting. In practice, interpreters often vary between the different styles, and in doing so they may be seen as conveying stances vis-​à-​vis the other participants and indexing their own positionality in the particular intercultural context and language contact situation. Court interpreters have been found to switch from first person to reported speech when interpreting participants’ confrontational stances, or judges’ pronouncements of legal decisions, that is, interactional situations where interpreters may not wish to be aligned with the source speaker, and instead emphasize their “personal non-​ involvement in what they voice” (Wadensjö, 1998: 19). While the use of reported speech can thus often be viewed as related to the interpreter’s personal stance and social identity, it occurs also in other contexts, for example when it becomes necessary to disambiguate between multiple participants and specify whose speech is being translated (Angermeyer, 2009). In some jurisdictions, such as for example Hong Kong, court interpreters have been shown to use reported speech systematically when translating from the institutional language, but not vice versa (Cheung, 2012; Ng, 2018). This can be viewed as related to the divergent needs and preferences of the different audiences for the interpreter’s speech. While legal professionals may be accustomed to the first-​person norm and expect its use by the interpreter, lay participants may be confused by it and prefer reported speech instead. In fact, lay participants may misunderstand the participation framework when interpreters maintain the person deixis of the source, 421

Philipp Angermeyer

such as when they translate a question directed at another participant but use an address form that prompts the recipient to feel addressed (Angermeyer, 2005). Similarly, when an interpreter interprets the proceedings for a defendant (often in whispered simultaneous, or chuchotage mode), the defendant may be the subject of other participants’ talk without being addressed by them, but interpreters may engage in deictic shift to refer to the defendant in the second person instead (Defrancq & Verliefde, 2017). Such deictic shifts can be understood also as interpreters’ responsiveness to divergent community norms, adhering to institutional norms when translating into the institutional language, but accommodating to the community norms of lay participants when translating into the minoritized language. This shows that translating and interpreting are not neutral, machine-​like activities, but are deeply shaped by the language ideologies of the particular cultural context in which they occur. This point is made in a striking way by Vigouroux (2010) in her study of interpreting from French to English at Congolese Pentecostal church services in South Africa. As she shows, interpreting in this case is not done to facilitate understanding, but rather because the interplay between pastor and interpreter is seen as a performance genre of its own, forming an integral part of Pentecostal church services in the migrants’ homeland of the Democratic Republic of Congo that re-​enacts the way Pentecostal sermons were first delivered by American pastors beginning in the 1960s. Consequently, Vigouroux finds that an interpreter’s ability to convey religious dedication and emotional intensity is valued more highly than their faithfulness in rendering the referential content of the pastor’s ostensible source speech.

Translation in the linguistic landscape While studies of multilingualism have generally focused on spoken language use, recent years have seen a significant rise in the study of multilingual writing, in the form of signage found in the linguistic landscape of multilingual societies (Landry & Bourhis, 1997; Shohamy & Gorter, 2009; Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010). Multilingual signage often involves translation, but this aspect is usually ignored in linguistic landscape studies, which tend to treat the presence or absence of specific languages as indexical of their sociolinguistic status in the community. However, where translation occurs, its direction (from which source language into which target language) is itself often indexical of underlying power relationships and inequalities (Tesseur, 2017). Such translation processes may become foregrounded and contested, especially where translation is recognizable as such, for example through grammatical errors, or through influence from the source language by way of calquing, lexical borrowing, or semantic extension (“false friends”). Even in societies where multiple languages have equal legal status, translation practices may betray underlying power asymmetries. For example, Hornsby and Vigers (2012) note the frequent occurrence of erroneous or unidiomatic Welsh forms on official bilingual signage in Wales, showing what they call an “ideology of contempt” in which English forms matter, whereas Welsh ones don’t. Such contempt is also found in bilingual English–​Spanish signage discussed by Hill (1998) in the context of the phenomenon of “Mock Spanish”. Where translation yields ungrammatical or unidiomatic forms, this may also be due to the use of machine translation, which is becoming increasingly prevalent with the availability of applications such as Google Translate. Heller and McElhinny (2017: 181–​188) note that government funding for machine translation was a major driver of the growth of linguistic departments in the United States during the Cold War, yet machine translation has received very little attention from linguists studying multilingualism, perhaps with the exception of its use in multimodal communication practices (Jacquemet, 2019). In the linguistic landscape, the use of machine translation may be particularly common when institutions produce warning signs or prohibitory signs with the aim 422

Multilingualism and Translation

of controlling newly arrived migrants. Such signs address speakers of minoritized languages as potentially deviant and thereby communicate negative stereotypes about them, particularly if the languages included are recognizable to speakers of the dominant language (Angermeyer, 2017). Given this inherent discriminatory effect, the use of machine translation helps sign producers to avoid a face-​threatening interaction with a human translator, but at the risk of producing a text that is ungrammatical and incomprehensible. The use of machine translation may also introduce inequalities due its unequal development, so that outputs for certain frequently used language pairs may be more reliable and more comprehensible than outputs for lesser used languages, even if applications such as Google Translate present all serviced languages as having fully parallel functionality. At the same time, many languages of the Global South are not included in digital media applications at all, or when they are, corporate translation practices may be controversial in the targeted language community, for example for ways in which they may influence language standardization, or drive a commodification of languages that may undermine traditional linguistic authority (Romero, 2016).

Conclusion This chapter has shown that translation and interpreting are highly relevant topics for linguistic research on multilingualism, even if they are typically examined within the separate discipline of translation studies. In particular, the power asymmetry inherent in many multilingual settings is directly reflected in translational practices, that is, in the questions of what gets translated, by whom and how. In multilingual institutional contexts, institutions use selective translation from minoritized languages, such as interpretation of witness testimony, to facilitate the otherwise monolingual functioning of institutional processes in the official language, thereby affirming its dominance. Translation from the institutional language into minoritized languages may provide more equitable access to important information but may also reflect an intention to control or discriminate against groups of individuals that are viewed as deviant, especially where translation is limited to contexts such as prohibitions and warnings. Seen in the context of multilingualism, interpreting and translation do not need to be treated as entirely discrete research topics, but rather as falling into a range of multilingual, intercultural communication strategies that may be employed flexibly and dynamically. These include the use of a lingua franca, of code switching or translanguaging, or of non-​reciprocal language use with receptive bilingualism, as well as processes of second language acquisition or language shift (Angermeyer, 2015; Baynham & Lee, 2019; Tipton, 2019; Maryns, Angermeyer & Herreweghe, 2021; Sato, 2022). These developments have the potential to create new opportunities for cross-​ disciplinary connections between linguistics and translation studies, particularly as scholars in the latter field engage with questions of power inequalities and linguistic justice that are also of concerns to sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropologists (Cronin, 2003; Inghilleri, 2012). Another area where disciplinary boundaries are being increasingly blurred concerns the distinction between language brokers, who are viewed as having a personal stake in the interaction, and professional translators or interpreters, who are supposedly neutral and impartial. In recent years, translation studies scholars as well as linguists have examined ways in which translators or interpreters engage in political activism, for example in situations of crisis where language access may not be otherwise available or where translated information contributes to political debate and resistance to injustice (Baker, 2015; Hassemer, 2020), and such studies clearly align with sociolinguistic approaches to justice in multilingual contexts (Piller, 2016; Avineri et al., 2019). 423

Philipp Angermeyer

Related topics Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing; Chapter 24 Multilingualism in the workplace: issues of space and social order; Chapter 25 Multilingualism during disasters and emergencies; Chapter 28 Multilingualism and linguistic landscapes.

Note 1 The impact of translation on language change has occasionally been investigated also by

linguists (see e.g. Becher, House & Kranich, 2009; Amouzadeh & House, 2010).

Further reading Blommaert, J. 2006. How legitimate is my voice? A rejoinder. Target. 18(1):163–​176. Maryns, K., Angermeyer, P.S. & Herreweghe, M.V. Eds. 2021. Special issue: flexible multilingual strategies in asylum and migration encounters. The Translator, 27(1). Severi, C. & Hanks, W.F. Eds. Translating Worlds: The Epistemological Space of Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for Haubook. Silverstein, M. 2003. Translation, transduction, transformation: skating “glossando” on thin semiotic ice. In Translating Cultures: Perspectives on Translation and Anthropology. P.G. Rubel & A. Rosman, Eds. Oxford & New York: Berg. 75–​105. Valdés, G. & Angelelli, C. 2003. Interpreters, interpreting, and the study of bilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 23: 58–​78.

References Amouzadeh, M. & House, J. 2010. Translation as a language contact phenomenon: the case of English and Persian passives. Languages in Contrast. 10(1): 54–​75. Angelelli, C.V. 2004. Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Angermeyer, P.S. 2005. Who is “you”? Polite forms of address and ambiguous participant roles in court interpreting. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies. 17(2): 203–​226. Angermeyer, P.S. 2009. Translation style and participant roles in court interpreting. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 13(1): 3–​28. Angermeyer, P.S. 2010. Interpreter-​ mediated interaction as bilingual speech: bridging macro-​ and microsociolinguistics in codeswitching research. International Journal of Bilingualism. 14(4): 466–​489. Angermeyer, P.S. 2015. Speak English or What?: Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. New York: Oxford University Press. Angermeyer, P.S. 2016. Promoting litigant consent to arbitration in multilingual small claims court. In Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. S. Ehrlich, D. Eades & J. Ainsworth, Eds. New York: Oxford University Press. 163–​185. Angermeyer, P.S. 2017. Controlling Roma refugees with “Google-​Hungarian:” indexing deviance, contempt, and belonging in Toronto’s linguistic landscape. Language in Society. 46(2): 159–​183. Auer, P. 1998. Introduction: bilingual conversation revisited. In Code-​Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. P. Auer, Ed. London/​New York: Routledge. 1–​24. Avineri, N., Graham, L.R., Johnson, E.J., Conley Riner, R. & Rosa. J. Eds. 2019. Language and Social Justice in Practice. New York: Routledge. Baker, M. Ed. 2015. Translating Dissent: Voices From and With the Egyptian Revolution. London & New York: Routledge. Baraldi, C. & Gavioli, L. Eds. 2012. Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Baynham, M. & Lee, T.K. 2019. Translation and Translanguaging. London & New York: Routledge. Becher, V., House, J. and Kranich, S. 2009. Convergence and divergence through language contact in translation. In Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations. K. Braunmüller & J. House, Eds. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 125–​151.

424

Multilingualism and Translation Berk-​ Seligson, S. 1990. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Berk-​ Seligson, S. 2009. Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Berthele, R. 2000. Translating African-​American vernacular English into German: the problem of “Jim” in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 4(4): 588–​614. Blommaert, J. 2006. How legitimate is my voice?: a rejoinder. Target. 18(1): 163–​176. Blommaert, J. 2009. Language, asylum, and the national order. Current Anthropology. 50(4): 415–​441. Bolden, G. 2000. Toward understanding practices of medical interpreting: interpreters’ involvement in history taking. Discourse Studies. 2(4): 387–​419. Bolden, G. 2012. Across languages and cultures: brokering problems of understanding in conversational repair. Language in Society. 41(1): 97–​121. Briggs, C.L. 2017. Towards communicative justice in health. Medical Anthropology. 36(4): 287–​304. Brown-​Blake, C. 2008. The right to linguistic non-​discrimination and Creole language situations: the case of Jamaica. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 23(1): 32–​74. Cheung, A.K.F. 2012. The use of reported speech by court interpreters in Hong Kong. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting. 14(1): 73–​91. Cox, A. & Maryns, K. 2021. Multilingual consultations in urgent medical care. The Translator. 27(1): 75–​93. Cronin, M. 2003. Translation and Globalization. London & New York: Routledge. Davidson, B. 2000. The interpreter as institutional gatekeeper: the social-​linguistic role of interpreters in Spanish-​English medical discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 4: 379–​405. Davidson, B. 2002. A model of the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 34 (9): 1273–​1300. Defrancq, B. & Verliefde, S. 2017. Interpreter-​mediated “paternalistic” interaction in a judge-​centered courtroom. Interpreting. 19(2): 209–​231. D’hondt, S. 2004. Interculturele Communicatie in Rechtbanken. Brussels: Politeia. Gal, S. 2015. Politics of translation. Annual Review of Anthropology. 44(1): 225–​240. García, M.L. 2019. Translated justice? The Ixil Maya and the 2013 trial of José Efraín Ríos Montt for genocide in Guatemala. American Anthropologist. 121(2): 311–​324. Hale, S. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hanks, W. 2010. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hanks, W.F. 2015. The space of translation. In Translating Worlds: The Epistemological Space of Translation. Severi, C. & Hanks, W.F. Eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for Haubooks. 21–​49. Hassemer, J. 2020. The value(s) of volunteering: asylum seekers’ trajectories through language work in refugee assistance. International Journal of Multilingualism. 17(1): 46–​61. Haviland, J.B. 2003. Ideologies of language: reflections on language and U.S. law. American Anthropologist. 105 (4): 764–​774. Haviland, J.B. 2019. A “politics of protection” aimed at Mayan immigrants in the Unites States. In B.M. Haas & A. Shuman, Eds. Technologies of Suspicion and the Ethics of Obligation in Political Asylum. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. 61–​102. Heller, M. & McElhinny, B. 2017. Language, Capitalism, Colonialism: Toward a Critical History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hill, J.H. 1998. Language, race, and white public space. American Anthropologist. 100: 680–​689. Hiramoto, M. 2009. Slaves speak pseudo-​Toohoku-​ben: the representation of minorities in the Japanese translation of Gone with the Wind. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 13(2): 249–​263. Hornsby, M. & Vigers, D. 2012. Minority semiotic landscapes: an ideological minefield? In Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape. D. Gorter, H.F. Marten & L. van Mensel, Eds. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 57–​73. Inghilleri, M. 2012. Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics, and Language. London & New York: Routledge. Inoue, M. 2003. Speech without a speaking body: “Japanese women’s language” in translation. Language & Communication. 23: 315–​330. Jacquemet, M. 2009. Transcribing refugees: the entextualization of asylum seekers’ hearings in a transidiomatic environment. Text & Talk. 29(5): 525–​546.

425

Philipp Angermeyer Jacquemet, M. 2019. The digitalization of the asylum process (and the digitizing of evidence). In Technologies of Suspicion and the Ethics of Obligation in Political Asylum. B.M. Haas & A. Shuman, Eds. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. 153–​174. Jaworski, A. & Thurlow, C. 2010. Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image, Space. London: Continuum. Köppe, R. & Meisel, J.M. 1995. Code-​switching in bilingual first language acquisition. In One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-​Disciplinary Perspectives on Code-​Switching. L. Milroy & P. Muysken, Eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 276–​301. Landry, R. & Bourhis, R.Y. 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 16(1): 23–​49. Lee, J. 2009. Interpreting inexplicit language during courtroom examination. Applied Linguistics. 30(1): 93–​114. Leung, E. & Gibbons, J. 2009. Interpreting Cantonese utterance-​final particles in bilingual courtroom discourse. Interpreting. 11(2): 190–​215. Licoppe, C. 2021. The politics of visuality and talk in French courtroom proceedings with video links and remote participants. Journal of Pragmatics. 178: 363–​377. Licoppe, C. & Verdier, M. 2013. Interpreting, video communication and the sequential reshaping of institutional talk in the bilingual and distributed courtroom. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law. 20(2): 247–​275. Mannheim, B. 2015. All translation is radical translation. In Translating Worlds: The Epistemological Space of Translation. C. Severi & W.F. Hanks, Eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 199–​219. Marszalenko, J.E. 2014. Three stages of interpreting in Japan’s criminal process. Language and Law=​ Linguagem e Direito. 1(1): 174–​187. Maryns, K. 2013. Disclosure and (re)performance of gender-​based evidence in an interpreter-​mediated asylum interview. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 17(5): 661–​686. Maryns, K., Angermeyer, P.S. & Herreweghe, M.V. 2021. Introduction: flexible multilingual strategies in asylum and migration encounters. The Translator. 27(1): 1–​11. Meyer, B. 2004. Dolmetschen im medizinischen Aufklärungsgespräch: Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung zur Wissensvermittlung im mehrsprachigen Krankenhaus. Münster: Waxmann. Moeketsi, R. 1999. Discourse in a Multilingual and Multicultural Courtroom: A Court Interpreter’s Guide. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik. Morris, R. 2008. Missing stitches: an overview of judicial attitudes to interlingual interpreting in the criminal justice systems of Canada and Israel. Interpreting. 10(1): 34–​64. Nakane, I. 2014. Interpreter-​Mediated Police Interviews: A Discourse Pragmatic Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Nakane, I. 2020. Narrative construction in interpreted police interviews. In The Discourse of Police Interviews. M. Mason & F. Rock, Eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 179–​199. Ng, E.N.S. 2018. Common Law in an Uncommon Courtroom: Judicial Interpreting in Hong Kong. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ng, K.H. 2009. The Common Law in Two Voices: Language, Law, and the Post-​Colonial Dilemma in Hong Kong. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Pasquandrea, S. 2011. Managing multiple actions through multimodality: doctors’ involvement in interpreter-​ mediated interactions. Language in Society. 40(4): 455–​481. Piller, I. 2016. Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice: An Introduction to Applied Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Powell, R. & Hashim, A. 2011. Language disadvantage in Malaysian litigation and arbitration. World Englishes, 30(1): 92–​105. Pritzker, S.E. 2012. Living translation in US Chinese medicine. Language in Society. 41(3): 343–​363. Queen, R. 2004. “Du hast jar keene Ahnung”: African American English dubbed into German. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 8(4): 515–​537. Reynolds, J.F. & Faulstich Orellana, M.F. 2009. New immigrant youth Interpreting in White public space. American Anthropologist. 111(2): 211–​223. Reynolds, J.F., Orellana, M.F. & García-​Sánchez, I. 2015. In the Service of Surveillance: Immigrant Child Language Brokers in Parent-​Teacher Conferences. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

426

Multilingualism and Translation Richland, J.B. 2008. Arguing with Tradition: The Language of Law in Hopi Tribal Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Romero, S. 2016. Bill Gates speaks K’ichee’! The corporatization of linguistic revitalization in Guatemala. Language & Communication. 47: 154–​166. Sato, E. 2022. Translanguaging in Translation: Invisible Contributions that Shape our Language and Society. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Schieffelin, B.B. 2007. Found in translating: reflexive language across time and texts in Bosavi, Papua New Guinea. In Consequences of Contact. M. Makihara & B.B Schieffelin, Eds. New York: Oxford University Press. 140–​165. Severi, C. & Hanks, W.F. Eds. 2015. Translating Worlds: The Epistemological Space of Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for Haubooks. Shohamy, E. & Gorter, D. 2009. Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. London & New York: Routledge. Silverstein, M. 2003. Translation, transduction, transformation: Skating “glossando” on thin semiotic ice’. In Translating Cultures: Perspectives on Translation and Anthropology. Rubel, P.G. & Rosman, A., Eds. Oxford & New York: Berg. 75–​105. Tesseur, W. 2017. Incorporating translation into sociolinguistic research: translation policy in an international non-​governmental organisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 21(5): 629–​649. Tipton, R. 2019. Exploring the ESOL-​PSIT relation: interpellation, resistance and resilience. Language & Communication. 67: 16–​28. Valdés, G. & Angelelli, C. 2003. Interpreters, interpreting, and the study of bilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 23: 58–​78. Valdés, G., Chávez, C. & Angelelli, C. 2003. A performance team: young interpreters and their parents. In Expanding Definitions of Giftedness: The Case of Young Interpreters from Immigrant Communities. G. Valdés, Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 63–​98. Vigouroux, C.B. 2010. Double-​mouthed discourse: interpreting, framing, and participant roles. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 14(3): 341–​369. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London & New York: Longman.

427

28 MULTILINGUALISM AND LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPES Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala

Introduction: the inception of linguistic landscapes The seminal paper by Landry and Bourhis (1997) has largely been instructive with respect to the study of languages in public places in an emerging sub-​discipline of sociolinguistics referred to as Linguistic Landscapes (henceforth LL). They defined LL as “the language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings [which] combines to form the LL of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration” (Landry & Bourhis, 1997: 25). With the rapid development of the field, it increasingly became clear that the definition was rather narrow and could not account for the scope, data sets as well as the new methodologies and theoretical frameworks that informed the studies in LL. We shall return to this argument in due course. Suffice to point out that Landry and Bourhis (1997) was not the first one on LL but seems to have given the field a new focus and purpose. Gorter (2019a) suggests that one of the early studies on LL was Tulp (1978) who investigated signage in Dutch and French on advertising billboards on tram line crossings in Brussels. Rosenbaum et al. (1977) looked at the distribution of signage in a street in Jerusalem, while in another study, still in Jerusalem, Spolsky and Cooper (1991: 1) employ what can be called a linguistic landscape description when they recount thus: “Anyone walking the Old City through the Jaffa Gate is immediately struck by the multiliteracy proclaimed by the signs.” Interestingly, although Weinreich is known for his classic book Language Contact (1953), Gorter (2019b: 431) notes that “Weinreich ([1951] 2011: 128) in his PhD thesis demonstrated some awareness of the linguistic landscape, in that he illustrated the importance of language contact by including three pictures of bilingual French-​German signage in the city of Biel, Switzerland”. Multilingual LL, that is, where two or more languages are deployed in signage, can thus be said to constitute an aspect of language contact (Gorter, 2019b). In the broader context of multilingualism, the study of LL has brought into the spotlight unique perspectives in the analysis of language(s) and meaning-​making in public spaces. It shifted the attention from language as spoken to languages as displayed and represented in the material world. From concerns with language vitality, LL studies expanded to include the signs in public spaces constituted in a large part by the multilingual practices in landscapes of streets, neighbourhoods or cities (Leeman & Modan, 2009; Lou, 2016). The landscapes were increasingly conceived as spaces of global and local aspirations on various scales (Scollon & Scollon, 2003). Thus, LLs came to be seen as arenas for global-​local power production and consumption, as spaces on which

428

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214908-33

Multilingualism and Linguistic Landscapes

to interpret the meaning of signs, messages, purposes, and contexts of the inscription as well as emplacement (Shohamy & Waksman, 2010). LL is also about languages not displayed and represented in public spaces (Shohamy, 2006; Banda & Jimaima, 2015). This argument is built on the fact that “the presence (or absence) of specific language items, displayed in specific languages, in a specific manner, sends direct and indirect messages with regards to the centrality versus the marginality of certain languages in society” (Shohamy, 2006:110). This speaks to the real language realities and attitudes in dispersed localities, emphasizing that language(s) present or absent in a landscape transmits symbolic messages about the importance, power, significance and relevance of certain languages or the silencing of others (Shohamy, 2006). However, Ben-​Rafael” et al. (2006) put a caveat to the Landry and Bourhis theorization as well as to Shohamy’s (2006) observation by noting that LL items do not entirely reflect language vitality and that they are not faithfully representative of the linguistic repertoire typical of ethnolinguistic diversity, but rather of those linguistic resources that individuals and institutions make use of in the public sphere. Therefore, in what he calls a more recent and updated definition, Gorter (2019a) expands the definition of LL, defining it as the study of “the motives, uses, ideologies, language varieties and contestations of multiple forms of ‘languages’ as they are displayed in public spaces”. Considering debates surrounding ‘named languages’, the invention and dis-​invention of (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007) and the semiotic or multimodal turn in LL studies (Thurlow & Jaworsky, 2010; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006), Gorter (2019a) explains that ‘language’ should be conceived in its wider sense to include visual and multimodal semiotic resources. The opening up and broadening of the definition provides a broad and workable definition of LL, which in turn has opened avenues for many methodological and theoretical perspectives to be deployed in the study of language in the material world. It is also noteworthy that the notion of land-​scape has itself been repurposed to “soundscape” for sound or spoken language (Scarvaglieri et al. 2013); in education “schoolscape” (Brown, 2012); online the linguistic “virtualscape| or “cyberscape” (Ivkovic & Lotherington, 2009); body inscriptions/​tattoos forms are “skinscapes” (Peck & Stroud 2015); olfactory senses are “smellscapes” (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015); “oral-​linguascape” refers to use of oral language instead of scripted language for sign-​making (Banda & Jimaima, 2015); and “cityscapes” as contrasted to “ruralscapes” (Banda & Jimaima, 2015), to name a few -​scapes (cf. Gorter, 2019a).

The social production of LL Landry and Bourhis (1997) put forth two functions of languages in LL in a given territorial space: an informational function and a symbolic function. Concerning the informational function, LL “can serve as a distinctive marker of the geographical territory inhabited by a given language community” (Landry & Bourhis, 1997: 25). The use of a language can have an emotive effect and elevate its status in the speaker and/​or hearer. In the case of a so-​called minority language, the use may play a symbolic function of inducing positive feelings towards the language. Scollon and Scollon (2003:2) argue that the signs displayed in the public spaces mean what they do because of where exactly they have been placed in the material world. They call this geosemiotics, “the study of the social meaning of the material placement of signs and discourses and our actions in the material world”. This is to say the emplacement of the signs which may include language and other meaning-​making resources is dependent on what the sign producer wants to pass across such that exactly where on earth an action takes place, or a sign is placed is an important part of its meaning. 429

Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala

One of the first steps employed in trying to put some order in the analysis of LL tokens is to distinguish the top-​down and bottom-​up flow of elements in the public spaces. This distinction, according to Ben-​Rafael (2006) is between controlled LL elements used and exhibited by institutional agencies and those by individuals who enjoy the autonomy of action albeit within established bounds. Backhaus (2007) looked at this in terms of official or non-​ official LL items as informing what constitutes the kind of signs to be found in the LL. In this connection, writing on discourses in town and city streets which ultimately account for LL, Scollon and Scollon (2003) push forward the juxtaposition of the top-​down and bottom-​ up/​official and non-​official arrangement of signs when they propose four general categories, namely regulatory discourses, infrastructural discourses, commercial discourses and transgressive discourses, noting that these are the categories into which discourses in town and city streets normally fall. Ben-​Rafael et al. (2006) consider human agency as a powerful force behind the production and subsequent consumption of the top-​down and bottom-​up/​official and non-​official arrangement of signs. The emplacement of signs in public spaces cannot be looked upon without considering the elements behind their production. Ben-​Rafael et al. (2006) observe that human agency cannot be disassociated from the production and eventual consumption of LL items. This led to the inclusion of the social actors who shape and are shaped by LL. With this inclusion and many others that have (re)shaped the LL enterprise, LL is grounded in multiple perspectives theories and disciplines. These include among others applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, language policy, literacy studies, sociology, political science, education, art, semiotics, architecture, critical geography, urban planning and economics.

The semiotic/​multimodal turn of LL studies In the development of LL, a new generation of scholars arose and championed the view that communication and representation ought to be seen beyond language (Pennycook, 2010; 2010; Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010; Stroud & Mpendukana, 2009; Peck & Banda, 2014; Banda & Jimaima, 2015). The whole sufficiency of language that had predominated LL studies was questioned (Banda & Jimaima, 2015) as scholars noted the indispensability of multiple discursive modalities in meaning-​making. It was proposed that a semiotic perspective to LL is more insightful as it unravels all possibilities of meaning-​making in space. This led to the semiotic/​ multimodal turn as one of the notable shifts and changes in LL theorization and subsequently culminated in a clarion call to expand the scenery, to reformulate LL so as to broaden its meaning and scope. In this respect, Shohamy and Gorter (2009) and their publication titled Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery, stands out. As can be deduced from the title, “authors set out to broaden the horizons of LL –​methodologically and conceptually” (Mokwena, 2017: 12). In hindsight, broadening the LL horizon entailed integrating the intersection of visual discourse, the sensory, spoken and scripted language, and sociocultural aspects of spatial practices (Banda & Jimaima, 2015). This was couched in semiotics and multimodality in which language is just one of many semiotic modes used for representation and communication (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006). In responding to the call to expand the scenery, Jaworski and Thurlow (2010) argued that the field of study should be called Semiotic Landscapes (henceforth SL) rather than LL to account for the multimodal nature of the complex meaning-​making instances of our times. In their publication, Jaworski and Thurlow (2010) title their work Semiotic Landscape: Language, Image, Space. Banda (2015) refers to this piece as one of the most important contributions to the LL enterprise. In 430

Multilingualism and Linguistic Landscapes

introducing their work, Jaworski and Thurlow (2010) reveal that they chose not to call their book LL as a way to emphasize the need to include all semiotic resources in place for meaning-​making. Their aim was to direct the LL research focus on the interaction between language, image and space –​ especially how culture and textual mediation are implicated in the discursive and multimodal construction of place (Banda, 2015). Though not often cited as frontrunners of the semiotic/​multimodal turn, Scollon and Scollon (2003) can be said to be among the pioneers of the LL shift with their discussion on how language and visual images have different semantic orientations in the material world. In framing their geosemiotics theorization, Scollon and Scollon (2003: 2) advance that “we have not called this study geolinguistics although we might have done that”, defending their coinage with a contention that “to have called it geolinguistics would have been to retain the focus on just language itself”. They chart a new territory with three strands of geosemiotics, namely visual semiotics, place semiotics and interactional order. In discussing visual semiotics, Scollon and Scollon (2003) draw upon the work of Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) which constructs the grammar of reading images as the first systematic and comprehensive account that takes account of the formal elements and structures of language, design, colour, perspective, framing and composition of signs. In visual semiotics, Scollon and Scollon turn from the spoken, face-​to-​face discourses to the representations of interaction order in images and signs. They argue that “we are interested in how images represent the real social world, in how images mean what they mean because of where we see them, and in how we use images to do other things in the world” (Scollon & Scollon, 2003: 84). Insights from Scollon and Scollon (2003) and the work of Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006) have often been a point of departure for most recent studies in LL.

The online space as multilingual LL Ivkovic and Lotherington (2009) extend the study of LL from its preoccupation with the physical material world to what has now been called the virtual linguistic landscape (VLL). VLL refers to virtual space of the World Wide Web (the Web) and the digital world of computer-​mediated communication. Ivkovic and Lotherington (2009) argue that the virtual space is characteristically multilingual. They further note that when the “languages coexist in the ontology of machines and digital signals, they influence one another and undergo changes, constituting a unique linguistic cyberecology” (Ivkovic & Lotherington, 2009: 17). However, the virtual space is still connected to the physical world of social actors, as creators and users of the virtual networks, which constitute the hub of human communication in the postmodern world. Biro (2018) uses the notion of VLL to cross the boundaries of traditional LL in an attempt to examine the internet as a complex set of LLs. He investigates multilingualism and language practices present on the periphery of cyberscapes and concludes that the multilingual virtual space created by the individual speakers provides more opportunity for multilingual practices, with content sharing and comments. However, he laments that the significant body of the content is pragmatic-​oriented and fulfils the needs of a monolingual community. Virtual spaces have been found to offer speakers of so-​called minority languages the space to express their agency and voice, which are denied or limited in the physical spaces due to the dominance of English, French and other colonial languages and the major African languages (Banda, 2016). The semiotic modes used in VLL are often unpredictable as they are constituted by a number of semiotic materials ranging from linguistic, graphs, images, emojis and a blend of these. Banda (2016) has argued that virtual spaces have become platforms on which multilingualism is practised without being ‘monitored’ by language ‘gatekeepers’ whose concern is to 431

Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala

‘maintain standards’ and keep named languages as autonomous systems. Social actors draw on their linguistic freedoms, decide to use language from their positionality and consequently defy policy pronouncements (Blommaert, 2010). In essence, in virtual spaces social actors are not usually concerned about government language policy pronouncements. Banda (2016) shows how multilingual Zambians use linguistic features from different languages in VLL to affiliate with multiple ethnolinguistic groups as well as the urban-​rural dimensions of life-​worlds. On the other hand, Biro (2021), reveals that Romanian business owners seeking to maximize the target audience, construct their marketing by carefully choosing Hungarian and other languages that align to locality to secure a place in the local market instead of Romanian, which is the national language. VLL then becomes a platform for linguistic performances of ethnic affiliations and contestations using the official and non-​official as well as the major and minority languages (cf. Banda, 2016).

LL in oral-​dominant language communities The dominant narrative in LL studies has been about urbanized spaces, conventional signage and upmarket configuration in which computerized monitors and signboards (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2013) are used for place description and general meaning-​making enterprise. It has been said that LL studies reveal a bias towards urban areas (Zabrodskaja & Milani 2014), which Banda and Jimaima (2015) surmise is dominated by Western-​type ‘reading’ culture, signmaking and consumption which then orients to written rather than oral-​based literacy issues in LL. With a radical departure, Banda and Jimaima (2015) focus on linguistic/​semiotic landscapes in rural areas in which oral language plays a significant remediating role in the production and consumption of signage. While studies in LL would often privilege cities as they typically focus on written public signage displayed in urban environments, the LL of non-​urban environments or ruralscapes focus on oral linguascaping in which the oral language is the main means for spatial navigation (Mokwena, 2017). In distinguishing urban and rural LL, Banda and Jimaima (2015) have shown that a walk in the urbanscapes for consumers often entails navigating through planned streets and/​or roads, often lined with buildings, trees, flowers, scripted road or street signs, and often carrying illuminated signage on buildings and billboards. They use the notion of semiotic remediation as repurposing to account for how oral language, memory and objects in place in ruralscapes are deployed to extend the meanings in the sign systems, so that sign-​making and consumption are not necessarily dependent on written or ‘visible’ signs. Through developing the notion of repurposing, Banda and Jimaima (2015) show how people from rural areas extend the repertoire of ‘signs’ to include faded and unscripted signboards, fauna and flora, mounds, dwellings, abandoned structures, skylines, and village and bush paths (with no written names), which are made to carry through oral narrations of place. Following Banda and Jimaima’s (2015) conceptualization of oral linguascaping, Mokwena’s (2017) study of linguistic landscapes in the rural areas of the northern Cape Province, South Africa, describes how people use oral language and semiotic remediation as repurposing to extend the sign systems in rural areas. In another study, using Chinese signage in two rural Zambian landscapes, Banda, Jimaima and Mokwena (2019) show how Zambian social actors who do not read Chinese language transpose their own oral languages on the Chinese signage as a reference point or a territorial marker, or to point people in the direction to the desired destination.

432

Multilingualism and Linguistic Landscapes

Spatial and neighbourhood appropriation in LL The idea of built environments as spaces of consumption in LL explores among other things how language works with other semiotic modes to construct social spaces (Leeman & Modan, 2009). The motivation, as Leeman and Modan (2009) puts it, is that rather than a straightforward understanding of the concept of landscape such as that put forth by Landry and Bourhis (1997), LLs are subjective representations rather than an objective physical environment. Therefore, just like other aspects of the built environment, the material realizations of language are strategic tools that are wielded not only in local politics but in power struggles as well as in competing claims for space. In this way, instances of written language in the public spaces of a particular territory should be seen as productive signs. The presence of languages for neighborhood appropriation represents artifacts of negotiations over space that may be enacted, contested and upheld for they have important economic and social consequences, and can affect those who would visit, work or live in a given neighbourhood. Thus, Leeman and Modan (2009) have used the interaction of language and the social, political, and economic factors in Washington DC’s Chinatown landscape in their arguments about material manifestations of commodified urban spaces. Peck and Banda (2014) also attend to the semiotic appropriation and the reinvention of space in the neighbourhood Observatory’s business corridor of Lower Main Road in the Western Cape, South Africa, and document changes brought about by the influx of immigrant Africans, their artefacts and language practices. Using the intersection of artefacts and language belonging to immigrant Africans, they observed changes in the LL of Observatory’s business corridor over time and the development of an ‘African Corner’ within Lower Main Road. This illustrates the appropriation of space and the unpredictability, which comes along with highly mobile, technological and multicultural citizens. It is argued that changes in the LL are part of the act of claiming and appropriating space wherein space becomes summarily recontextualized and hence reinvented and ‘owned’ by new actors. Space ownership can be concealed through what we have called ‘brand anonymity’ strategies in which the identity of the owner is deliberately concealed behind global brands. It is concluded that it is the people within space who carve out new social practices in their appropriated space.

Multisensory analysis and semiotic assemblages in LL Pennycook and Otsuji, (2015: 191) use what they call urban smellscapes, or an olfactory ethnography of urban smells to extend LL studies to include the exploration of the intersection of people, objects, activities and senses to understand the spatial repertoire of a place. They come up with the social semiotics of urban smellscapes to explain how people, places, times and activities are brought into relationships through smells. Pennycook and Otsuji (2017) and Lou (2017) further develop the idea of multisensory analysis conceptualized as “a multisensorial form of engagement, rather than simply in terms of vision” (Pink, 2008: 180). This analytical approach draws sense smell and gaze (sight) as heuristic guides to examine the relationship between spaces of consumption and senses of place inside shops and three markets in Hong Kong. Each market has its own geosemiotic designs (Scollon & Scollon, 2003) which interact with sensory properties to shape customers’ experiences of place. Further, Pennycook and Otsuji (2017) introduce the notion of assembling artefacts to account for how sense and objects mediate across geographies, environments, culinary traditions and histories. Focusing on two Bangladeshi-​run stores in Sydney and Tokyo, Pennycook and Otsuji (2017) examine the different meanings arising from the interactions of smells and associated

433

Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala

objects and other artefacts in place. They use the notion of assembling artefacts to account for multisensory meaning-​making in which, for example, the smell of “fish drew the attention of customers to the freezers where they are stored and to discussions of bones, taste, size and ‘cleanliness’ ” (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2017: 446). While the discussions on onions, phones and SIM cards constitute different moments in interactions, which in time and place lead to different directions in gaze and meaning-​making potentials. Pennycook and Otsuji (2017) refer to the collection of associated artefacts as semiotic assemblages, which enter new and momentary relationships in time and space. Using the notion of semiotic assemblages, Jimaima and Banda (2021) use a moment in history, the lead-​up to presidential elections, to capture the semiotic transformation of linguistic landscapes of a multilingual African country, Zambia. Like the way different meanings arose from the interactions of fish, onions, phone cards and associated objects (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2017), they show how political parties deliberately disassemble linguistic, dress code and other cultural semiotic material that shows their candidate’s ethnic or regional inclinations, while at the same time assembling semiotic resources that show the party as having membership from diverse ethnic groups and regions. Jimaima and Banda (2021) show how political parties in multilingual and multi-​ethnic countries use the LL and places of assembly (rally venues) to sell themselves as a multi-​ethnic party through multilingual signage and material culture assembled from diverse regions. The semiotic assemblages can be made up of party colours, song and dances in different languages and from different ethnic groups, symbols and slogans, images of cultural material and human bodies as ethnotypes from different regions. All these mobile but stable assembling artefacts are used for meaning-​making and to market presidential candidates and the party.

Mobilescapes and skinscapes as LL Peck and Stroud (2015) call for an extension of LL studies to encompass the body as a corporeal landscape or moving discursive locality. They justify and frame their approach in the increasing attention brought by mobility and materiality of spatialized semiotics as performative which partially determines how we come to understand ourselves ‘in place’. A phenomenological methodology is used to explore the materiality of the body as a mobile and dynamic space of inscribed spatialized identities and historical power relations. The focus is on how tattooed bodies sculpt future selves and imagined spaces, the imprint they leave behind in the lives of five participants in the study, and ultimately the creation of bodies that matter in time and place. Using oral narratives of tattoos and their bodily emplacement, Roux, Peck and Banda (2019) explore the performance of creativity, language, multilingualism, identity and gender among female students at three universities in South Africa. Notions of skinscapes, the material culture of multilingualism, and multimodality are drawn upon to illustrate, analyze and discuss the creativity and imagination of the design features of the assembled semiotic material that inspire the content and representations of the tattoo. The inspirations and exploratory imaginations of the tattooed and/​or the tattoo artists that enable creations to be visually materialized are highlighted for new meanings to be constructed on the skin. They argue that multilingualism and identities should not just be seen in the inscribed languages on tattoos but in the totality of the material and verbal constituents that include the languages spoken, heard and referred to in the context in which the tattoos are reproduced and consumed. They conclude that tattoos should be seen as material culture of multilingualism/​multiculturalism deployed as a creative practice in meaning-​making. 434

Multilingualism and Linguistic Landscapes

Beyond the tattooing of the human body as skinscapes, Tembo (2020) analyzed the semiotic emplacement on public service vehicles as a productive field that assesses the performativity of identities beyond the spoken language among social actors within the broader context of the transport sector in Zambia. Using emplaced materialities on public service vehicles in Lusaka, Tembo (2020) demonstrated how the social actors, that is the signmakers resemiotize, intertextualize and translocate various pieces of semiotic materialities from the source texts, and how the new environment in which these materialities are (re-​)deployed extend or limit the original semiotic potential. Also, Tembo (2020) determined the ideological leanings and intentions of the signmakers. Matsabisa (2020) uses the Cape Town taxi industry to argue for a more comprehensive investigation of this discursive practice of adorning signage, taking an approach to landscapes as semiotic instances in the social production, circulation, distribution and consumability of discourses in society and view signs as re-​semiotized. Due to their constitutive nature, signs are viewed as symbolic and interactional artifacts of a sociolinguistics of mobility. Of particular relevance here are questions relating to historical, ideological, socio-​ cultural, economic and political, etc. factors behind particular linguistic and visual/​image choices emplaced on public service vehicles.

LL as multilingual and translanguaging spaces LL is endowed with the heuristic potential to describe the language situation of a particular place and adds a different dimension to the study of multilingualism and language practices in this late modern age (Jimaima, 2016). Simungala (2020) interrogates signage at the University of Zambia in Lusaka in an attempt to frame the sociolinguistic situation of this multilingual space. An instance of the global in the local is unearthed as the dominance of English over Japanese and Chinese, and the apparent absence of indigenous languages on monolingual signs is noted. Owing to the symbolic and indexical presence of Chinese and Japanese alongside the English language, the multilingual landscapes of the University of Zambia become a place of linguistic contestations and legitimization of languages, control and superiority. Indigenous languages are spotted only on bilingual signs (with English) resemiotizing and recontextualizing ideological leanings of humanism and Pan-​Africanism championed by Zambia’s founding president, Kenneth Kaunda, seen through the names of student hostels at the University of Zambia (Simungala & Jimaima, 2021). Beyond the languages displayed in the public spaces, English, Ila, Tonga, Bemba, Lozi, Nyanja and Mambwe constitute linguistic repertoires of social actors carving out a complex multilingual context as languages are often co-​deployed through translanguaging, mixing, semiotic coinages and truncated forms in the LL. Multilingual landscapes privilege what Li (2018) calls translanguaging spaces. Li (2018: 23) defines translanguaging space as one that “allows language users to integrate social spaces (and thus ‘linguistic codes’) that have been formerly separated through different practices in different places”. Translanguaging spaces can be seen on bilingual signs especially on advertising billboards. Costley, Kulat and Marten (2022) focus on the ways language is used on billboards and advertising spaces in the city of Ndola in Zambia’s Copperbelt province. Ndola is Zambia’s third largest city, a vibrant, multilingual urban space providing a rich context to not only explore local language use and practices but those of Zambia more broadly. Focusing on these billboards allows us to concentrate on how space is used to reflect, create and establish meaning and to understand how language use is embedded in material culture and the socio-​economic context. By looking at the chronology of multilingual signage in this space, Costley, Kulat and Marten (2022) conclude that there has been an increase in the use of Zambia’s indigenous languages. 435

Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala

LL and methodological issues The methodologies employed over the first and formative years of LL research have evolved rapidly in several different directions (Blackwood, 2015), from quantitative approaches to qualitative or blended quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative approach came to be reduced in one particular narrative to the counting of signs. These predominated LL in an attempt to gauge linguistic vitality. However, as noted elsewhere counting of languages in the LL was not found to faithfully represent the linguistic vitality of languages in place. For example, in many African contexts, English or French and a few African languages found in the signage do not represent the full range of languages spoken in place (Banda & Jimaima, 2015). As Banda and Jimaima (2015, 2017) and Mokwena (2017) argue, in African contexts it is often the case that many languages that local people speak are not always scripted in the signage. Qualitative research in LL is portrayed as permitting analysis of a selection of signs from which wider conclusions can be drawn (Blackwood, 2015). Consequently, qualitative approaches have guided most published scholarship thus far. In this regard, Stroud and Mpenduka nana (2009) used material ethnography to provide an in-​depth qualitative study of semiotic landscapes in a South African township. Material ethnographic research focuses on an in-​depth analysis of materials or objects in place. In this conceptualization, it is not just (written) language, other objects in place on their own or in relation to language provide the material conditions for signmaking in what Banda and Jimaima (2015) call a semiotic ecology of meaning-​making in LL. In Banda and Jimaima’s (2015) and Mokwena’s (2017) studies in rural Zambia and rural South Africa respectively, skylines, trees, unscripted and defaced signposts were part of the never-​ending taxonomy of signs for meaning-​making. In order to uncover the meaning potentials of different materials in place, the walking methodology is increasingly being used in LL data collection. According to Stroud and Jegels (2014), a walking approach includes a conflation of walk, talk, gaze and photography. As a case in point, the work by Peck and Banda (2014) in Cape Town’s Observatory shows how the walking approach successfully uncovers individualized experiences of the emplaced materialities and the changes in the composition of the LL over time and space. Different areas of Observatory did not exhibit the same kinds of materials/​objects in the material world. However, over time it was also found that changes of ownership of a restaurant, for example, from an Italian-​ to an Indian-​ or Nigerian-​themed restaurant, brought with it changes in the kinds of food, clientele, decorative cultural objects and signage. In Banda and Jimaima’s (2015) and Mokwena’s (2017; 2021) studies, walking in place brings researchers into the mundane of the daily life of rural dwellers and their ways of signmaking, which is often different from their urban counterparts. It is often the case that their talk generates extended narratives out of which the semiotic potential of signs referred to in the narration of place acquires dynamic meanings. Additionally, while the gaze cuts across the range of signs available in the semiotic environment in place, photography freezes a fleeting moment in which time and space get conflated (Banda & Jimaima, 2015).

LL and material culture of multilingualism Aronin and Ó Laoire (2012) and Banda and Jimaima (2015) introduce the notion of material culture to expand the theoretical and analytical tools available to LL studies. Material culture has been defined as the “study of artefacts and objects as well as landscapes, cityscapes, roadscapes, villages, localities, dwellings, private households and collective homes, public spaces and ways of their organization and use” (Aronin & Ó Laoire, 2012:3). While noting the contributions made by 436

Multilingualism and Linguistic Landscapes

studies in LL have contributed to sociolinguistics and multilingualism research, Aronin (2018) also points out that these studies have often been limited to signs and language in public places. Aronin (2018) suggests that LL needs to account for existential semiotic resources of human life-​worlds some of which “belong to a conventionally defined ‘language’, while others belong to another ‘language’ ” Blommaert (2010:102). The other ‘language’ is embedded in the representations related to materialities and spaces. These become critical components of the semiotic resources of multilingualism through which social actors “consciously or unconsciously … experience the material world and live through it.” (Aronin, 2018: 22). For instance, certain dishes, items on the menu or wines are named by the French or Italian name even if the conversation is in English, making an eating experience in a restaurant multilingual. In further elaborating the notion of material culture, Banda and Jimaima (2015) advance that the notion of material culture should not be limited to written and observable language and objects; it should also be about invisible objects and unscripted language that brings to life the material and non-​material world in place. Thus, it is also about the re-​imagination of ideas, shared knowledge of socio-​cultural history and natural artifacts, and their re-​invention in narration of place” (Banda & Jimaima, 2015: 6). Thus, what counts as signage can range from trees, moulds, skylines, rivers, billboards, dress and food to historical and mental knowledge which enable social actors to make signs and meanings on faded or blank signboards or name places such as ‘Hiking Place’ (Mokwena, 2017) or ‘Mr. Phiri’s Butchery’ (Banda & Jimaima, 2015) even if there is no written sign bearing these names in the named place. Yet the social actors who traverse these environments know which places are being referred to once mentioned.

Coloniality/​decoloniality and LL The consequence of colonialism in Africa and elsewhere was not just about the demarcation and conquest of imagined nations; it was also about the control of spaces in which public discourses are produced and consumed. The control was exercised by a strict selection of the languages that could be used in public spaces. The spaces include notice boards and walls, billboards and street signage. In Zambia for example, until 1964, of the more than 72 languages spoken in Zambia, only four were designated official regional languages while English was national official language. The legislation of the use of indigenous Zambian languages was increased to seven after independence in 1964. English being the de facto national official language, it occupied the highest point in terms of language status followed by the seven regional languages, and the rest of the majority of non-​official indigenous languages. The enduring legacies of colonialism and subsequent coloniality are the language ‘zoning’ designed to confine indigenous languages to specified regions while English was to be used nationally, and the hierarchization of languages in which English occupied the top of the structure, among other accolades, by being designated the language of education and official government business. Coloniality has been described as the inability of post-​colonial sociopolitical regimes to move away from colonial sociopolitical systems, and the continuation and naturalization of oppressive structural inequalities (Maldonado-​Torres, 2007). In relation to signage in place, LL studies show that in all previously colonized nations, English, French and other colonial languages dominate. The study cited below can be said to illustrate coloniality in LL. Exploring the vitality of English, Afrikaans and African languages in the LL of rural South Africa, in a small town called Philippolis, in the Free State Province, Kotze (2010) found that

437

Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala

English dominated the LL, although it was a language used by less than 1% of the population. She concluded that the absence of signage written in African languages in the LL was an attempt by “the African community to create their new identity by power of association with the language of English, and by deliberately marginalizing their own languages in the public space”. While many languages are spoken in Botswana, among them, Mbukushu, Shona, Kalanga, Ndebele and Shekgalagadi, Molokomme’s (2011) study of the languages used in the signage in and around Parliament of Botswana found that in terms of visibility, the linguistic landscapes give the incorrect picture that English and Setswana are the only languages spoken in Botswana. Lusekelo and Alphonce (2018) in their sociolinguistic study of billboards and signage on shops in Arusha, Iringa, Kagera, Manyara and Mbeya, noted that although both are major languages, English dominates Kiswahili in urban areas in Tanzania. They conclude that the public signage space is dominated by monolingual English sign and not Kiswahili signs. Zinny (2017) explored the online public signage on different platforms and the public signage of Independence Avenue in Windhoek, Namibia, to evaluate the extent to which Namibia’s language policy and the real language practices of Namibians are reflected on commercial and non-​commercial signage. She found dominance of English signage and almost complete absence of indigenous Namibian languages. Other than Oshiwambo, none of the other Bantu or Nama and Damara languages are found in the signage. She notes that the two times that Oshiwambo appears is to warn against domestic violence. Since Oshiwambo is not used anywhere else, Zinny (2017) argues, it gives the wrong impression that domestic violence is mainly rampant in this ethnic group. Rosendal (2009) found that despite the trilingual language policy in Rwanda which stipulates Kinyarwanda, French and English as official languages, on billboards English and French were used equally, while Kinyarwanda less so. Decoloniality has been described as involving delinking which among other things is about de-​ naturalizing concepts and conceptual fields, knowledges and languages that universalize a particular reality by disrupting hegemonic ideas and practices. It is also about “the re-​construction and the restitution of silenced histories, repressed subjectivities, subalternized knowledges and languages performed by the Totality depicted under the names of modernity and rationality” (Mignolo, 2007: 451). In this conceptualization, defying colonial prescriptions through translanguaging, that is, using blends of linguistic features from named languages, and defying colonial language zoning through using so-​called ‘unofficial’ languages of the zone, in billboards and signage, can be said to represent acts of decoloniality. In Zambia, Banda and Jimaima (2015, 2017) show Bemba (zoned for the Copperbelt, Luapula, Northern and Muchinga provinces) and Tonga (zoned for the Southern Province) in signage in Lusaka, which is zoned for Nyanja. They also found signage in Mambwe and Nsenga, which are not official languages in the signage. Similarly, Costley, Kula and Marten (2022) highlight not only the increase of indigenous languages in the billboards and advertising spaces in Ndola, the second largest city in the Copperbelt Province, but also the use of Nyanja, a language not zoned for the region. Kasanga (2010) describes how the changing LL in the DRC, which before the1990s had been dominated by French with a sprinkling of Lingala, has become multilingual due to decentralization of power. With this came regional nationalism and with it multilingual linguistic landscapes as people also started using their own ethnic languages in the LL, in addition to English. Kasanga (2010) points out that the elite in the DRC have adopted French as their language of social exclusion, and as such French dominates the LL. Where English is used, it is personalized usually for attention grabbing, as very few people speak the language.

438

Multilingualism and Linguistic Landscapes

Conclusion It can be said that since conceptualization in 1997, LL as a sociolinguistic discipline has grown in terms of its theoretical orientation and tools of analysis. It has moved from a focus on language vitality and visible language in signage in urban areas, to semiosis in the material world. With this turn has also come the focus on, among others, time and space, material culture, and the semiotic ecology and multimodality of the material world. Some studies are now also adopting a multisensory approach in which sight, smell and touch among other senses are used in LL studies (Lou, 2017; Pennycook & Otsuji, 2017). Most importantly, it has become clear that the material condition of a given LL does not lay constraints on meaning-​making; rather, the assumed lack of resources leads to creativity and innovation by social actors who shape and are shaped by their LL. This entails that LL studies should be seen as the study of both the visible and the invisible or the imagined tokens used for meaning-​making. Beyond this view, the expansion of the LL enterprise implicates the digital/​online landscape as another platform that offers the display of semiotic resources in a way that even physical landscapes do not. In this way, the VLL, as it has come to be known, is a productive addition to the breadth and scope of what should constitute LL. There is no doubt that LL as a sociolinguistic inquiry will continue to grow and give further impetus to studies in multilingualism and language practices in societies. The methodological orientation has also shifted from exclusively quantitative to qualitative material ethnographic approaches, or mixed methods, but with more emphasis on the latter. The motivation for this paradigmatic shift, a shift with theoretical consequences, has been that the insistence on counting languages in LL meant that a great many voices instantiated by unscripted material culture in place have been muted. Besides, the quantitative inquiries into LL have been side-​lined because whatever percentage distribution of the language(s) we find in the public spaces, they do not faithfully represent the linguistic repertoires of social actors. However, there has been an insistence that there is a sense in which the counting of languages, when used together with the lived experiences of social actors, brings to the fore valuable insights into the LL enterprise. To overcome many of the supposed shortcomings of quantitative approaches, ethnographic-​ oriented methodological approaches have been brought into the spotlight taking different forms and shapes. A synthesis of walk, talk, gaze and photography, framed as walking and narrated walking interviews, or even driving interviews, are increasingly taking place.

Related topics Chapter 6 Materialities and ontologies; Chapter 7 Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing; Chapter 8 Multilingualism and multimodality; Chapter 11 Multilingual literacies.

Further reading Banda, F. & Jimaima, H. 2015. Semiotic ecology of linguistic landscape in rural Zambia. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 19(5): 643–​670. Jaworski, A. & Thurlow, C. Eds. 2010. Semiotic Landscapes: Image, Text, Space. London: Continuum. Shohamy, E. & Gorter, D. Eds. 2009. Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. London & New York: Routledge.

439

Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala

References Aronin, L. 2018. Theoretical underpinnings of the material culture of multilingualism. In The Material Culture of Multilingualism. L. Aronin, M. Hornsby & G. Kiliańska-​Przybyło, Eds. London: Springer. 21–​46. Aronin, L. & Ó Laoire, M. 2012. The material culture of multilingualism: moving beyond the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism. 10: 225–​235. Backhaus, P. 2007 Multilingualism in Tokyo: a look into the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism. 3(1): 52–​66. Banda, F. 2016. Towards a democratisation of new media spaces in multilingual/​multicultural Africa. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus. 49: 105–​127. Banda, F. & Jimaima, H. 2015. Semiotic ecology of linguistic landscape in rural Zambia. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 19(5): 643–​670. Banda, F. & Jimaima, H. 2017. Linguistic landscapes and the sociolinguistics of language vitality in multilingual contexts of Zambia. Multilingua. 36(5): 595–​625. Banda, F. Jimaima, H. & Mokwena, L. 2019 Semiotic remediation of Chinese signage in the linguistic landscapes of two rural areas of Zambia. In Making Signs, Translanguaging Ethnographies: Exploring Urban, Rural, and Educational Spaces. E. Adami & A. Sherris, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 74–​90. Banda, F. & Peck, A. 2014. Observatory’s linguistic landscape: semiotic appropriation and the reinvention of space. Social Semiotics. 24(3): 302–​323. Ben Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M.H. & Trumper-​Hecht, N. 2006. Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: the case of Israel. In Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism. D. Gorter, Ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 7–​30. Biró, E. 2018. More than a Facebook share: exploring virtual linguistic landscape. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica. 10(2): 181–​192. Biró, E. 2021. Speak global, sell local? Digital linguistic landscape of local small businesses in the social media. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica. 13(2): 177–​193. Blackwood, R. 2015. LL explorations and methodological challenges: analysing France’s regional languages. Linguistic Landscape. (1–​2): 38–​53. Blommaert, J. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, K.D. 2012. The linguistic landscape of educational spaces: language revitalization and schools in Southeastern Estonia. In Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape. D. Gorter, H.F. Marten & L. Van Mensel, Eds. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 281–​298. Costley, T., Kula, N. & Marten, L. 2022. Translanguaging spaces and multilingual public writing in Zambia: tracing change in the linguistic landscape of Ndola on the Copperbelt. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1–​21. DOI: 10.1080/​01434632.2022.2086985. Gorter, D. 2019a. Methods and techniques for linguistic landscape research: about definitions, core issues and technological innovations. In Expanding the Linguistic Landscape. Linguistic Diversity, Multimodality and the Use of Space as a Semiotic Resource. M. Pütz & N Mundt, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 38–​57. Gorter, D. 2019b. Language contact in the linguistic landscape. In Language Contact. An International Handbook. J. Darquennes, J.C. Salmons & W. Vandenbussche, Eds. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 431–​441. Ivkovic, D. & Lotherington, H. 2009. Multilingualism in cyberspace: conceptualising the virtual linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism. 6(1): 17–​36. Jaworski, A. & Thurlow, C. 2010. Introducing semiotic landscapes. In Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image, Space. A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow, Eds. 1–​40. London & New York: Continuum. 1–​40. Jaworski, A. & Thurlow, C. 2013. The (de-​) centering spaces of airports: framing mobility and multilingualism. In Multilingualism and the Periphery. S. Pietikainen & H. Kelly-​Holmes, Eds. New York: Oxford Academic. 54–​198. Jimaima, H. 2016. Social Structuring of Language and the Mobility of Semiotic Resources across Linguistic Landscapes in Zambia. PhD thesis. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. Jimaima, H. & Banda, F. 2021. Selling a presidential candidate: linguistic landscapes in time of presidential elections in Zambia. Social Semiotics. 31(2): 212–​229. Kasanga, L.A. 2010. Streetwise English and French advertising in multilingual D. R. Congo: symbolism, modernity, and cosmopolitanism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 206: 181–​205.

440

Multilingualism and Linguistic Landscapes Kotze, C-​R. 2010. The Linguistic Landscape of Rural South Africa after 1994: A Case Study of Philippolis. Master’s dissertation. Bloemfontein: Free State University. Kress, G.R. & Van Leeuwen, T. 1996. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London & New York: Routledge. Landry, R. & Bourhis, R.Y. 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 16(1): 23–​49. Leeman, J. & Modan, G. 2009. Commodified language in Chinatown: a contextualized approach to linguistic landscape. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 13(3): 332–​362. Li, W. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics. 39(1): 9–​30. Lou, J.J. 2016. The Linguistic Landscape of Chinatown: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lou, J.J. 2017. Spaces of consumption and senses of place: a geosemiotic analysis of three markets in Hong Kong. Social Semiotics. 27(4): 513–​531. Lusekelo, A & Alphonce, C. 2018. The linguistic landscape of urban Tanzania: an account of the language of billboards and shop-​signs in district headquarters. Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa. 9(1): 1–​28. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2007. Introduction. In Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. S. Makoni & A. Pennycook, Eds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1–​41. Maldonado-​Torres, N. 2007. On the coloniality of being. Cultural Studies. 21(2–​3): 240–​270. Matsabisa, M. 2020. A Social Semiotic Analysis of Mini-​Bus Taxis as Mobilescapes in Cape Town. PhD thesis. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. Mignolo, W.D. 2007. Delinking: the rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-​ coloniality. Cultural Studies. 21(2–​3): 449–​514. Mokwena, L. 2017. A Social Semiotic Analysis of the Linguistic Landscape of Two Rural District Municipalities in the Northern Cape, South Africa. PhD thesis. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. Mokwena, L. 2021. Blurring the boundaries between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’: oral route directions and the invention of street names in Ulco and Delportshoop. South African Geographical Journal. 103(3): 303–​318. Molokomme, N. 2011. A Multimodal Analysis of Linguistic Landscapes in and Around Parliament of Botswana. Master’s dissertation. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. Peck, A. & Stroud, C. 2015. Skinscapes. Linguistic Landscape. 1(1–​2):133–​151. Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a Local Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. & Otsuji, E. 2015. Making scents of the landscape. Linguistic Landscape. 1(3): 191–​212. Pennycook, A. & Otsuji. E. 2017. Fish, phone cards and semiotic assemblages in two Bangladeshi shops in Sydney and Tokyo. Social Semiotics. 27(4): 434–​450. Pink, S. 2008. An urban tour: the sensory sociality of ethnographic place-​ making. Ethnography. 9(2): 175–​196. Rosenbaum, Y., Nadel, E., Cooper, R.L. & Fishman, J.A. 1977. English on Keren Kayemet Street. In The Spread of English: The Sociology of English as an Additional Language. J.A Fishman, R.L. Cooper & A.W. Conrad, Eds. Rowley: Newbury House. 179–​196. Rosendal, T. 2009. Linguistic markets in Rwanda: language use in advertisements and on signs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 30(1): 19–​39. Roux, S., Peck, A. & Banda, F. 2019. Playful female skinscapes: body narrations of multilingual tattoos. International Journal of Multilingualism. 16(1): 25–​41. Scarvaglieri, C., Redder, A., Pappenhagen, R. & Brehmer, B. 2013. Capturing diversity: linguistic land-​and soundscaping. In Linguistic Superdiversity in Urban Areas: Research Approaches. J. Duarte & I. Gogolin, Eds. 45–​74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. 2003. Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London & New York: Routledge. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Abingdon: Routledge. Shohamy, E. & Gorter, D. 2009. Introduction. In Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. E. Shohamy & D. Gorter, Eds. 1–​10. London & New York: Routledge. Simungala, G.N. 2020. The Linguistic Landscape of the University of Zambia: A Social Semiotic Perspective. MA dissertation. University of Zambia. Simungala, G. & Jimaima. H. 2021. Multilingual realities of language contact at the University of Zambia. Journal of Asian and African Studies. 56(7): 1644–​57. Spolsky, B. & Cooper, R.L. 1991. The Languages of Jerusalem. Oxford: Clarendon.

441

Felix Banda and Gabriel Simungala Stroud, C. & Mpendukana, S. 2009. Towards a material ethnography of linguistic landscape: multilingualism, mobility and space in a South African township. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 13(3): 363–​386. Stroud, C. & Jegels, D. 2014. Semiotic landscapes and mobile narrations of place: performing the local. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 228: 179–​199. Tembo, P. 2020. A Semiotic Analysis of Emplaced Materialities on Public Service Vehicles in Lusaka Zambia. MA dissertation. Lusaka: The University of Zambia. Tulp, S.M. 1978. Reklame en tweetaligheid: Een onderzoek naar de geographische verspreiding van franstalige en nederlandstalige affiches in Brussel. [Commercials and bilingualism: a study into the geographic distribution of French and Dutch advertisements in Brussels]. Taal en Sociale Integratie. 1: 261–​288. Waksman, S. & Shohamy, E. 2010. Decorating the city of Tel Aviv-​Jaffa for its centennial: complementary narratives via linguistic landscape. In Linguistic Landscape in the City. E. Shohamy, E. Ben-​Rafael & M. Barni, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 57–​73. Zabrodskaja, A. & Milani, T.M. 2014. Signs in context: multilingual and multimodal texts in semiotic space. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 228: 1–​6. Zinny, D. 2017. Language and Place-​Making: Public Signage in the Linguistic Landscape of Windhoek’s Central Business District. Master’s dissertation. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.

442

AFTERWORD Marilyn Martin-​Jones

Over time, the handbook has been constructed as a key genre within each area of academic research. Handbooks are expected to provide a broad mapping of the tides and rockpools emerging across each area. Over the last 30 years, there have been major changes of an ontological and epistemological nature in sociolinguistic and socially oriented applied linguistic research on multilingualism, as different intellectual tides have come and gone across the social sciences and the humanities. So, there has been quite a lot of mapping to do in the first and second editions of The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. In our Introduction to the first edition (Martin-​Jones, Blackledge & Creese, 2012), we charted the ways in which significant new approaches to research on multilingualism had been developed in the last decade of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century, as part of a broad turn across the social sciences and humanities, towards post-​structuralist and post-​modern perspectives. We highlighted two main developments: Firstly, we traced the new lines of critical ethnographic inquiry that were being opened up by sociolinguists who were concerned with the linguistic, cultural and demographic changes ushered in by globalization, by the transformation of the global political and economic landscape, and by the economic conditions of the late modern age. These lines of inquiry included the following: (1) Research into the new discourses about languages (as sources of profit as well as pride), and into the new language and literacy practices (e.g. in call centres or in tourism), which were emerging in the wake of the far-​reaching changes in the global political and economic order, with the rise of the knowledge and service-​based economy, and with neoliberal forms of management and governance (Heller, 2010; Heller, 2011, Heller & Duchêne, 2012; Duchêne & Heller, 2012b); (2) Research developed as part of a new “sociolinguistics of mobile resources” (Blommaert, 2010), which focused on the language resources of different groups of labour migrants and refugees who were caught up in the increasing transnational population flows towards urban areas in the Global North and West. We included two main strands of this research: one strand (later documented in a fuller way by Blommaert & Rampton, 2016; Creese & Blackledge, 2018) built on the notion of “superdiversity” (Vertovec, 2007). This notion had been developed in migration studies to capture the increasingly differentiated composition, social positioning and trajectories of different groups of migrant origin. The other, related strand focused on language issues and social inequalities

443

Marilyn Martin-Jones

arising in different conditions of settlement, including issues relating to exclusion/​inclusion (Piller, 2012); interpreting in legal settings (Maryns, 2012), discourses of othering in adult education (Cooke & Simpson, 2012) and language in the workplace (Hewitt, 2012). Secondly, we documented early moves towards the unpacking of the notion of language. We echoed Heller’s (2007) call for a shift away from highly ideologized views of named languages as fixed and bounded systems to a critical approach that “privileges language as social practice, speakers as social actors and boundaries as products of social action” (2007: 1). We also made reference to early work by Makoni & Pennycook (2007) on the socially constructed nature of languages as discrete entities and “countable institutions” (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007: 2), and we included a chapter by these authors on “Disinventing multilingualism” (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012, Chapter 25). In addition, we pointed to the emergence of new conceptual compasses that were designed to capture the situated and fluid ways in which ‘multilingual’ speakers draw upon the diverse linguistic and semiotic resources in their communicative repertoires. These conceptual compasses included “crossing” (Rampton & Charalambous, 2012). “translanguaging” (García, 2009), the idea of “voice” (Blommaert, 2010), heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1981; Bailey, 2012) and “multimodality” (Kress, 2010; Lytra, 2012). Across the chapters of the volume, we then traced the ways in which these developments in theory-​building were reflected in different fields: in education, in the workplace, in legal settings, in the media, on the internet, in linguistic landscapes and in popular culture. In the first edition of this handbook, we welcomed these developments in theory-​building, and the ways in which they contributed to the broadening of the ‘socio’ component of sociolinguistics. And, with some confidence, we wrote the following on the opening page of our Introduction: “Research in multilingual settings is making a significant contribution to the forging of a new sociolinguistics, which is better attuned to the description and analysis of the profound cultural and social changes taking place in the late modern era” (Martin-​Jones, Blackledge & Creese, 2012: 1). Then, in just one decade, another major intellectual tide arose across the social sciences and the humanities. Its origins lay in the significant new lines of theory-​building around coloniality, decoloniality and epistemologies of the South (e.g. Quijano, 2007; Mignolo, 2000, 2011; Connell, 2007; de Sousa Santos, 2012; Mignolo & Walsh; 2018; Kerfoot & Hyltenstam, 2017; Deumert, Storch & Shepherd, 2020; Pennycook & Makoni, 2020; Antia & Makoni, 2022). As time passed, we became increasingly aware that the impact of these new lines of theory-​building in sociolinguistic and applied linguistic research on multilingualism needed to be captured in a second edition of the handbook. The two main developments that we had mapped in the first edition could then be viewed through significant new lenses. To ensure that this could happen, we turned to the current editors, who are all scholars based in universities in the Global South (McKinney and Makoe in South Africa, and Zavala in Peru). They have re-​imagined the purpose and content of the handbook in the ways described in the sections below and they have brought to the task considerable depth of understanding of the literature on colonialism, coloniality and epistemologies of the South, and other related fields. The final manuscript has now been submitted. It has been a privilege and an inspiration to be one of the first readers of this innovative volume. Together, McKinney, Zavala and Makoe, and the contributors to this edition, have produced a timely and distinctive new contribution to the field.

Taking account of colonialism, coloniality and language Particular prominence has been given to recent writing on the relationship between colonialism, coloniality and multilingualism. The Introduction, by McKinney, Zavala and Makoe, takes us through the broad contours of the debates about this relationship. They begin with recent research 444

Afterword

on the colonial legacies of the discipline of linguistics. They then turn to Mignolo’s (2011) account of the “darker side of western modernity”, and to the ways in which the historical processes unleashed by colonization (the appropriation of land, the extraction of natural resources and the exploitation and dehumanization of colonized peoples), laid the foundations for modernity in the North and West, and contributed to the coloniality of power which, as Quijano (2007) has shown us, has endured well beyond the fall of European empires. In addition, drawing on the work of Maldonado-​Torres (2007), they show how current racialized language hierarchies in Latin America and elsewhere in the Global South, originate from the exploitation and dehumanization of colonized people and from the deep-​rooted ideologies of superiority and inferiority circulating among colonizers. Following the imposition of colonial rule over centuries, colonized peoples were denied the opportunity to act as “communicative agents” (Veronelli, 2015) in different social and institutional spaces, or even to use and value their own names (Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo, 1986). Part I of the second edition is also dedicated to different dimensions of the relationship between colonialism, coloniality and multilingualism, and to the links between coloniality and racialized language hierarchies. Here, we read an account of the translingual nature of social interaction in the pre-​colonial era in South Asia, the subsequent impact of the imposition of a colonial regime of language, and the more recent consequences of the trend towards the neoliberal commodification of language (Liyanage and Canagarajah, Chapter 1). We see Makoni and Pennycook renewing the case for unpacking and reassembling the analytic frameworks through which multilingualism has traditionally been viewed, and for abandoning the idea that multilingualism is somehow “the same everywhere” (see Heugh & Stroud, 2021, for the original arguments regarding the adoption of the pluralized notion of Southern Multilingualisms). We also see ample exemplification of the impact of colonial legacies with regard to language, in different contemporary contexts, in the Philippines, in Peru and in the context of bilingual education in the United States. This is accompanied by critical analysis of raciolinguistic ideologies and hegemonic discourses about languages and about different groups of speakers (Kvietok Dueñas and Chaparro, Chapter 4; Tupas, Chapter 5). In addition, we gain insights into multimodal and multilingual ways in which groups of Indigenous and Afro descent, in Latin America and the Caribbean, have, over time, articulated resistance to different dimensions of coloniality, through literature, music and theatre (Lopez-​Gopar et al., Chapter 3). These chapters all demonstrate the value of a shift of focus to Southern multilingualisms, with a view to building a fuller understanding of the ways in which language is embedded in different historical, social and cultural contexts. We also see why there needs to be a shift towards “pluralizing multilingualisms” and “pluralizing language”, as Makoni and Pennycook put it in Chapter 2, and towards the development of more appropriate metalanguage. The rest of the volume includes a significant number of contributions related to theory-​building and empirical research undertaken in different regions of the Global South: the chapters by Tyler and Set (Chapter 8), Leppänen and Sultana (Chapter 12), Williams (Chapter 22), hMensa and Kelly Holmes (Chapter 23) and Banda and Simungala (Chapter 28). New voices from Africa, Southeast Asia, the Indian Sub-​Continent, South and Central America and the Caribbean are encountered across the pages, alongside those of established scholars from the Global South, and from the Global North and West. This is due to the fact that, in planning this edition, McKinney, Zavala and Makoe set out to “increase the visibility of research from the Global South as well as to foreground Southern epistemologies”, as they note in their Introduction. They also invited contributors to consider co-​authoring with one or more scholars engaged in research in the Global South and, where possible, to cite in their chapters publications by Southern researchers. The concept of Global South has been used in its broadest sense, following de Sousa Santos (2012: 51), not as a geopolitical notion, but as a metaphor: “It is a South that also exists in the global North, in the 445

Marilyn Martin-Jones

form of excluded, silenced and marginalized populations.” Reflecting this, there are also chapters that relate to marginalized populations in the Global North, including Indigenous populations (e.g. the chapter by May); minoritized groups (e.g. the chapters by García et al; Kraft and Flubacher; Maryns et al.). The inclusive strategy guiding the editing of this volume has made a significant difference in terms of the number of participants and the opportunities for collaboration: There were 46 contributors to the first edition and 19 of the chapters were single-​authored. In contrast, there are 65 contributors to this second edition, with just seven of the chapters being single-​authored and with seven chapters having three or more authors. Thus, the writing of a significant number of the chapters must have involved collaboration and dialogue between authors.

Taking account of multilingualism and education in Global South contexts The six chapters in Part III are devoted to this theme. The principal focus of these chapters is on multilingualism and education in Global South contexts, in countries and regions where the legacies of colonization are still evident, and in urban neighbourhoods and rural areas in different geopolitical regions of the Global North where there are different forms of educational provision for historically minoritized groups. The chapters take different forms. They include: (1) critical historical accounts of language-​in-​education policymaking and practice, from the colonial period to the present (Ayala et al., Chapter 13; Chimbutane, Chapter 14). Both of these chapters are framed with reference to transdisciplinary lines of theory-​building in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics; (2) accounts of recent educational initiatives and proposed pedagogic strategies aimed at creating and conserving implementational and ideological spaces for translingual learning and teaching practices, and for addressing the diverse knowledge systems of learners (Phyak et al., Chapter 15; le Roux and Makoe, Chapter 16); (3) accounts of survey work and overviews of current research (Asfaha, Spotti, & Idris, Chapter 17; Henderson et al., Chapter 18). In this part of the volume, issues relating to multilingualism in different sectors of education are addressed in detail. The chapters cover Indigenous education, public schooling at primary and secondary levels, and university education. There are also references to a wide range of settings in the Global South, in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Here, again, the Global South is understood in its broadest sense, so there are also references to forms of educational provision in geopolitical regions of the Global North, principally in urban settings in the United States and in Hawaii. In Part II, entitled: ‘Concepts and Theories in Multilingualism’, there are five chapters which provide particularly detailed, up-​to-​date accounts of key lines of theory-​building and empirical work that are highly relevant to language-​in-​education policymaking and practice in Global South contexts. The focus of these five chapters is on the following areas of theory-​building and research in sociolinguistics and socially-​oriented applied linguistics: (1) translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing (Turner and Lin, Chapter 7); (2) multilingualism and multimodality (Tyler and Set, Chapter 8); (3) Indigenous language and education rights (May, Chapter 9); (4) linguistic citizenship (Stroud, Chapter 10); and (5) multilingual literacies (Warriner et al., Chapter 11). All these chapters provide examples of ways in which particular lines of theory-​building and particular conceptual compasses have guided empirical work or generated debate. One chapter in this part of the volume (Chapter 8 by Tyler and Set) ties in closely with the chapters in Part III, since the two authors devote a substantial section of their chapter to examples from their own research into multilingual and multimodal interaction in science classrooms and they discuss and illustrate these examples in some detail. The examples are taken from Tyler’s study of interaction 446

Afterword

between students involved in group work in a secondary school in South Africa, and from Set’s study of teacher-​led science lessons in Namibia. By drawing on the fine detail of their analyses of classroom interaction, these authors make a strong case for taking account of multimodality, trans-​semiotizing and whole-​body sense-​making in such learning contexts. They also share with the readers their innovative approach to transcription, which takes account of multimodality. Finally, in Part III of the volume, there are conceptual links across chapters which reveal the ways in which different lines of theory-​building are coming together. In Chapter 14, Chimbutane provides a critique of the enduring coloniality of power manifested in the adoption of the languages of former European colonizers in designing language-​in-​education policies in African countries, and in the representation of multilingualism as a problem for the building of the nation-​state. He also draws attention to the consequences of these language ideologies and to the ways in which they contribute to the reproduction of social inequalities and the privileging of those who speak the former colonial language. Then, in the final section of his chapter, he turns to recent ways of thinking otherwise about language policymaking in multilingual contexts. One of the conceptual compasses that he turns to is that of “linguistic citizenship” (Stroud, 2001, 2015, 2018). This concept is also discussed in detail in Chapter 10. It was originally developed by Stroud while he was engaged in research related to the production of educational primers in African languages in the late 1990s. Thus, as he recalls, the development of the notion of linguistic citizenship was “a Southern, decolonial project” (Stroud, 2018: 18) from the outset. It constituted an attempt to move away from a narrow, modernist definition of citizenship and to focus on local, agentive ‘acts of citizenship’ and expressions of voice and identity. It also constituted a move away from the idea of language as a fixed code to one that takes account of fluid communicative practices, involving different styles of speaking and forms of semiosis. This concept has particular relevance for debates about language-​in-​education policies and practices in the Global South. As Stroud argues in Chapter 10 of this edition: Linguistic citizenship … is an attempt to work through a blueprint for language for navigating living the complexities of a diverse and difficult world in conviviality (and convivial contest) with different Others. It is a disruptive engagement with the ‘coloniality of language’ involving the expansion and retooling of available linguistic resources. From a methodological and epistemic perspective, it sits comfortably with southern epistemology.

Taking account of new lines of inquiry In addition to providing a new orientation for the handbook –​to coloniality and decoloniality in the study of multilingualism in Global South contexts –​McKinney, Zavala and Makoe also draw attention to other intellectual tides that have begun to come over the horizon in the last decade. This includes recent writing on language materiality, new materialities and post-​humanism, language and (in)securitization, and multilingualism during the COVID-​19 pandemic. These are all significant developments in the field of sociolinguistics and socially oriented applied linguistics, so I will consider each of these new lines of theory-​building and empirical research in the sections below.

Language materiality, new materialities and post-​humanism A section of the Introduction is devoted to the new lines of theory-​building around these three concepts and detailed consideration is given to their implications for research on multilingualism, languaging and contemporary forms of communication. A chapter by Kell and Budach is also 447

Marilyn Martin-Jones

included in Part II of the handbook (Chapter 6). This deals with the implications of these new lines of thought in greater depth. In these two spaces within the handbook, we encounter the following lines of argument: firstly, it is argued that, within the Northern tradition of knowledge-​building, language is represented as being separate from the material world and it is seen as differentiating humans from other living things. As McKinney, Zavala and Makoe put it in their Introduction: “the hallmark of structural linguistics has been the dematerialization of language, which was aligned with the emphasis of the European Enlightenment on rational thought and representationalism”. Secondly, it is argued that attending to the materiality of language and post-​humanist thinking enables us to question the separation of language from the material world and to begin to recognize the ways in which humans are entangled with the environment, with other forms of life and with the material world (e.g. objects, artefacts, places and spaces). Thirdly, as Kell and Budach point out, recent changes in the conceptual compasses employed in research on multilingualism index wider moves towards making the body more visible as a resource for meaning-​making. The concepts they refer to include the shift from translanguaging to transsemiotizing (Lin, 2015) and from communicative repertoire to semiotic repertoire (Kusters et al., 2017). In addition, the term ‘assemblages’ has been proposed (Pennycook, 2018) as a means of taking account of the diverse range of meaning-​making resources that are employed in contemporary social life. Lastly, Kell and Budach make the innovative observation that there are some clear synergies between these lines of post-​humanist thought about language and recent writing on southern epistemologies and forms of knowledge about language. In future empirical work, it will be interesting to observe the extent to which such synergies are identified.

(In)securitization as another mode of governance In recent years, there has been considerable empirical work of a critical ethnographic nature in the Global North which has focused on political discourses, on policymaking with regard to language and migration and on the impact of policymaking on different societal institutions. When the first edition of the handbook appeared, Cooke and Simpson (2012) wrote about the ways in which political and security concerns had become commonplace in discourse about adult language education provision in the United Kingdom (UK) –​ in Adult ESOL classes (English to Speakers of Other Languages) and in citizenship classes. Three years later, Simpson and Whiteside (2015) documented the changing policy agendas and practices with regard to migration and adult language education in nine different nation-​states in the Global North. Then, in 2017, Khan provided a detailed account of the events and processes involved in the redefinition of Adult ESOL provision in the UK as “a process of integration rather than education” (Khan, 2017: 314). He also pointed out that, with the increasing requirement placed on ESOL teachers to check their students’ immigration status, they were being positioned as part of a wider border force. Reflecting on processes such as these, Khan (2017) concluded that: “Language has featured both as the object of regulative intervention and as a prominent medium for the political articulation of security concerns” (2017: 315). Some sociolinguists and socially oriented applied linguists who have been documenting these changes have been engaging with new lines of theory-​building within the social sciences. In the field of security studies, there has been a shift from an orientation to security issues at the level of the nation-​state and national borders to social, ideological and political processes that lead to the identification of threats to local populations, to the construction of emergency measures and to “the suspension of normal politics” (McDonald, 2008: 567). The adoption of the term ‘securitization’ indexes this shift of focus to the social, ideological and political processes involved. In their 448

Afterword

chapter for this second edition of the handbook, Rampton et al. (Chapter 20) quote the following definition of securitization by a social scientist: “A practice of making ‘enemy’ and ‘fear’ the integrative energetic principle of politics displacing the democratic principles of freedom and justice” (Huysmans, 2014:3). They also note that the term ‘(in)securitization’ is frequently used to take account of the fact that “security to one person can be insecurity to another”. (In)securitization is now a growing strand of research within the sociolinguistics of multilingualism. The inclusion of a chapter in this second edition of the handbook reflects this development. Language education has also been bound up with de-​securitization, as we see from Chapter 20, and from more than two decades of research by Charalambous, in post-​conflict settings in Cyprus (see the references to some of her work at the end of Chapter 20). In this rich body of work by Charalambous, we see how Turkish classes in Greek Cypriot secondary schools have been constructed as precarious spaces for de-​securitization in the aftermath of war. This work builds on detailed ethnographic research into the communicative practices of teachers and learners and into their views of language. Also, in Chapter 20 of this edition, we read about research into language and securitization processes at work in a Global South context –​ in Brazil. Silva’s account draws on ethnographic research carried out in a favela on the social margins of the city of Rio de Janeiro, during a security clampdown prior to two international events in the city: The 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics. This research provided revealing insights into the nature of the code of silence emerging among the favela residents following this violent clampdown by police. Some of the authors cited above have called for more research into the entanglement of language and securitization. As Khan (2017) has put it: “Security is in fact now a multi-​faceted and omni-​pervasive dynamic in contemporary social life, meriting much more extensive critical attention than sociolinguists have so far given” (2017: 316).

Multilingualism during the COVID-​19 pandemic The second edition of the handbook also includes ground-​breaking research arising out of the COVID-​ 19 pandemic. Two chapters focus on this development. Firstly, Henderson et al., (Chapter 18) consider the impact of the pandemic on education in different national contexts, focusing specifically on language education. The authors draw on a range of sources of information, ranging from newspapers and blogs to government documents and research reports. Between them, they had command of nine languages, and this enabled them to access sources in Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Turkey and the United States. In this chapter, we learn that three main issues arose during these first attempts at gathering information in each of these contexts: (1) the challenge for learners in gaining access to learning materials due to the move towards distance learning; (2) Issues of equity, especially with regard to learners in minoritized groups; (3) the impact on key stakeholders. These initial findings offer valuable starting points for more detailed research into the lived experiences of learners in specific local contexts. Secondly, Li et al. (Chapter 25) present a detailed account of the ways in which emergency language and information services were developed in one country –​in China –​during the COVID-​19 pandemic. We see that emergency language centres were established in universities, and that a significant corpus of health-​related materials was developed in different languages. We also learn that the range of languages that could be represented in these materials was due to pre-​COVID investment in the establishment of one or more language programmes at Chinese universities. Through this detailed, country-​specific account, several general challenges for the future are identified. The authors show that governmental authorities and non-​governmental bodies providing multilingual 449

Marilyn Martin-Jones

language and information services during emergencies need to take account of issues such as the following: (1) the provision of information in an appropriate range of languages; (2) English-​ centred communication needs to be problematized; (3) language service provision needs to be guaranteed; and (4) the quality of the translation needs to be ensured, with regard to both linguistic and cultural factors. As I write this Afterword, a major earthquake in southern Turkey and northern Syria is breaking news. This is a painful reminder of the vitally important nature of this area of research on language policy and planning in multilingual regions. The regions where the earthquake took place are both multilingual regions and emergency teams are arriving from many different countries in the world. The need for language and information services and for interpreting in medical settings will be immense.

Taking forward lines of research presented in the first edition In addition to introducing the new areas of theory-​building and empirical work discussed above, this second edition of The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism provides valuable updates and details of new research in the areas of critical ethnographic inquiry that were addressed in the first edition. These include: (1) research into the discourse and practices emerging in the political and economic conditions of the late modern age and the rise of the new economy; (2) research and theory-​building in the field of interpreting, including new reflections on the links between the field of translation studies and the sociolinguistics of multilingualism; (3) research into multilingualism, the media and digital practices; (4) the study of multilingualism in linguistic landscapes; and (5) the ongoing critique (in most of the fields listed above) of the highly ideologized view of language as a fixed and bounded system and the new focus on the fluid and situated ways in which speakers draw on the communicative resources within their repertoires. These updates are accompanied by valuable reflections and clearly articulated points of view on the issues raised by recent theory-​building and empirical work.

Language in the political and economic conditions of the late modern age In this second edition, one section of the Introduction is devoted to recent research into the ways in which the rise of the new economy and the development of neoliberal forms of governance have impacted on the sociolinguistic order, on discourse about language and on communicative practices in multilingual settings. Echoing the lines of argument made by Duchêne and Heller (2012a) in their chapter for the first edition of the handbook, and in their volume Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit, published in the same year (Duchêne & Heller, 2012b), McKinney, Zavala and Makoe refer to the tension between different discourses about language and the implications of this tension. They rightly observe that the discursive trope of ‘pride’ generally surfaces along with discourses about language rights, identity and about the preservation or revitalization of historically minoritized languages, and that these discourses generally arise within national contexts, or within regions within nation-​states. In contrast, they point out that the discursive trope of ‘profit’ has a wider reach, and particular linguistic and cultural resources come to be viewed as having added value on different linguistic markets within and beyond the nation-​ state. In addition, they note that, in the last decade, there has been increased research interest in the commodification of languages ‘for profit’ and they cite research that has been conducted in a wide range of fields, from tourism to the labour market and to education. Thus, for example, there has been considerable interest in the development of one particular form of language education 450

Afterword

provision, namely Content and Language-​Integrated Learning (CLIL) and, in particular, in the ways in which CLIL contributes to the promotion of English in and through education (for details of the critique of CLIL, see Codó, 2023). McKinney, Zavala and Makoe rightly point out that most of this research has been based in the Global North, and in particular, in Western Europe. While this latter observation is accurate, there are now signs of critical research of this kind emerging in Global South contexts, particularly in the domains of language education and language education policy. For example, a recent volume on language education in Colombia (Miranda et al., 2023) has put forward powerful critical analysis of national educational policy moves towards the promotion of English, alongside Spanish, in the public educational system, in a policy initiative for public schools entitled Colombia Bilingüe (Bilingual Colombia) (2014–​2018), while Indigenous languages are confined to the margins. This language policy initiative, and an earlier one entitled Programa Nacional de Bilinguismo (National Bilingual Programme) (2004–​2019), have been adopted with a view to facilitating employment in the growing service sector and tourist industries and opening access to global labour markets. The chapter by Martin Rojo (Chapter 19) provides an overview of new lines of sociolinguistic and linguistic anthropological research that have developed in different parts of the world since the original work on multilingualism and the new economy. It also discusses in detail the theoretical foundations of this work in the social sciences, focusing on forms of global capitalism, the social transformations taking place within the new economic order and the emergence of neoliberal forms of governance. Throughout this chapter, there are references to recent research into discourses and practices infolding in different social and institutional contexts: in governmental language policymaking, in language education programmes, in particular kinds of workplace (e.g. call centres) and on non-​governmental organization. We also see how market practices, such as outsourcing, show up in the provision of public services (such as interpreting in legal and medical settings), which are increasingly outsourced to private companies, with a related impact on quality. Martin Rojo also draws on the research that she herself has been conducting for well over a decade in different sectors of education in Madrid. The chapter by Kraft and Flubacher (Chapter 24) focuses on one particular site –​that of the workplace –​where the social transformations ushered in by the new economy have been investigated, along with their consequences in terms of language practices and ideologies and in terms of the social positioning of speakers of different languages. This is an area of research that has expanded considerably in the last decade, with a particular focus on the lived experiences of migrant workers in different kinds of workplaces. In this chapter, Kraft and Flubacher present a well-​documented review of research in this area, and they offer valuable reflections on the ways in which the dynamics of communication play out in different kinds of workplaces that have been investigated. These include: (1) workplaces where language learning can take place; (2) workplaces which are spaces where multilingualism is valued; and (3) workplaces where there is an ordering of multilingual resources. They also emphasize that “These spaces are governed by language ideologies related to the interplay of nationalisms and internationalisms, that do not disable access to work per se, but can enforce hierarchies and cause additional, unevenly distributed work”. I turn now to higher education as a workplace and to the chapter by Curry et al. (Chapter 21). One of the well-​documented consequences of the growth of a globalized knowledge economy, of the increased competition within the university sector and of the development of neoliberal forms of governance in higher education has been the increased pressure on academics to publish in English (Curry & Lillis, 2004, Lillis & Curry, 2010). There is now a significant literature on the ways in which the hegemony of English in academic publishing plays out. The chapter by Curry et al. offers an alternative perspective. As they put it, they aim to “foreground the ways 451

Marilyn Martin-Jones

that multilingualism is embedded in scholars’ research and text production practice and its epistemological/​intellectual value”. Drawing on online resources (e.g. the Directory of Open Access Journals) and on two decades of textual and ethnographic research, these authors provide an overview of the ways in which researchers employ languages other than English at different stages of their research: In the design of their projects, in drawing on different reading resources, in face-​to-​face or online communication with colleagues, in carrying out fieldwork, in writing up the research in different genres and in disseminating their research to research participants and/​or local communities (in textual or digital form or via videos). They demonstrate that the use of languages other than English is often seen to be more relevant to local issues or phenomena, and that this is more common in the social sciences and humanities, where “multilingual scholars … may identify strongly with local or regional disciplinary, intellectual and epistemological traditions”. In concluding, the authors note that the move towards online journal production opens up possibilities for journals to produce different versions of articles in different languages.

Interpreting and translation in multilingual societies The original chapter by Maryns in the first edition of the handbook provided broad research insights into institutional practices and language ideologies in different legal settings where court interpreting was organized. Here, in this chapter by Maryns et al. (Chapter 26), the research lens focuses in on interpreting in asylum and migration procedures, in legal settings where refugees from the Global South are applying for refuge in countries in the Global North (in this case, Belgium and Australia). As we see, the chapter presents detailed analysis of interactional data recorded in two different types of legal encounter: During client meetings prior to a formal asylum hearing; and during formal asylum interviews. The distinction between these two types of speech events is brought out through the use of Goffman’s (1999) metaphor. They are described as ‘backstage’ and ‘frontstage’ encounters. The main body of research data comes from asylum settings in Belgium (where French and Flemish are official languages) but because they have been involved in international research collaboration, Maryns, Smith-​Khan and Jacobs are able to draw out revealing comparisons and contrasts with research into asylum procedures in Australia. They show that, when it comes to the choice and actual use of a particular language for interpreting, the complex multilingual repertoires of asylum seekers (including varieties of named languages and language resources acquired on the move) “run up against a conception of multilingualism that assumes full proficiency in at least one of the languages of the multilingual repertoire”. Since only one named language can be selected for interpreting, this has significant consequences for legal outcomes. They also show how different language ideologies emerge during backstage and frontstage encounters, including views about ‘native languages’ and ‘national languages’, along with “deeply ideologized interpretations of the relationship between language and identity”. This is a significant area of research for our times and requires considerable transdisciplinary collaboration. Opportunities for social and institutional change can only come through research that, in this case, involves close collaboration with backstage legal practitioners who are committed to change. In this second edition of The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism, the chapter on interpreting in multilingual settings is complemented by a chapter on translation by Angermeyer (Chapter 27). This is a well-​placed and thought-​provoking addition. It sets research on interpreting and translation in a wider disciplinary context, by demonstrating the affinities between research in translation, sociolinguistics, socially oriented applied linguistics and linguistic anthropology. Angermeyer does, however, note that it is linguistic anthropology that has devoted most attention to translation, 452

Afterword

since within this discipline, translation is “sometimes taken as a metaphor for the ethnographic research process”. The chapter provides broad coverage of lines of empirical work, ranging from critical historical analysis of the role of translation in the context of European colonialism and its impact on Indigenous languages, to contemporary research into translation and interpreting in contemporary institutional contexts. We learn that the closest links between translation studies and sociolinguistics have been forged through the development of research into interpreter-​mediated interaction –​the field that has been included in the Handbook since the first edition. In concluding, Angermeyer anticipates greater cross-​disciplinary collaboration and highlights the benefits that would accrue from this kind of collaboration: This would, for example, facilitate more in-​depth study of interpreting and translation practices in multilingual settings and make it possible to build a fuller understanding of the way such practices contribute to the construction and reproduction of social inequalities. As he puts it: “The power asymmetry inherent in many multilingual settings is directly reflected in translational practices, that is, in the question of what gets translated by whom and how.”

Multilingualism, media, mediatized texts and digitization In the first edition of the handbook, the chapter on ‘Multilingualism in the media’, by Kelly-​ Holmes, was placed in a section on ‘Multilingualism in other institutional sites’. In this second edition, a new co-​authored chapter, by hMensa and Kelly Holmes (Chapter 23) has a more appropriate place in Part IV, which focuses on ‘Multilingualism in social and cultural change’. As these authors point out in their concluding section: “The technological evolution since the original chapter was written is phenomenal and has changed so much in terms of multilingualism. This is constantly changing and it is hard to keep up with the pace.” In this chapter, they trace the change from monolingual institutions which produced media texts that had been designed for mass delivery by a public or private media channel to mediatized texts which are individually produced, circulated to different audiences (small or large) and can become complex translingual spaces. They point out that, despite recent developments in research in the Global South, the theory-​building in this field has largely taken place in Global North contexts. They then demonstrate the value of adopting Global South perspectives with reference to media texts such as advertising, arguing that, in these texts, local multilingualisms are more visible, and adverts are produced in ways that capture these multiligualisms in a process of “designed indexicality”. The chapter by Leppänen and Sultana (Chapter 12) turns our attention to critical ethnographic research into digital multilingualism. Following a seminal volume by Lee (2016), Leppänen and Sultana distinguish between the screen-​based study of language use (as in internet pragmatics or digital (multi-​modal) discourse studies) and the study of online digital practices and/​or practices that “span digital and physical spheres”. In the remainder of the chapter, they provide one of the best reviews of this burgeoning field that I have read recently. It is lucid, well written and informative. It covers recent theory-​building and empirical work and if we read this chapter in conjunction with the chapter by Leppänen and Peuronen (2012), (Chapter 22 in the first edition of the handbook), entitled ‘Multilingualism on the Internet’ we get a keen sense of how rapidly this field has developed, over the last decade or so. The chapter covers six areas of empirical work which take account of the links between digital practices, the communicative resources employed, the wider social context and the social and cultural meanings associated with the resources: (1) identity work in digital media; (2) norms (e.g. netiquettes) and institutional or governmental policies, regulating or enabling multilingualism; 453

Marilyn Martin-Jones

(3) digital multilingualism, moral panics and hate discourses; (4) digital practice in the service of -​isms; (5) digital discourse that is employed in resistance to verbal abuse and hate discourses; and (6) digital multilingualism and translocal activities as a form of language learning. Several of these areas of empirical work are illustrated with reference to research in the Global South, carried out by Sultana and others in Bangladesh. Taking account of insights from this research in the Global South, Leppänen and Sultana emphasize that the ethnographic study of digital multilingual practices needs to involve multi-​layered analysis, which takes account of the social, cultural, historical, political and ideological context. As they put it: “Such an analysis needs to be viewed as decoloniality as a praxis that aims at … identifying the power of the colonial matrix –​the language and multimodal performances, styles and discourse imposed by it –​and rethinking, unlearning and countering them”. The list of areas of empirical work cited above is designed to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. Readers will, of course, think of other areas of empirical work. I would also like to mention one area of research into digital multilingualism that I have come across in the last few years. This is ethnographic research with members of transnational families who are engaged in regular digital communication, drawing on multilingual and multimodal resources, and on different devices, using spoken, written and multimodal resources so as to maintain diasporic ties. This research is moving in some promising directions, both conceptually and methodologically (e.g. Lexander & Androutsopoulos, 2023).

Linguistic landscapes The chapter by Banda and Simungala (Chapter 28), in this second edition of the Handbook, provides us with a particularly rich and well documented account of the new directions that have been taken in this multidisciplinary field of research. It starts out from some of the foundations described in the first edition and then opens up some highly innovative new lines of inquiry. The authors are clearly familiar with the range of conceptual and empirical work in this field and they have also made significant contributions to it, focusing on contexts in the Global South and portraying the “semiotic ecology” of meaning-​making in linguistic landscapes (Banda and Jimaima, 2015). They have also conducted research in rural landscapes and in rapidly changing urban landscapes in the Global South, and have applied a “walking in place” methodology, bringing together “walk, talk, gaze and photography”. This is designed to build a collaborative account of research participants’ “individualized experiences of emplaced materialities”. A substantial proportion of the studies referred to in this chapter were conducted in Global South contexts, largely in Zambia and South Africa, either by the authors themselves or other researchers. In keeping with the main aims of this volume, the original nature of this work by Southern scholars is made visible, along with its potential for shedding light on enduring aspects of linguistic coloniality in linguistic landscapes and on local acts of resistance.

Reflections on ongoing debates about fixity and fluidity in language One of the strengths of this second edition of the handbook lies in the reflections set out in the Introduction regarding the ongoing debate about fixity and fluidity in language. These reflections span three sections of the Introduction, evidencing their current significance for the field. These sections are headed as follows: (1) problematizing multilingualism: from plurality to complexity and beyond; (2) the consequences of fluid, spatial and materiality of languaging; and (3) limits and possibilities of translanguaging. I will discuss the reflections offered in each of the sections in turn. 454

Afterword

The starting points for the reflections, in the first section, are with the deconstruction of the modernist notion of language, as a fixed and bounded entity –​a theme that has been discussed in both editions of the handbook –​and with the turn, across the field of multilingualism, towards the forging of new conceptual compasses for research into languaging and into the fluidity involved in the use of diverse linguistic and semiotic resources. This is followed by a thought-​provoking discussion of the significance of this turn. Blommaert (2013: 614) referred to it as “an epistemological rupture” due to the fact that so many different conceptual compasses emerged, as scholars acknowledged and endeavoured to grapple with the complex nature of multilingual and multimodal communication in different contexts. McKinney, Zavala and Makoe provide a chronologically ordered list of some of the conceptual compasses that have appeared in the literature since Jorgensøn’s (2008) original notions of polylanguaging and polylingual languaging. They include much-​ cited concepts such as translanguaging (García & Li, 2014) and trans-​semiotizing (Lin, 2019). They also include concepts designed to take account of the fluid blending of different communicative resources and orthographies in written communication, on and offline –​concepts such as translingualism (Canagarajah, 2013) and multiscriptality (Choksi, 2015), transcripting (Androutsopoulos, 2015) and transglossia, the term introduced by Leppanen and Sultana in Chapter 12 of this edition of the handbook. In addition, they include the fuller term ubuntu translanguaging, adopted by Makalela (2019: 238), in his research into classroom discourse, in urban and rural schools in South Africa, so as to capture the local significance of heteroglossic communication in these school contexts and to stress the “infinite relations of dependency between various uses of linguistic resources employed in classroom discourse”. The term ubuntu indexes interconnectedness. In this section of the Introduction, we also see that another line of thinking has emerged from research in the Global South: this is that greater attention needs to be paid to sensory knowledge in the study of interaction (Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021). In keeping with this line of argument, in Chapter 10 of this volume, Stroud argues for a broader phenomenological view of multilingual communication which incorporates sensory knowledge as well as resources from linguistic and semiotic resources. McKinney, Zavala and Makoe conclude this well-​documented review of ongoing ontological shifts within research on multilingualism by emphasizing the impossibility of arguing that the term multilingualism carries the same meaning in different social and cultural contexts and, following the lines of argument put forward by Makoni and Pennycook in Chapter 2, they note that the very notion of language needs to be pluralized. Having surveyed the range of new conceptual compasses that have been proposed as a means to address the complex realities of languaging in different social and geopolitical contexts and having considered the implications for the study of language of the recent ontological turns towards post-​ humanism and new materiality, McKinney, Zavala and Makoe turn, later in their Introduction, to a discussion of the distinction between fixity and fluidity in language. They comment first on the somewhat limiting nature of reliance on binaries in our thinking about language and they endorse the call made by Pietikainen (2016: 237) for a shift of focus “from binaries and dichotomies to a more complex terrain of multiplicity”. They then go on to show that, in some social and cultural contexts, it is not simply a matter of choosing between a view of language as “fixed” or as “fluid, heteroglossic communicative practice”. Firstly, they refer to educational settings where students from minoritized or Indigenous communities have no option but to invest in the idea that there are such things as fixed, named languages, so as to avoid marginalization or exclusion. Students positioned in this way need to make such investments because, as Jaspers and Madsen (2016: 327) have argued, we live in a “languagised world”. Modernist ideologies of language are still widespread in educational settings where a national or former colonial language is the 455

Marilyn Martin-Jones

sole language of schooling. Secondly, they refer to language revitalization or minority language programmes, where adherence to the use of fixed, named languages in education gives that language greater visibility and legitimacy. In making the case for viewing language as both fixed and fluid entities, McKinney, Zavala and Makoe draw on Mignolo’s (2018: x) notion of pluriversality, or “the entanglement of several cosmologies connected today in a power differential”. They argue that it enables us to “understand the entanglement of colonial invention of languages, the need for disinvention as well as the utility of named languages to resist further erasure and silencing”. In a particularly well-​argued final section, McKinney, Zavala and Makoe weigh up the limits and potential of the use of terms such as translanguaging in research on heteroglossic practices in educational settings. They do so by bringing in recent reviews of this field. Here, following Jaspers and Madsen (2016: 235), they point to the dangers of “conceptual over-​reach” in the use of particular conceptual compasses and in their use for different purposes –​for descriptive ontological, political and pedagogical purposes. They also review and endorse recent critiques relating to generalised claims about the transformative potential of translanguaging and, drawing on McKinney and Tyler (2019), they make the important observation that: “No communicative practice is by definition transformative (or constraining).” They then go on to comment as follows: “Transformative effects need to be empirically demonstrated and will depend on how the languaging practice is implemented or used in a particular sociopolitical and historical context.” In addition, they point to research conducted with marginalized minority and endangered languages where there have been calls for “breathing spaces” for monolingual practices so that learners can have greater opportunities to learn to use the languages, or for discourses about fixity to be addressed as part of a wider political project.

Critical ethnography: taking stock of methodological developments and looking ahead Thus far, my main focus has been on the significant paradigm shifts and new lines of inquiry that have been charted in detail in the first two editions of The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. In this section, I turn to the nature and scope of developments in critical and ethnographic research methodologies over the research periods covered in the two published editions of the handbook, and I reflect on some of the challenges ahead. In her contribution to a volume on research methodology, McCarty (2015) referred to ethnography as “a way of seeing” and as a “way of looking based on long, term, first hand fieldwork” (2015: 81). Then, alluding to the ethical and political dimensions of the relationship between researcher and researched, between linguist and speaker, she added that “ethnography also involves social inquiry that is humanizing, democratizing and anti-​hegemonic” –​what we might call a “way of being a researcher” (ibid.).1 Since I have focused primarily on “ways of seeing” language and multilingualism in contemporary social life thus far, I will focus here on the increasing diversity in “ways of looking”, and on recent debates about “ways of being” a researcher in different sites. The research period covered by the first edition of the handbook (roughly 1990 to 2012) saw considerable innovation in critical and ethnographic research relating to multilingualism. Innovations were guided by the ways in which the gazes of researchers were oriented and by the particular conceptual compasses they had adopted. Thus, for example, those who were concerned with the linguistic, cultural and demographic changes ushered in by globalization, and with the intensification of transnational population flows, and who were working with concepts such as mobility and trajectories, took up the notion of “multi-​sited ethnography” (Marcus, 1995). Those concerned with digital literacies and uses of multilingual texts developed specific methods for doing “online 456

Afterword

ethnography” (e.g. Leppänen & Kytölä, 2017). In a further broadening of research methodology, some interpretive approaches, with origins in different fields of study, were combined with ethnography. Take, for example, the linking of narrative analysis with ethnography (Baynham & De Fina, 2005). There was also a significant broadening in the range of research methods for data gathering and data analysis in this period (for examples, see Gardner & Martin-​Jones, 2012; Martin-​Jones & Martin, 2017; Heller et al. 2018). Along with the long-​established data-​gathering methods of participant observation, the taking of field notes, audio-​ and video-​recording of interviews and moments of interaction, and the production of transcripts, we saw the production of a wider range of fieldwork texts, such as vignettes, researcher narratives, participant diaries and transcripts of diary-​based interviews. We also saw significant moves towards the use of visual and multimodal data gathering methods. Take, for example, the innovative use of drawings by Busch (2006) in her work on language repertoires and biographies. In addition, we saw a distinct multilingual turn in research practice, with individual researchers drawing attention to the role of language and semiosis in knowledge-​building in multilingual teams and foregrounding their own use of multilingual resources in their research practice. This broadening of the scope and depth of ethnographic work came with greater reflexivity, in the two decades or so covered in the first edition of the handbook. It also came with greater commitment to bringing the voices of research participants into the development of research narratives. While the principal aim of ethnography, in different traditions, had long been to build an understanding of the emic perspectives and values of research participants, with greater reflexivity, there was a new emphasis on the social positioning of researchers, and on their perspectives and values, particularly in research focusing on the linguistic and/​or textual processes involved in the construction of social inequalities. There were new debates about the potential role of researchers in contributing to social change, in collaboration with research participants. May (1997) described critical ethnography as “simultaneously hermeneutic and emancipating” (1997: 197). More recently, there has been considerable reflection, in educational research in particular, regarding ways of rethinking the design of projects, in the Global North and Global South, with a view to facilitating researcher/​ practitioner collaboration (e.g. Johnson, 2013; de Korne & Hornberger, 2017). Researchers working in this vein have pondered the ways in which new “epistemological circles of activity” (Van der Aa & Blommaert, 2017: 269) might be opened up, and they have provided illustrations of how such circles of activity could serve as a means of achieving “epistemic solidarity” (ibid.). This second edition of the handbook opens up significant new terrain on which the project of achieving epistemic solidarity is being undertaken. It provides us with a very well documented account of key contributions to the challenging of the power of coloniality in the building of knowledge, and to the unmaking of the discipline of linguistics: There are ample references to its role in codifying languages, in constructing and imposing discourses about language, about particular languages and about multilingualism; and in constructing the Global South primarily as a field site for extractive forms of linguistic research. The chapters in this edition also provide examples of collaborative research practice in different local contexts in the Global South aimed at achieving epistemic solidarity, with historically minoritized groups and Indigenous groups (e.g. Gandulfo & Unamuno, 2020). However, there is still much work to be done, across the globe. As Deumert & Storch (2020) remind us, in their introduction to the volume entitled: Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledge and Episteme (Deumert, Storch & Shepherd, 2020), the term ‘field’ is used in two quite different ways in research related to language: To refer to the site of empirical work and to refer to the 457

Marilyn Martin-Jones

discipline itself (and its history), or at least to a particular strand of research within it. And, as they put it: “questions of power are integral to both meanings of ‘field’ ” (Deumert & Storch, 2020: 5). Questions of power need to be addressed in relation to ways of seeing, ways of looking and to our ways of being as researchers. Smith’s (1999) early volume on Decolonizing Methodologies provided an important landmark for us and recent reflections on ways of achieving epistemic solidarity provide us with some guidance. But the complexity of transformative work that needs to be done, in different spheres of social life, should not be underestimated, since coloniality persists in multiple ways in different sites. The way forward appears to be to continue to engage in diverse local forms of research praxis, collaboration and participation. As Walsh has argued, in a joint publication with Mignolo, we need to direct our efforts towards engaging in “decolonial praxis, in the plural, that continues within the cracks, margins and borders of the dominant order” (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018: 100).

Concluding comments To conclude, I will turn to two questions raised by McKinney, Zavala and Makoe in their Introduction. At the beginning of the section entitled ‘Problematizing multilingualism: From plurality to complexity and beyond’, they wrote the following: “The concept of multilingualism itself has been critiqued and problematized, leading us to ask whether this might be the last Handbook of Multilingualism. Is it a concept that has run its course?” I will begin with the second question. As shown in both editions of the handbook that have been compiled thus far, the concept of multilingualism as having knowledge of multiple named languages, which constitute fixed and bounded entities, has definitely run its course. As we have seen, the disinvention of this concept has been taking place in two broad strands of sociolinguistics. Firstly, in research in the Global North and South, which has taken a post-​structuralist and postmodern turn and which has focused on the political, economic, cultural and social changes bound up with globalization –​in research which “privileges language as social practice” (Heller, 2007: 1) –​and in research which has been described as a “sociolinguistics of mobile resources” (Blommaert, 2010). Now, further disinvention of the concept has been achieved in a more profound vein, in research focusing on the Global South, on the linguistic legacies of colonialism, on racialized language hierarchies, the enduring coloniality of power, on the entanglements of North/​South discourses and practices and on Southern epistemologies. However, as McKinney, Zavala and Makoe note in their Introduction: “The modernist frameworks oriented by notions of boundedness, stability, linearity, predictability and sharedness of resources still haunt the field and hinder the possibilities of doing justice to the complexity of multilingual phenomena and processes”. It is clear that there is still more disinvention work to be done. I turn now to the first question posed by McKinney, Zavala and Makoe, and its implications: Will there be another edition of Handbook of Multilingualism? What is the likelihood of another edition appearing a decade or so from now? New intellectual tides could well take the field in new directions. We cannot predict this. But, right now, my inclination is to argue that the possibility of compiling a third edition should be kept within our sights. I say this because I am sure that there will continue to be a need for a space to extend and refine the critique of modernist frameworks, to contest dominant societal discourses about language and to create spaces for other ways of knowing. Handbooks can be much more than authoritative, definitive texts within a particular field of research. As we see in this second edition, with careful planning and collaboration, they can be constructed as meeting places and spaces for reflection, for taking stock and for innovation. New 458

Afterword

voices and perspectives can also be heard. Handbooks can also be employed as pedagogic resources, as spaces where new generations of scholars can encounter ongoing debates and forms of praxis and consider how they might be able to make a contribution. As Heller (2012) has pointed out: As a site of discursive struggle, the space of “multilingualism” is a particularly revealing site for discovering what people are making of the ideological complex of language-​culture-​ identity-​nation-​state [-​colonialism-​coloniality], which has long shaped our lives, and what new ways of organizing ourselves may be emerging. Heller, 2012: 32, my additions As with this second edition of the handbook, a third edition could take forward efforts to bridge the invisible “abyssal line” (de Sousa Santos, 2014) which marks the divide between ‘modern knowledge’ and other forms of knowledge. There need to be more spaces in which Southern and Northern perspectives, values and epistemologies can be brought into dialogue. And there need to be more spaces where researchers can engage in the decolonial reconstitution of knowledge-​ building (Smith, 1999), where they can identify and unravel entangled discourses and epistemologies so as to contribute to the building of a new “ecology of knowledges” (de Sousa Santos, 2012).

Note 1 McCarty’s commitment to reflection on ways of being as a researcher was grounded in a career-​long commitment to ethnographic research with Indigenous groups in the United States.

References Androutsopoulos, J. 2015. Networked multilingualism: some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism. 19(2): 185–​205. Antia, B. & Makoni, S., Eds. 2022. Southernizing Sociolinguistics. London & New York: Routledge. Bailey, B. 2012. Heteroglossia. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​ Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 499–​507 (Chapter 29). Bakhtin, M.M 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Michael Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist (trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Banda, F. & Jimaima, H. 2015. Linguistic landscapes and the sociolinguistics of language vitality in multilingual contexts in Zambia. Multilingua. 36(5): 595–​625. Baynham, M. & Da Fina, A. 2005. Dislocation/​Relocations: Narratives of Displacement. Manchester: St Jerome. Blommaert, J. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. 2013. Complexity, accent and conviviality: concluding comments. Applied Linguistics. 34(5): 613–​622. Blommaert, J. & Rampton, B. 2016. Language and superdiversity. In Language and Superdiversity. K. Arnaut, J. Blommaert, B. Rampton & M. Spotti, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 21–​48. Busch, B. 2006. Language biographies for multilingual learning: linguistic and educational considerations. In Language Biographies for Multilingual Learning. B. Busch, A. Jardine & A. Tjoutuku, Eds. Cape Town: PRAESA, Occasional Papers. 24: 5–​17. Canagarajah, S. Ed. 2013. Literacy as Translingual Practice: Between Communities and Classrooms. London & New York: Routledge. Choksi, N. 2015. Surface politics: scaling multiscriptality in an Indian village market. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 25(1): 1–​24. Codó, E. Ed. 2023. Global CLIL: Critical, Ethnographic and Language Policy Perspectives. London & New York: Routledge. Connell, R. 2007. Southern Theory: Social Science and the Global Dynamics of Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity.

459

Marilyn Martin-Jones Cooke, M. and Simpson, J. 2012. Discourses about linguistic diversity. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese A., Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 116–​130 (Chapter 6). Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. Eds. 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity. London & New York: Routledge. Curry, M.J. & Lillis, T, M. 2004. Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: negotiating interests, demands and rewards. TESOL Quarterly. 38(4): 663–​688. de Korne, H. & Hornberger, N.H. 2017. Countering unequal multilingualism through ethnographic monitoring. In Researching Multilingualism: Critical and Ethnographic Perspectives. M. Martin-​Jones & D. Martin, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 247–​258. de Sousa Santos, B. 2012. Public sphere and epistemologies of the South. Africa Development. 37(1): 43–​67. de Sousa Santos, B. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. London: Taylor and Francis. Deumert, A. Storch, A. & Shepherd, N. Eds. 2020. Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledges and Epistemes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duchêne, A. & Heller, M. 2012a. Multilingualism in the new economy.. The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. In M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge and A. Creese A., Eds. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. 369–​383 (Chapter 21). Duchêne, A. &Heller, M. Eds. 2012b. Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit. London & New York: Routledge. Gandulfo, C. and Unamuno, V. 2020. Nota metodológica. In Hablar Lenguas Indígenas Hoy: Nuevos Usos, Nuevas Formas de Transmisión. Experiencias Colaborativas en Corrientes, Chaco y Santiago del Estero. V. Unamuno, C. Gandulfo & H. Adreani, Eds. Buenos Aires: Ed. Biblios. 35–​48. García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell. García, O. & Li, W. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gardner, S. & Martin-​Jones, M. Eds. 2012. Multilingualism, Discourse and Ethnography. New York: Routledge. Goffman, E. 1999. The Presentation of self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor. Heller, M. 2007. Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach. M. Heller, Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–​22. Heller, M. 2010. The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology. 39: 101–​114. Heller, M. 2011. Paths to Post-​Nationalism: A Critical Ethnography of Language and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heller, M. 2012. Rethinking sociolinguistic ethnography: from community and identity to process and practice. In Multilingualism, Discourse and Ethnography. S. Gardner & M. Martin-​Jones, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 24–​33. Heller, M. and Duchêne, A. 2012. Pride and profit: changing discourses of language, capital and nation-​ state. In Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit. A. Duchêne & M. Heller, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 1–​21. Heller, M., Pietikäinen, S. & Pujolar, J. 2018. Critical Sociolinguistic Research Methods. London & New York: Routledge. Heugh, K. and Stroud, C. 2021. Roots and routes: meshworks of multilingualism. In A Sociolinguistics of the South, K. Heugh, C. Stroud, K. Taylor-Leech & P. De Costa, Eds. New York: Routledge. Hewitt, R. 2012. Language in the workplace. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​ Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. 267–​280 (Chapter 15). Huysmans, J. 2014. Security Unbound: Enacting Democratic Limits. London & New York: Routledge. Jaspers, J. & Madsen, L. 2016. Sociolinguistics in a languagised world. Applied Linguistics Review. 7(3): 235–​258. Johnson, D.C. 2013. Language Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jorgensøn, J.N. 2008. Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism. 5(3): 161–​176. Kerfoot, C. and Hyltenstam, K. Eds. 2017. Entangled Discourses: South-North Orders of Visibility. New York: Routledge. Khan, K. 2017. Citizenship, security and suspicion in UK ESOL policy. In Engaging Superdiversity: Recombining Spaces, Times and Language Practices. K. Arnaut, M.S. Karrebaek, M. Spotti & J. Blommaert, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 308–​320. Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.

460

Afterword Kusters, A., Spotti, M., Swanwick, R. & Tapio, E. 2017. Beyond languages, beyond modalities: Transforming the study of semiotic repertoires. International Journal of Multilingualism. 14(3): 219–​232. Lee, C. 2016. Multilingualism Online. London & New York: Routledge. Leppänen. S. & Peuronen, S. 2012. Multilingualism on the Internet. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. 384–​ 402 (Chapter 22). Leppänen. S. & Kytölä, S. 2017. Investigating multilingualism and multisemioticity as communicative resources in social media. In Researching Multilingualism: Critical and Ethnographic Perspectives. M. Martin-​Jones & D. Martin, Eds.Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.155–​171. Lexander, K.V. & Androutsopoulos, J. 2023. Multilingual Families in a Digital Age: Mediational Repertoires and Transnational Practices. London & New York: Routledge. Lillis, T.M. & Curry, M.J. 2010. Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. London & New York: Routledge. Lin, A.M.Y. 2015. Egalitarian bi/​multilingualism and trans-​semiotizing in a global world. In The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education. W.E. Wright, S. Boun & O. García, Eds. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Lin, A.M.Y. 2019. Theories of trans/​languaging and trans-​semiotizing: Implications for content-​based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. 22(1): 5–​16. Lytra, V. 2012. Multilingualism and multimodality. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge, 521–​537 (Chapter 31). Makalela, L. 2019. Community elders’ narrative accounts of Ubuntu translanguaging: Learning and teaching in African education. International Review of Education. 64: 823–​843 Makoni, S. & Pennycook. A. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S. & Pennycook. A. 2012. Disinventing multilingualism: From monological multilingualism to multilinga francas. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. London & New York: Routledge. 439–​453. Maldonado-​Torres, N. 2007. On the coloniality of being: contributions to the development of a concept. Cultural Studies. 21(2–​3): 240–​270. Marcus, G.A. 1995. Ethnography in/​of the world system: the emergence of multi-​sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology. 24: 95–​117. Martin-​Jones, M., Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. Eds. 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. London & New York: Routledge. Martin-​Jones, M. & Martin, D. Eds. 2017. Introduction. In Researching Multilingualism: Critical and Ethnographic Perspectives. M. Martin-​Jones & D. Martin, Eds. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge: 1–​27. Maryns, K, 2012. Multilingualism in legal settings. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese Eds. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. 297–​313 (Chapter 17). May, S. 1997. Critical ethnography. In Research Methods in Language and Education. Vol. 8. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. N.H. Hornberger & D. Corson, Eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 197–​206. McCarty, T.L. 2015. Ethnography in language planning and policy research. In Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning. F.M. Hult & D.C. Johnson, Eds. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell. 81–​93. McDonald, M. 2008. Securitization and the construction of security. European Journal of International Relations. 14(4): 558–​587. McKinney, C. & Tyler, R. 2019. Disinventing and reconstituting language for learning science. Language and Education. 33(2): 141–​158. Mignolo, W.D. 2000. Local Histories/​ Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges and Border Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mignolo, W.D. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Mignolo, W.D. 2018. Foreword: on pluriversality and multipolarity. In Constructing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Knowledge. B. Reiter, Ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Mignolo W.D. & Walsh, C.E. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics and Praxis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Miranda, N., de Mejía, A. & Valencia Giraldo, S. Eds. 2023. Language Education in Multilingual Colombia: Critical Perspectives and Voices from the Field. London & New York: Routledge.

461

Marilyn Martin-Jones Ndhlovu, F. & Makalela, L. 2021. Decolonizing Multilingualism in Africa: Recentering Silenced Voices from the Global South. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo 1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Language of African Literature. London: James Currey. Pennycook, A. 2018. Post-​humanist Applied Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. 2020. Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from the Global South. London & New York: Routledge. Pietikäinen, S. 2016. Critical debates: discourses, boundaries and social change. In Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. N. Coupland, Ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 263–​281. Piller, I. 2012. Multilingualism and social exclusion. In M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. 281–​296 (Chapter 16). Quijano, A. 2007. Coloniality and modernity/​rationality. Cultural Studies. 21(2): 11–​21. Rampton, B. & Charalambous, C. 2012. Crossing. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. M. Martin-​Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese, Eds. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. 482–​498 (Chapter 28). Simpson, J. & Whiteside, A. Eds. 2015. Adult Language Education and Migration: Challenging Agendas in Policy and Practice. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies. London & New York: Zed Books. Stroud, C. 2001. African mother tongue programs and the politics of language: linguistic citizenship versus linguistic human rights. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 22(4): 339–​355. Stroud, C. 2015. Turbulent directions. In Moving Words: Language, Literacy and Mobility. C. Stroud & M. Prinsloo. London & New York: Routledge. Stroud, C. 2018. Linguistic citizenship. In The Multilingual Citizen: Towards a Politics of Language for Agency and Change. L. Lim, C. Stroud & L. Wee, Eds. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 17–​39. Van der Aa, J. & Blommaert, J. 2017. Ethnographic monitoring and the study of complexity. In Researching Multilingualism: Critical and Ethnographic Perspectives. M. Martin-​Jones & D. Martin, Eds. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. 259–​271. Veronelli, G.A. 2015. The coloniality of language: race, expressivity and the darker side of modernity. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women and Gender Studies. 13: 108–​234. Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-​diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 30(6): 961–​978.

462

INDEX

Note: Endnotes are indicated by the page number followed by “n” and the note number e.g., 348n2 refers to note 2 on page 348. Abbasi, K.A. 384 Abdulatief, S. 244–​245, 246, 274 abject aesthetics 37 Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders 127, 128; see also Indigenous peoples abyssal thinking 22, 223, 235 academic freedom 319; see also global academic research accents 195; elimination of 51; and interpretation 420 access paradox 101, 102–​103 Adamson, L. 256, 264 Adult ESOL classes (English to Speakers of Other Languages) 448 adult learners 167, 448 advertisements 50, 288, 453; advertising billboards 428, 435, 437, 438; of Globacom Nigeria 358–​360; and hip hop cultures 344–​345, 347; radio advert 354, 362 affect, significance of 88 African American English (AAE) 337, 344, 418 African languages xxxi, 5; bilingual education programmes based on 216; mother tongue education 21; standardization of 21; toleration of 212 Afrikaans 148, 150–​151, 227, 229, 243–​247, 252, 256–​257, 261, 339–​340, 339–​345 Afro-​Latin American artists 31 Afro-​Latin American literature 37 agency, conceptualization of 91 agentic activism, on Twitter 357 Aguilar Gil, Y. 193, 202

Airey, J. 321–​322 Akayoglu, S. 12 Akkari, A. 195 Al-​Bataineh, A. 103 Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN), Indonesia 195 alienating alphabet 34 Alim, S. 57, 338 Allard, E.C. 168 alphabetic texts 34 Alphonce, C. 438 Alshehri, A. 319–​320 Amano, T. 322 Amaral, L. 201 Amaru, T. 226 Amharic 212 Andrade, L. 50 Angelelli, C. 420 Angermeyer, P. 184, 419 Anglo-​American youth culture 178 Anglo-​Euro-​centric language ideologies 241, 242 anglonormative ideologies 216, 241, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248 Annamalai, E. 7, 13 Ansre, G. 211 Anthonissen, C. 376 Anthropocene 90 anti-​Asian racism, and COVID-​19 pandemic 274–​275 anti-​immigration sentiment, and COVID-​19 pandemic 274–​275 anti-​users 211–​212

463

Index Aotearoa New Zealand 18, 104, 133; Indigenous language and education in see Māori language; iwi/​whânau contexts 138–​139; te reo Māori xxxii Arabic language 103, 179 Arango, O. 167 arbitrariness 85 Arendt, H. 305 Argentina xxxii; Indigenous education in 197; Indigenous theatres in 42 Arias, A. 33–​34 Ariefdien, S. 340–​341 Aronin, L. 436, 437 Arregui, A. 37 Aryans 9 Asfaha, Y. 256, 265 assemblages xxx, 85, 87–​88, 89, 92, 98, 297, 448; conceptualizing xxviii; and digital multilingualism 179; and multimodality 110, 112, 115 assembling artefacts 433–​434 asylum and migration procedures 394; actual and expected competences, divergence between 410; adjudication stages 396, 403–​410, 411; applicants’ power to advocate for their procedural language 403; Australian context 395–​396, 397, 398–​399, 400, 401–​403, 408, 410, 452; backstage management 396–​403, 452; Belgian context 395–​396, 398–​399, 401–​403, 407–​408, 410, 411, 452; code choices 408; communication challenges 408; counselling 396–​403, 412; credibility factor 409; decision-​maker’s lexical code 408; delays in 402; frontstage management 395, 403–​410, 452; further research directions 411–​412; identity implications of language choice 399; immigration lawyers, influential role of 411; indexical of speaker identity 410; language choice and proficiency 409; language choice as an index of identity 411; language selection process 398; lawyers’ role in monitoring the communication 408; legitimate language use in 394; and monolingual ideologies 394; ‘native’ language 410; practical implications of language choices 401; single language choice, functional motivations 398, 404, 411; volunteer assistance 396; vulnerability 395; see also interpreting and interpreters Atenco people 195 Atkinson, D. 11, 13 Auer, P. 415 Aurelia 322 Australia 18, 133; Asian Australian students during COVID-​19 pandemic 275; asylum and migration procedures in 395–​396, 397, 398–​399, 400, 401–​403, 408, 410, 452; language attrition among second-​generation migrants 103; primary school level in 101–​102; stolen generations in 128

authoritative literate multilingualism xxvi, 242 Avila, R. 164 Awayed-​Bishara, M. 152 Aymara 38, 40–​41, 134, 226 Ayuuk 39 Baboo, B.S. 372 Backhaus, P. 430 Backus, A. 197 Bagwasi, M.M. 256, 264–​265 Bai, G. 384 Bailete del Güegüense 41 Baker, C. 165 Bakhtin, M. 4, 96–​97, 105, 197 Balasubramaniam, A. 6, 13 Ball, A. 57 Bambara speakers 100 Bamgbose, A. 213 Banda, F. 430–​432, 433, 434, 436–​438 Bangla 196 Bangladesh 7, 199, 454; digital multilingualism 181; Indigenous identity 128; social media users 182 Bantu languages 227 Barad, K. 87 Barakos, E. 287, 374 Baraldi, C. 421 Barcelona 289 Barsh, R. 131 Bartlett, L. 164 Basque Country, Spain 103 Basque language: revival movement 291; and Spanish xxxii Bastardas, A. 197 Baynham, M. 99 Beck, R. 21 Becker, H. 339 becoming-​with 147, 152, 155 Belgium, asylum and migration procedures in 395–​396, 398–​399, 401–​403, 407–​408, 410, 411, 452 Ben-​Rafael, E. 429–​430 Bergamo 83 Berk-​Seligson, S. 419–​420 Bhatia, T.K. 7, 13 bibliodiversity 327 bilingual education 26, 105–​106, 108–​109, 207, 216, 273, 276; in Brazil 270; dual language 108; early 228; effective 138; intercultural 200, 226; programmes 216, 228–​230, 232, 270; traditional pedagogies 139 bilingualism 57–​58, 105, 108–​109, 162–​163, 165, 254, 415–​417; additive 4; compulsory 8; and education 105, 252; separate 252; stable societal 232; subtractive 4, 200, 228 biliteracy 135, 161, 162–​163, 264

464

Index billboards, advertising 428, 435, 437, 438 Biro, E. 431–​432 black identities 36–​37 Blackledge, A. 112–​114, 162 #blacklivesmatter 84 blackness 18, 31, 36, 37, 38, 305 Blaser, M. 84 Block, D. 112, 289–​290 blogs 322, 324, 354, 357 Blommaert, J. xxii, xxiv, xxx, 4, 123, 197, 370–​371, 418, 437, 455 Boal, A. 42 Bokamba, E.G. 215 Bolivia 37, 43; IBE programmes 134–​135; Nación Rap 38, 40, 41 Bolsonaro, J. 304 Bonacina-​Pugh, F. xxxii, 101–​102 Bonnin, J.E. xxxii Botswana 209, 215, 264–​265, 438 Bourdieu, P. 83, 286, 303 Bourhis, R.Y. 428–​429, 433 Boutet, J. 372 Brablec, D. 201 Braidotti, R. 88, 90 Brazil 37; autonomous schools in 201; bilingual education in 270; bilingual students during COVID-​19 pandemic 273; Constituição (1988) 133; hip hop culture in 337; Indigenous education in 197; local educational processes in 198; rap music in 37; segurança pública (public security) 304 Briseño, J. 202 broadcasting 37, 271, 272, 275, 352, 353 Brô MCs 37–​38 Brown, K. 200 Brown, W. 147 Bruzos, A. 290 Bryant, L. 87 Buakanok, F.S. 196 Burgess, M. 325, 340–​341 Burkina Faso 213, 215; les écoles satellites in 213 Burnett, S. 149–​150 Burundi 214, 215 Busch, B. 457 Cak language 199 call centres xxix, 451; and new economy 286, 289; in Philippines 67, 68, 70, 373 Camelo Gómez, M.S. 42 Canada 89, 133–​134, 195, 277, 280, 418, 426; Arctic province of Nunavut 134; Tobique First Nation 195 Canagarajah, S. xxviii, 3, 4, 12, 92, 112, 166, 372 “Canción sin Miedo” (“Song without Fear”) (song) 39 Canut, C. 21

Cape hip hop 340–​341; commodification of 344–​347 Cape Town taxi industry 435 Cape Verde 215 Caribbean 31, 32, 33, 34, 43, 445 Casa del Estudiante Indígena 42 Castillo-​Garsow, M. 39 Catalan 199 Cauca communities 202 Cavanaugh, J. 81, 83 Celik, S. 275 Cenoz, J. xxxii, 99, 103–​104 Charamba, E. 256, 260–​262 Chelliah, J. 9 Chen, X. 384 Chichewa 212 Childs, M. 256, 263 Chile 37, 42, 201, 372 Chimbutane, F. 207 China 102; English in 69, 99; impact of COVID-​19 pandemic on 270; language programmes at universities 449; language services industry 385; linguistic emergency response 385; minoritized Mongolians in 384; open-​access journals 326; peripheral regions 387–​388; teachers during COVID-​19 pandemic 276 China, emergency language services of 449; Bangladeshi students of Muslim backgrounds in 384; Burmese migrants 388; capacity to mobilize peripheral linguistic resources 387–​388, 390; and Chinese academic community 386–​387; collaborative achievements 388–​389; transnational migrants in 384 Chinyere, F. 356 chiShona 259 Choksi, N. 85 Ch’ol village (Mexico) 198 Churchill, E. 11, 13 Clarivate Analytics 324, 326 classrooms 165; discourses 113, 455 (see also Oshiwambo/​English classroom); dual-​language bilingual classrooms 234; science classrooms 116, 446; and translanguaging pedagogies 259–​260 Clayton 343–​344 code-​meshing xxiii, 4, 7, 254 code-​mixed discourses 361 code of silence 304, 308, 312, 449 code-​switching xxiii, 7, 97, 99–​100; in conversation, and quasi-​translation 415; digital 177; in media 360–​361; “non-​first firsts” 415 Coen, T. 44 Cohn, C. 133 Cole, M. 161 colectivos 33 Coletivo Papo Reto (‘Straight Talk Collective’) 306

465

Index collaborative engagement, multilingualism as 389 Collins, J. 161 Colombia 32, 42, 134, 451 Colombia Bilingüe (Bilingual Colombia) 451 colonialism xxv–​xxvii, 88, 444–​446; authorities and missionaries 20; and colonial process 17; and co-​naturalization 49, 55; exploitation and dehumanization of colonized people 445; Indigenous groups’ engagement in complex literacy practices during 33; and language descriptions 20–​21; and named languages 98; power matrix xxxii coloniality xxv–​xxvii, 444–​446; of languages xxi, xxxii, 116, 152, 216, 217, 447; and linguistic landscapes 437–​438; notion of 241; racialized hierarchization 66; of schooling 224, 225–​229; and standardized language 97; unequal power relations 66; and violence of language project 144 coloniality/​decoloniality theory 90; and linguistic landscapes 437–​438 commodification, of languages 83, 288–​289, 295, 296–​297, 303, 450 communicative practices 3, 5–​7, 12 Compañía Queretana de Teatro Indígena (Indigenous Theatre Company of Querétaro) 43 complexity: as a frame for contemporary semiotics 123; of multilingualism xxiv co-​naturalization 48, 49, 50, 55, 58, 60 conscientização 234 Content and Language-​Integrated Learning (CLIL) 102, 113, 451 Cook, V. 11 Cooke, M. 448 Cook-​Gumperz, J. 161 Cooper, R.L. 428 Cordones-​Cook, J. 43 Córdova, G. 55 Cornelio, J.S. 201 Cornips, L. 90 Correira da Silva, R. 198 Costa Rica 32 Costley, T. 435, 438 counter-​securitization 301, 304–​308, 312 Course, M. 24, 86 court interpreting/​interpretation services 419; in Hong Kong 421; outsourcing of 290; see also asylum and migration procedures; interpreting and interpreters COVID-​19 pandemic 123, 269, 383, 447, 449–​450; and digital multilingualism 182; and online and virtual learning 116; and xenophobia 275; see also China, emergency language services of COVID-​19 pandemic, impact on language education: additional research, need for 279; and anti-​Asian racism 274–​275; and anti-​immigration sentiment 274–​275; computer technologies and

connectivity, access to 271, 274; and distance learning 271–​273; and dropping out rate 278; and educational innovation 279; educational recovery 270; formal/​school educational loss 273–​274; issues of equity and disparities 273; and mental health 277, 278; positive learning outcomes 278; radio and TV-​based educational provisions 271; stakeholders 275–​278, 449; student and parent resilience during 278; students and caretakers during 277–​278 Creese, A. 112–​114 creole exceptionalism 23–​24 creoles 32–​33, 243 critical listening 234, 235 crossing 4, 97, 444 cross-​species and animal language 90 Cru, J. 40 cultural and knowledge systems, equality of 249 cultural assimilation 211, 234 cultural bomb xxvii cultural identities 52–​53, 179 culture-​specific notion, language as 20 Cunliffe, D. 356 CUNY-​NYSIEB 233 Curdt-​Christiansen, X.L. 102 current economy 285–​287 Curry, M.J. 319–​320, 325, 327 Cutler, C. 337 cyberscapes 429, 431 Cyprus 300, 301, 308–​309, 312, 449 Davies, K. 114 de Castro, D. 201 decentring: the Global North xxi; the human 80, 87–​89 decolonial education 249 decoloniality xxvii, xxx, 18, 97, 110, 242; in Latin America 31, 32–​33, 44; and linguistic landscapes 437–​438 decolonization 3–​13, 84, 196, 208; of different disciplines 17; of language 19, 22, 25 decolonization, of multilingual pedagogies 229–​235; developing learners’ critical consciousness 234–​235; epistemological 225; folk linguistics 229–​231; leveraging speakers’ translanguaging 231–​234 DeepL 327, 328 dehumanization xxvi–​xxvii, 144, 167, 263, 445 deictic shifts 421, 422 de Korne, H. 196 de la Piedra, M.T. 233 De León, L. 198 Deleuze, G. 88 Del Percio, A. 287, 372 dematerialization of language xxvii, 80, 85, 448 Demuro, E. 84–​85

466

Index Denmark, tunnel miners and translanguaging 376 Depestre, R. 36 de-​securitization 308–​312, 449 designed indexicality 354, 362, 364, 453 de Sousa Santos, B. xxi, 18, 223, 445 Deumert, A. xxv–​xxvi, 167, 457 diaspora communities 3 Díaz, M. 37 digital code-​switching 177 digital communication 3, 111, 175, 177; centres of authority 181 digital divide 123, 124, 175, 274, 356 digital genres 319, 327 digital literacies xxxv, 164, 456 digital media xxxii, 114, 175, 181, 308, 353, 453 digital multilingualism 176; applications and bots 184; creative and playful identity constructions and performances 180; definition of 176–​177; and fiction 176; future directions 183–​184; and identity 180; and language learning and teaching 183, 454; linguistic heterogeneity and translinguality 177–​179; moral panics and hate discourses 181–​182, 454; norms and policies 180–​181; online and offline, relationship between 179; as practices 177, 179; and resistance 182–​183; role of algorithms in 184; at the service of -​isms 182, 454 digital platforms 175, 181, 276, 324 digital technologies 89, 164, 175, 179, 184, 270, 353, 356 digitization 352, 353, 355, 453–​454 diglossia 8, 165, 231–​232, 356, 357 Dijkstra, B. 376 Directory of Open Access Journals 319, 323, 326 discipline-​specific knowledge 116 discourse markers 419 disenfranchised regions 18 distance learning xxxvii, 269, 271–​273; and access to learning materials 271, 274, 449; in Turkey 271–​272 distributed view of language 96, 98–​99 Dlaske, K. 287 Dogri 9 Dolan, C. 167 Doncel de la Colina, J.A. 37 Dorian, N. 5 double consciousness 337 double-​R axiom (Rights and Representations) 145 Dovchin, S. 12, 69 Dravidians 7, 9 DRC 438 dual-​language programmes, in U.S. 228, 230, 231, 234, 276 Du Bois, W.E.B. 337 Duchêne, A. xxix–​xxx, 168, 285, 288, 374, 450 Duile, T. 195

Dumanig, F.P. 168 Dumlao, R. 196 Duncan, Q. 36 Dussel, E. 90–​91 Dutch East India Company (VOC) 348n2 Duval-​Couetil, N. 372 economic asset, language as xxiv, 288 Ecuador 42, 134–​135, 273 Edelsky, C. 161 Education Informatics Network (EIN) 272, 275 education rights 130; see also Indigenous language and education rights edutainment (educational entertainment) 289 egalitarian multilingualism 24 Eldakar, M. 324 elites xxvi, 242, 374 “El Katango” 42–​43 emergency language services 385–​386, 390; implications and future challenges 389–​390; quality of 384; sufficient number of languages 389; volunteer services 387; see also China, emergency language services of Emerson, C. 13 emotions/​rationality binary 110 Englishization 296, 372 English language 243; agony and ecstasy 65, 71; American employers’ requirement 372; in China 69, 99; and cultural mediation 64; education 9; and global academic research 318, 320; globalization and localization of 64–​66; inequalities of access to 66, 69; as language of instruction 241; legitimization of 67; linguistic hierarchy 68; as medium of instruction, imposition of 72; and multilingualism, relationship between xxvi; in Philippines 67, 373; position in the Southern education 263; privileged operationalization 72; renewed advancement of 216 Enlightenment 20 Enriz, N. 197–​198 entanglements of language xxx, 89 enterprise subject 296 epistemic solidarity 457–​458 epistemological decolonization 225 epistemological rupture xxiv, 455 Erasmus Mundus programme 218 Eritrea 212, 215, 265 Escobar, A. 32–​33 español indígena 196 Esquinca, A. 233 Estupiñán, N. 36 ethical engagement with others 155 ethical orientation of citizens 219 Ethiopia 212, 215 ethnic economies 374

467

Index ethnographic research 456–​458 Europe 3–​6, 13, 70; COVID-​19 pandemic, impact on language education 271; nation-​states 20; and plurilingualism 4; single language 5 European languages: perceived superiority of xxvi; as resources for national development 209 Evans, N. 24 experiencing discomfort 234, 245 Fabricio, B.F. 37 Facebook 356–​357 Facina, A. 304 Fanon, F. xxvi Faquire, K. 196 Farfan, F. 34 favela xxxvii, 301, 304–​308, 312, 449 Fellner, K.D. 32 Ferguson, J. 83 FIFA World Cup (2014) 37, 304, 449 firstness 82–​83 first-​order language/​ing xxxi, xxxii, 19–​20, 80–​81, 86, 98–​100, 104–​105 Fishman, J.A. 130, 232 fixity and fluidity in languages xxx, xxxii, 3, 6, 253, 454–​456 flat ontology 87, 90, 91, 92 Flores, N. 48–​49, 50, 54, 196, 232, 287 flow, notion of 113 folk linguistics 229, 230, 231, 233 folklorization 195 forced assimilation 128 Foucault, M. 291, 301, 309 France 32, 50, 100, 211 Franco, R. 51 Fránquiz, M.E. 279 freestyle rap battles 341–​344, 348n6 Freire, P. 234 Freire education 151 Gal, S. 20 Galibi-​Maworno 198 Gallagher, K. 103 Gallagher, N. 324 Gambia 166 Gamtaal 340, 348n4 Gandulfo, C. xxvii, 198 García, O. xxiii, xxvi, xxxii, 4, 97, 98, 100, 111, 163, 165, 197–​198, 228, 234, 242, 419 Gavin 343–​344 Gavioli, L. 421 Gee, J.P. 161, 372 gentrification 234–​235, 286, 374 Geoffrion-​Vinci 49 geographical space 165 geosemiotics 112, 429, 431 German-​language versions of American movies 418

Germany 211 Gershon, I. 294 Ghana 212 Gibbons, J. 419 Gilmore, P. 162 Gilroy 302–​303 Giroux, H. 151 Globacom Nigeria advertisement 358–​362 global academic research 318–​319; alignment with evaluation regimes and personal objectives 325; bibliodiversity 327; commitments to multilingual identities and communities 321–​326; and digital platforms 324; global pressures for scholars 326; governments funding research 324; and Indigenous languages 323; journals 322, 326; language and culture in academic communication 325; local/​national journals 326; myth of monolingualism in academia 323; online journals 328; open-​access journals 323, 326, 327; participating in multiple linguistic and academic communities 321; practice, policy and public communities 324; and practice-​ oriented communities 322; publishing activity using multiple languages 325–​326; research communities 322–​323; supporting multilingual knowledge production 327–​328; translation and knowledge distribution 327; variations across disciplines 324–​325; variations across scholars’ careers 325–​326 Global Blackness 18 global environmental crisis (1492) 90–​91 global health communication 383; see also emergency language services globalization 214, 216–​217 globalized knowledge economy 451 Global North xxi, xxii, xxix, 23, 301, 353 Global South xxi, xxii, 18, 26, 63, 168, 445–​446; education in 446–​447; epistemologies of xxx; localization and indigenization of knowledge and pedagogy 70; and media 353; perspectives on PP 210; schooling, restrictive English-​only language policies 123; unequal Englishes in see unequal Englishes in the Global South; unilingual/​ bilingual state projects in 26; see also Southern multilingualisms Goffman, E. 395, 452 Goldin-​Meadow, S. 118 Goldstein, T. 372 Gomes, A. 198 Gone with the Wind (Japanese translation) 418 Google Translate 328, 422–​423 Gorter, D. xxxii, 99, 103–​104, 428–​429, 430 Gould, S. 374 governance, forms of 190–​196, 197, 285–​287, 302–​303, 448–​451 governmentality 291, 296

468

Index Gramling, D. 242 grammar 7–​8, 11, 13 Gramsci, A. 63 graphocentric bias 34, 37 Greek Cypriots 301 Greek Cypriot schools, Turkish classes in 308–​312, 449 Gregory, E. 162 Guarani language xxxii, 34 Guarani-​Mbya territory 201 Guarani people 198 Guatemala 134 Guiana region 32 Gunasekera, M. 9 Gurney, L. 84–​85 Gutiérrez, K.D. 4 Guzula, X. 244–​245, 255, 256 Hale, S. 419 Hall, J.K. 99 Hall, S.J. 65 Halliday, M.A.K. 98, 111 Hamel, E. 136 Hamman, L. xxxii Hanell, L. 289 Hanks, W. 417 Harbord, J. 324 Hardt, M. 147 Harkness, N. 85 Harris, R. 19 Hauck, J. 24 Haupt, A. 340 Haviland, J.BB. 417 Hazaragi 398 He, P. 113 Heath, S.B. 161 ‘heathen’ songs 9 Hecht, A. 197–​198 hegemonic discourse 445 Heirich 85 Helland, K.I. 115 Heller xxix, 372, 422, 444, 459 Heller, M. 285, 288, 289, 450 Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication 328 Henderson, H.Y. 127, 139 Henderson, K.I. 276 Henry, E.S. 69 hermeutic epistemic injustice 152 Hernández, A. 41–​42 Herring, S. 356 heteroglossia 4, 96, 166, 197, 444, 455 heterography 4 Heuck 85 Heugh, K. 105, 254, 256, 261–​262 Heurich, G. 24

Hewitt, R. 369, 373 Hidayat, Y. 384 Higgens 337 Higgins, C. 354 Higgins, M. 44 higher education 451; see also South Africa, higher education in Highet, K. 372 Hill, R. 422 Hindi 9–​10, 181, 270 hip hop cultures 23, 336–​338; and advertisements 344–​345, 347; in apartheid times 340–​341; Cape hip hop 338–​340; Cape hip hop, commodification of 344–​347; freestyle rap battles 341–​342; and gender 338; as a global cultural genre 337; in post-​apartheid times 341–​347; in South Africa 23, 338–​340, 344–​347 hip hopera stage performance 150 historical constructs, languages as 22 historicization 49, 160, 234 HIV clinic (Western Cape), management of linguistic diversity in 376 hMensa, P.A. 354, 361–​362 Hñähñu 43 homo narrans (human as storyteller) 149 homo oeconomicus 292 Homo sapiens arrogans 154 Hong Kong: court interpreters 421; geosemiotic designed markets 433; teachers during COVID-​19 pandemic 276 Hornberger, N.H. 12, 161–​163, 273 Hornsby, M. 422 Hough, D.A. 230 Hull, G. 372 Hultgren, A.K. 322, 326 humans: as agency 430; and non-​humans, ontological relationships of xxx, 88, 90; rights of 129–​130; rights of, and interpreters 418; versioning 91 Hurst, E. 241, 246–​247 hybridity 4, 8, 11–​12, 219, 245 hypercultural processes xxx icons 82, 90, 113 identities: and language, link between 100, 400; nation/​national 165 Igbo 20 immateriality of language 79 immigration status 448; see also asylum and migration procedures indexical inversion 50 indexical understandings of language 82, 90, 92 India 6; British language policy 211; digital divide and superdiversity within language communities 274; English in 213; impact of COVID-​19 pandemic on language education 270; Indigenous

469

Index identity 128; low-​skilled migrant workers 384; multilingual workers in 372, 373; post-​colonial 372; pre-​colonial 6 indigenization 70, 149, 152 Indigenous African languages 116, 229; see also African languages Indigenous and Afro-​Latin American peoples 31, 32, 33, 37–​38, 43–​44 Indigenous education 193, 194, 202–​203, 446; children’s learning in multilingual settings 197–​198; colonial and national contexts of 194–​196; dilemmas of standardizing languages 199; forced migration and extreme poverty, and 202; multilingual communication in school settings 200; official schooling, search for alternatives in and to 200–​202; rethinking language in 196–​197 Indigenous language and education rights 127–​128, 446; challenges facing 135; and educational practices 139–​140; in international law 131–​133; in national contexts 133–​134; promotion-​oriented 130, 132 Indigenous languages 32–​33, 163; absence on monolingual signs 435; colonization on retention of 129; and distribution of research 323; ethnic characteristics 197; literacy development in 34; minoritization 196; poetry in 35; policy, translating into educational practice 134–​136; underrepresentation in health care 384 Indigenous peoples 22, 127, 445; and colonization 128–​129; inter-​and intragroup differences 127–​128; and modernization 128; multilinguistic education for children 223; oral tradition, and literature 41; self-​determination 195; in South Australia 20; women 34, 36 Indigenous regions 18 Indigenous theatre in Cumbal-​Nariño 42 Indigenous theatrical plays, pre-​Hispanic 41–​43 Indonesia 21, 103, 195, 384 Ines 322 information services during emergencies 450; see also China, emergency language services of; language services Inghilleri, M. 421 Inoue, M. 50, 418 (in)securitization 300–​301, 312–​313, 447; alignment with necro-​power and colonial pedigree 303; counter-​securitization 304–​308; de-​securitization 308–​312, 449; language standardization 301–​302; as a mode of governance 302–​303, 448–​449; prototypification of 312; significance for sociolinguistics 312–​313 institutional privilege 232 instrumentality 7, 8 intellectualization 149, 152 intentional pair work strategy 54

Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) 134, 200, 227; in Chile 200; Latin American countries 226; in Peru 229; in Santiago 200 intergenerational learning 198 International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention 169 127–​128, 193 international law: Indigenous language and education rights in 131–​133; minority language rights in 129–​131 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 214 interpretant 82, 83 interpreting and interpreters 412, 415, 452–​453; accented speech 420; conduct of 408; court interpreting 419, 421; ethics norms for 420; first-​person norm 421; human rights issue 418; in institutional contexts 418; interactional role 421; in legal sphere 418–​419; in medical contexts 420; multiple participants 421; neutrality and impartiality 420–​421; Pentecostal church services 422; and political activism 423; professionalization of 290, 420; question constrains 419; remote interpreting via video teleconferencing 420; role in asylum and migration procedures 452 (see also asylum and migration procedures); services 290; stylistic representations 418, 419; visibility of interpreters 420 interrogating power 234, 235 intersectionalities xxx intersemiotic meanings 111 Inuit language 134 Irvine, J. 20 isiXhosa 102, 115–​117, 255 Isnainiyah, L. 65 Italy 63, 83 Ivkovic, D. 431 Jacquemet, M. 164 Janks, H. 102 Japanese language 50, 99, 115, 418 Jaramillo, M.M. 43 Jaspers, J. xxx–​xxxi, 152, 455–​456 Javanese 21, 103 Jawauta, N. 196 Jaworski, A. 430–​431 Jegels, D. 436 Jereroayu language 201 Jerusalem, distribution of signage in a street of 428 Jimaima, H. 434, 436–​438 Jones, K. 162 Jorgensøn, J.N. xxiv, 4, 455 journals 322; local/​national 326; online journals 328, 452; open-​access 323, 326, 327; see also global academic research Juffermans, K. 166

470

Index Kaaps 150, 340 Kachru, B.B. 64–​65 Kahlin, L. 376 Kaiper-​Marquez, A. xxi Kalish, M. 356 Kaluli language 417 Kandiah, T. 67 Kandyan Kingdom 10 Kardas Isler, N. 275 Karrebæk, M.S. 290 Kasanga, L.A. 354, 438 katakana 99 Katz, M. 372 Kelly-​Holmes, H. 164–​165, 355 Kenya 166, 211, 212 Kerfoot, C. 217–​218 Khan, K. 448–​449 Khoi 348n2 Khoisan activists 149 Khoza, R. 231 Khubchandani, L. 6, 8 Khuli Chana 345 Kichwa 200, 273 Kim, S. 179 Kimball, E. 13 Kimmie Kool 345–​347 King, K. 135 Kinyarwanda 438 Kiramba, L. 166 Kirilova, M. 290 Kiswahili 21, 212, 337 Klausen, J.Z. 287 Kloss, H. 130 knowledge distribution practices 326, 327 knowledge resources 233, 244–​246 kōhanga reo 137 Kohn, E. 90 Kotze, C-​R. 437 Kraft, K. 375 Kramsch, C. 11–​12, 183 Krause, L.S. xxx, 81, 166, 167 Krenak, A. 202 Kress, G. 111, 113, 431 Krog, A. 152 Kubota, R. 4, 218 “Kue’n tachi” (“Bad Wind”) (poem) 36 Kula, N. 435, 438 Kunumí MC 37 kura-​a-​iwi 137 kura kaupapa Māori 137 Kusch, R. 218–​219 Kusters, A. 112, 123 Kuteeva, M. 320, 321–​322 Kvietok, F. 197

L1-​L2 xxx labour markets xxix, 286, 296; see also multilingual workplaces; spaces; workplaces Lagos, C. 200 La llama Que No Se Extingue (play) 43 Landry 428–​429, 433 Lange, N. 47 language activism 150; in education 152; in revitalization programmes 149 language brokers 375–​376, 415, 423 language diversity xxv, 6, 8, 12, 25, 57, 242, 394 languaged labour market 372 language ecology 167, 209 language education 135, 139, 292; in Colombia 451; and digital multilingualism 183 language enumerations 26 language hierarchies 116, 243, 293, 375, 445 language ideological assemblages 24–​25 language ideologies 22, 25, 86, 92, 197, 241, 447 language industries 285–​286; commodification of language 289; product of labour as linguistic 288 language-​in-​education policymaking and practice 446 language inventions 19–​21, 22, 26, 242 language maintenance 13, 149 language materiality xxvii, 79–​80, 81–​84, 86, 447–​448; amongst Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities 81; conceptualization of 91; key concepts in 80–​84; and political economy 83–​84; and post-​humanism/​new materialist approaches 89–​92; and semiosis 82; social semiotic perspective 80 language-​mediated processes of inequity, reversal of 292–​293 language ontologies 80, 84–​86; and assemblages 85, 87–​88, 89, 92; debating 90–​91; flat ontology 87, 90–​92; humans and non-​humans relationships 88, 90; key concepts in 80–​81, 84–​86; relational 87–​89, 90 language pedagogical practices 223 language policies and practices (LPP) 85, 217, 219, 254, 264–​266 language reversal 137 language revitalization xxxi, xxxii, 22, 104, 135, 138–​139, 163, 196, 201, 356–​357, 456 language rights xxxv, 22, 129, 130–​131, 139, 226, 243, 450 language services: concept of 385; and English-​ centric multilingualism 389; volunteer services 387; see also emergency language services language skills 291–​292 language socialization 51 language-​society xxx language standardization: dilemmas of 199; and (in)securitization 301–​302; and institutions that operated necropolitical regimes 303

471

Index language status 102–​103, 437 language tourism xxix, 289, 290 language work 112, 245, 371, 376 languaging 84, 197; fluid, spatial and material conceptions of xxx; polylingual 455; sociocultural perspective on 96; see also translanguaging langue 79, 97 Lankshear, C. 372 Lantolf, J.P. 11–​12 Lara, G.P. 279 Larsen-​Freeman, D. 11–​12 late modern age, language in 450–​452 Latin America 31, 43–​44, 194, 445; blackness and rap, connection between 38; grassroots organisations in 33; Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) in 226; in language revitalization xxxi; literary creations in 33–​37; musical compositions in 37–​41; neoliberalism in xxx; racial issues in 38; racialized language hierarchies in 445; theatrical performances in 41–​43 “Latinoamérica Unida” (“Latin America United”) 39 LC see Linguistic Citizenship (LC) Lee, C. 453 Lee, T.K. 99 Leeman, J. 433 Lemke, J.L. xxxi, 100, 113 lengua originaria 226, 227 Leonard, W.Y. 22, 196 Leppänen, S. 453 Lesotho 215 letter writing 176 Leung, E. 419 Leung, S.K.Y. 101 LHR see Linguistic Human Rights (LHR) Li, J. 388, 390 Li, W. xxxii, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 111, 112, 242, 248, 253, 435 Liberali, F.C. 278 Licoppe, C. 420 Light, I. 374 Lillis, T.M. 319–​320, 322, 325, 326 Limbu language 232–​233 Limerick, N. 200 Lin, A.M.Y. xxvi, xxxi, 100, 104, 110, 113–​114, 123, 253 Lindegaard, L.B. 287 lingua franca English 4 lingual bias 112 linguistic anthropology 24, 57, 59, 80, 110, 160, 196, 287, 394, 452 linguistic apartheid 227, 232 Linguistic Citizenship (LC) 144, 210, 217–​218, 446–​447; Afrikaaps as Afrikaans 150–​151;

and care 151–​154; and hope 149–​151; and ‘letting appear’ 147; and love 146–​147; and multilingualism 154–​155; non-​mastery community 147–​149; subjugated knowledges 153–​154; thematized 146 linguistic codes 6–​8, 435 linguistic diversity xxi, 6, 24, 32, 197, 208, 210, 242, 263, 355, 376, 411, 429 “Linguistic Diversity in a Time of Crisis” 386 linguistic ethnography xxvii, 81, 110, 265 linguistic hegemony 340, 341 linguistic hierarchies 96, 97, 103, 105, 139, 246, 248, 269, 323, 328 linguistic homogeneity 208 Linguistic Human Rights (LHR) 145, 209–​210, 319; and media 353 linguistic identity 6, 10, 22, 308 linguistic justice 241, 249, 423 linguistic landscapes (LL) 89, 429, 439, 454; and coloniality/​decoloniality 437–​438; definition of 429; functions of languages in 429; inception of 428; informational function 429; interactional order 431; and material culture of multilingualism 436–​437; materials 436; and methodological issues 436; methodological orientation 439; mobilescapes and skinscapes as 434–​435; as multilingual and translanguaging spaces 435; multisensory analysis and semiotic assemblages in 433–​434; of non-​urban environments or ruralscapes 432; of Observatory 433; online space as 431–​432; in oral-​dominant language communities 432; and political parties 434; and productive signs 433; in rural areas of the northern Cape Province 432; semiotic ecology of meaning-​making in 436; semiotic perspective to 430; social production of 429–​430; spatial and neighbourhood appropriation in 433; studies, semiotic/​multimodal turn of 430–​431; subjective representations 433; and walking methodology 436, 439, 454 linguistic minorities 129, 175, 383–​384, 385, 387, 389, 410, 411–​412 linguistic/​semiotic diversity 96 linguistic third spaces 244–​246 Link, H. 167 listening subject 48–​49, 50, 56, 58, 59, 232 literacy: and orality xxx, 160; socialization 162; social practice perspective on 161; and transnationalism 164–​165; see also multilingual literacies literary creations 33–​37 Liu, J.E. 110, 113, 123 Liyanage, I. 3 LL see linguistic landscapes (LL) Lo, Y.Y. 102 local educational processes 198

472

Index local/​national languages 322, 328 Lopes, A. 304 López, L. 134 López García, N. 34–​36 López Macedo, S. 201 Lorente, B.P. 373 “Los Canarios Pintaron el Aire de Amarillo” (The Canaries Coloured the Air Yellow) (Estupiñán) 36 Lotherington, H. 431 Lou, J.J. 433 Love, N. 80–​81 LPP see language policies and practices (LPP) Lüdi, G. 320 Lugones, M. 151 Lüpke, F. 24 Lusekelo, A. 438 Lytra, V. 111 Mabandla, N. 167 Machado da Silva, A. 304 machine translation 184, 416, 422–​423 Mächler Tobar, E. 42 Macías, R. 140n2 MacLure, M. 92 MacSwan, J. 168 Madagascar 215 Madrid: education in 451; universities 296 Madsen, L.M. xxx–​xxxi, 455–​456 Magar, R.B. 230 Makalela, L. xxiv, xxv, 23, 26, 100, 102, 168, 223, 227, 244, 257, 262, 264–​265, 455 Makoe, P. 243 Makoni, S. xxi, xxv, 3–​4, 5, 11, 32, 49, 92, 165–​166, 218, 224, 242, 444 Malay 21, 150, 168, 202, 243 Malaysia: English in 168; Indigenous identity 128; students’ English skill in 372–​373 Maldonado-​Torres, N. xxvi, 241, 445 Mali: Bambara speakers from 100; les écoles de la pedagogie convergent in 213 Maly, I. 184 Manifesto in Defence of Scientific Multilingualism 328 Mannheim, B. 20, 417 Māori language xxxii, 104, 136, 199; education 137; pedagogy and practice 137–​138; and Pākehā, colonial relationship between 136; revitalization 139; revitalization policy 138; and urbanization 137 Mapuche 86; education 200, 201; mythical traditions 42–​43 Mapudungun 24, 37, 86 marginalization 18, 22, 71 Maringa 25 Marino, J. 167 market in (post)nationalism 287–​290

Marten, L. 435, 438 Martin, E. 320 Martin-​Jones, M. 162, 163 Martín Rojo, L. 294 Marx, H. 339 Marx, K. 289 Marxist materialism 83 Maryns, K. 421 Mason, J. 114 Matsabisa, M. 435 Maturana, H.R. xxvi, 146, 147, 154 ‘Mau’ Freedom Movement 211 May, S. 132, 214, 242, 457 Maya language 34, 40, 41, 273 Mbeki, T. 231 Mbembe, A. 302–​303 McCabe, R.M. 244 McCarty, T. 456 McElhinny, B. 422 McGrath, L. 320 McIlvenny, P. 287 McKinney, C. xxxii, 216, 243, 244–​245, 456 McLaughlin, M. 11, 287 meaning-​making 80, 96, 123, 228, 429–​432, 434, 436, 438, 448; and anomalous embodiment xxviii–​xxix; and body 114; and multimodality 110, 111, 115–​116; and transfeaturing practices 100 media 352, 453–​454; and blogs 357; changing contexts and research directions 355–​357; changing theories and methods 353–​355; early development of 352–​353; fragmentation and digitization of 353; gifting, service and performance 355–​356; intermediary/​facilitator/​ controller 353; linguistic diversity on World Wide Web, reducing 355; and minority languages 355; new media, in promoting revitalization 356; online streaming platforms 356; positives and negatives 362; remediation 360; as a site of multilingualism (example) 357–​362; and technological evolution 362–​363; user-​generated content 353, 356, 362 media speech community 353 media texts 352, 354–​355, 453 mediatized texts 352, 354–​355, 362, 453–​454 medium of instruction 19, 135, 162, 226, 244, 252; English as 72, 102, 225, 229, 255, 272–​273; LWC as 213; minoritized languages as 103; native language as 202 Megali, A. 278 Meier, S. 373 Melo-​Pfeiffer, S. 320 Mena, M. 228 Menacho, L. 199 Menezes, P. 304 Menezes de Souza, L.M.T 114

473

Index Mesthrie, R. 376 methodological developments 456–​458 metrolingualism xxiii, 4, 254 metrolingual multi-​tasking xxiii metropolitan languages 152, 217, 218 Mexico 37, 40, 42, 134, 196, 200–​201; bilingual education in 270; Indigenous education in 195; Indigenous groups from rural 384; Indigenous language education programmes 136; Spanish-​ speaking female artists in 39 Migge, B. 32 Mignolo, W. xxvi, xxxi, 18, 49, 67, 246, 445, 456 migrant economy 374, 375 migrants 372, 375, 451 Mikulecky, L. 372 Milani, T. 18, 152 militant teachers 200 Milto, V.C. 339 mind/​body binary xxx, 110, 123 minoritized children 223; multilinguistic education for 223; schools for 233 minoritized languages 103–​104, 419–​420; commodification of 295; see also named languages minoritized students 48, 449 minority languages 130, 429; education 131; programmes 456; rights in international law 129–​131 Mixe languages 199 Mixtec 31, 417 MoB 341–​343 mobile chat participants 176 Modan, G. 433 modernist linguistics 5–​6, 10–​11 modernization 128, 149, 208, 210, 212, 385 Mohan, K. 10 Mohanty, A. 7 Moita-​Lopes, L.P. 37 Mokwena, L. xxi, 432, 436 Molokomme, N. 438 Mona, M. 241, 246–​247 Monaghan, P. 25 Mondada, L. 114 monoglossia 105, 241, 242, 243 monolingual ideology in education, limits of 215 monolingualisms 19, 105, 353; plural 22 monolingual signs, and Indigenous languages 435 monomodality 152 monovocality 152 Montemayor, C. 41–​42 Monz, K. 100 Moors 10 mother tongue 6, 10, 19, 131, 149 mother tongue-​based multilingual education (MTB-​MLE) 226; in Nepal 229 Motobayashi, K. 287

motoseo 55–​57 Mozambique 69, 153, 213, 215 Mpendukana, S. 436 Mufwene, S. 19 Mukhopadhyay, L. 257, 262 Muller, T. 324 multilanguaging 22–​24, 26 multilingua francas 22–​24, 26 multilingual entextualization practices 319, 320 multilingual ethos 216 multilingual hip hop cultures see hip hop cultures multilingual literacies 168–​169, 446; early developments in 161–​162; ecology of language perspectives 162–​163; language and literacy socialization 162; new research directions 166–​168; recognizing existing resources and/​ or funds of knowledge 163–​165; theory and method, issues of 162–​166; theory and practice, disconnect between 168; translanguaging and translingualism 165–​166 multilingual Sinophobia 182 multilingual turn 218 multilingual workplaces 369, 377; as space 370–​371 (see also spaces) multilingual writing 422 multiliteracy, definition of 161 multimodality xxiv, 32–​33, 89, 110–​111, 444, 445, 446; future research, directions for 123; methodologies 114–​116; multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA) 115, 123; and semiotics 430; in southern multilingual classrooms 116–​123; theoretical issues 111–​114; and trans-​semiotizing 447; and whole-​body sense-​making 447 multiscriptality 455 multisensoriality xxviii multisensory experience xxv Mundhum 233 Mushi, O. 321 music 201; bands 37, 39; musical compositions 37–​41 Musthofiyah, U. 65 Myanmar (Burma) 128 Nación Rap 38, 40, 41 Náhuatl 31, 34, 199 Nakassis, C.V. 91 Nakata, M. 26 named languages 224, 232, 444, 452, 455–​456, 458 Namibia 447; Independence Avenue in Windhoek 438; multilingual science classrooms in 116 Naqvi, R. 167 Nascimento, A.M. 37–​38, 40 national languages 196–​197, 452; standardized 198 nation/​national identities 165 nation-​states 5, 195

474

Index native languages xxxviii, 202, 308, 335, 357, 375, 409–​410, 452 native speakerism 64–​65, 70–​71 Navajo language 135 Navarro, J. 40 Ndhlovu, F. xxv, 25, 168, 223, 242 Ndola 435 necropolitics 302, 303, 304–​308 necro-​power 300, 301, 302–​303 neoliberalism xxix, 152, 154, 286–​287, 296; and changes in the concept of agency 294; and governance 290–​296, 297, 450–​451; and governmentality 291, 296; ideologies 223; in Latin America xxx; Total Quality Management (TQM) 291; and unequal Englishes in the Global South 69 Nepal 7, 103; Indigenous/​folk approach in 230; linguistic coloniality and schooling in 224, 225–​226; mother-​tongue-​based multilingual education (MTB-​MLE) 230–​231; mother tongue-​ based multilingual education (MTB-​MLE) in 229; multilingualism and Indigenous and language minoritized communities 225; Newa Settlement Newa School (NSNS) Campaign of the Newar Indigenous people in the Kathmandu Valley 232 Nepali language 103, 264 nepantla (inbetweenness) 23 netiquettes 181, 453 Netz, M. 152 new economy xxix, 450–​451; commodity and process, multilingualism as 285; linguistic resources 296; outsourcing of court interpretation services 290; production cost, of language 290 new materialism xxvii, 80, 88–​89, 92 new materialities 447–​448, 455; and multimodality 123 new media, in promoting revitalization 356; see also media new world order 209–​210, 214 Ngcobo, S. 257, 264 Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o xxvi, xxvii, 33, 114, 129, 225 Nicaragua 32 Niger, écoles expérimentales in 213 Nigeria 213 Nigerian Pidgin English (NPE) 359–​360, 361 Nishino, E. 11, 13 nite 23 nomadic thought/​theory 88 nomolanguages xxx–​xxxi, 81 non-​dominant language 224–​246 non-​governmental organizations (NGOs) xxix, 33, 155, 201, 202, 286, 287 nonhuman communication 88, 90 non-​metropolitan languages 152 non-​native speakers 64, 65

normalization, of language 301, 309 normativity 76, 148, 453 normativity online 180–​181 North America 18, 24, 163; impact of COVID-​19 pandemic on 271; language revitalization efforts in 163 Norway: Indigenous Sámi population 133; migrant builders in 375 Nyamnjoh, F.B. 25 Oaxaca 273 Obondo, M.A. 211 O’Brien, S. 384 official language policies 116, 134, 150, 167–​168, 194, 212, 215, 226, 252 official schooling, alternatives in and to 200–​202 Ogbu 195 Okada, H. 11 Ó Laoire, M. 436 Oliveira, T.D. 278 Olivella, M.Z. 36 Olivia 324 Olko, J. 196 Ollantay (play) 41 Olsen-​Reeder, V. 104 Olympics (2016) 304, 449 Ombeyets 201 Omoniyi, T. 337 ‘one nation, one language’ ideology 225, 227 online digital practices 453 online journals 328, 452 online public signage 438 online streaming platforms 356 online voice 175 ontoethics and research 92 open-​access journal platforms 323, 326, 327 Open Science movement 327 orality, and literacy xxx, 160 oral linguascaping, conceptualization of 432 oral variation 199 orchestration 98, 111 Ortega, L. 85, 276 Ortiz, A.A. 279 Oshiwambo/​English classroom 118–​123 Otheguy, R. xxiii, 4 Otomí 43 Otsuji, E. 4, 112, 433–​434 outsourcing 451; of court interpretation services 290; industries 70 pacification 304, 305, 308 Pakistan 7; English in 213; literacy practices in 167; North-​West Frontier Province 384 Palenquero poet 37 Palmer, D. 276 Panama 32

475

Index Pandian, A. 372 papo reto 312, 306–​308 Parakrama, A. 67, 69 Paredes, L. 47 Park, J.S.Y. 167, 287, 292, 294 Parow, J. 345 Pattanayak, D.P. 7 Paulston, C. 137 PEBIMO project, Mozambique 213 Peck, A. 433, 434, 436 Peirce, C.S. 80, 82, 83 Peircean approach 86, 91 Peiris, E. 7 Pellicer, D. 196 Pennycook, A. xxv, 3–​4, 5, 32, 49, 88–​89, 92, 112, 115, 165–​166, 218, 224, 337, 433–​434, 444 perceiving subject 50–​51, 56, 58 performance arts 176 Perley, B. 195 personal asset, language as 287 person/​materiality binary xxx, 110 Perú 31, 42, 47, 134, 226–​227, 296, 445; bilingual Quechua–​Spanish teacher; study of 235; Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) in 226, 229; linguistic coloniality and schooling in 224, 226–​227 Peter, W.L.A.D. 7 Peto (Yucatec rapper) 40 Peuronen, S. 178, 453 Philippines 445; call centres in 67, 68, 70, 373; ‘educated’ Philippine English 68, 70; English in 168; politics of Englishes in 66; Pulingayen in Mindanao 201 Philippolis 437 phoneme and grapheme, correspondence between 85, 193, 199, 203 Phyak 233–​234, 257 Piccardo, E. 4 Pietikäinen, S. xxx, 355, 455 Piller, I. 384, 390 Pithouse, R. 90–​91 place semiotics 431 plantation slavery 302–​303 pluralization of languages xxv, 65, 445 plurilingualism xxiii, 4, 5, 7, 8, 310; definition of 3; Northern version of 4 poetry 33–​36, 176 policing 147, 181, 184 political economy xxi, xxix–​xxx, 83 political togetherness in difference 214 politics of reminding 149 Pollock, S. 10, 13 polylanguaging xxiii, 455 polylingualism xxxi, 4 polylingual languaging xxiii, 455 Portugal 59, 211

Portuguese language 10, 37, 150, 153, 201, 211, 242–​243, 270, 300, 324 post-​humanism xxvii–​xxviii, xxx, 80, 87–​89, 92, 123, 447–​448, 455 post-​modernism 209–​210 post-​nationalism, market in 287–​290 post-​structuralism xxviii, 87, 110, 209 Poza, L. 234, 254 practice, language as 92 pragmatism 208, 212 Pratt, M.L. 5 pre-​colonial multilingualism 3–​6, 5, 12–​13, 445; in India 6; research direction 12; in South Asia 6–​7; in Sri Lanka 6; theorization 10–​12; translingualism 3–​5, 7–​10, 12; in Western and non-​Western communities 6 pre-​Hispanic Indigenous theatrical plays 41–​43 Primary Education Improvement Project in Northern Nigeria 213 Prinsloo, M. 167 Pritzker, S.E. 417 privileged languages, and work 377 pro-​African language policies 215–​216 problematization, of multilingualism xxii–​xxv Probyn, M. 102, 257, 258, 259, 261–​262, 263 production cost, of language 290 Professional Academic Writing in a Global Context (PAW) 319, 322 professional development literature 101 professional interpreters 290, 420 profit and language, link between 371 Programa Nacional de Bilinguismo (National Bilingual Programme) 451 Prophets of da City (POC) 340, 341, 348n5 Protactile approach 82 pro-​users 211, 212 public health communication: in English 384; in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates 384; see also China, emergency language services of public schooling 446 public services: neoliberalization of 290; semiotic emplacement 435 Pujolar, J. 286–​289 Pulingayen 201 Punjabi 9 Purépecha 31 Qom xxxii, 198 Quechua 20, 34, 40–​41, 134, 199, 226; in classrooms in Peru 161; course, in Lima 294; education, raciolinguistic ideologies 54–​58 Quechua for All programme 296 Queen, R. 418 Quenguan, J. 42 Querétaro, México 43 Quichua 135

476

Index Quijano, A. xxvi, 194, 195, 224, 445 Quintana, V. 39 “Rabinal Achí, The” 41 race and racism: racial hierarchies 49, 57–​58; and racialization processes xxvi, 193; racist perspectives 195; and securitzation 302 raciolinguistic ideologies (RLI) 47, 445; and co-​naturalization 48; in conversation with other research traditions 57–​58; dual-​language U.S. education 51–​54; enregisterment 54–​57; goals of 48; key components of 48–​49, 50; key elements 49–​51; and multilingualism study 59–​60; origins of 48–​49; Quechua language education 54–​57; racial hierarchies examination 49; scholarship 57–​58; and social change theory 51; socialization and positioning 51–​54; and white listening subject 48–​49, 50, 56, 58, 59, 232 Raciolinguistics (Alim et al.) 57–​58 Rahmawansyah 258 Ramanathan, V. 67 Rampton, B. xxiii, 3–​4, 153, 287 Ran, A. 162 Rancière, J. 147 rap music 41, 337–​347 Rasman, R. 103 Real Academia Española (RAE) 47 reason-​affect binary xxx Rebolledo, V. 201 referentialism 417 refugee identity 394 Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC) 202 Reid, W. xxiii relational ontologies xxviii, 87–​89, 90 representamen 82 representationalism 79, 85, 87, 448 research communities 322–​323; researcher and research participants xxvii; see also global academic research resemiotisation 111 Reyhner, J. 163 Ribeiro, F.S. 231 Ricento, T. 208–​209 Rickford, J.R. 57 Rio de Janeiro, favelas in 300, 301, 304–​308, 312, 449 Ritchie, W. 7 ritual practices 86 RLI see raciolinguistic ideologies (RLI) Rosa, J. 48–​49, 50, 54, 232 Rose, T. 337–​338 Rosenbaum, Y. 428 Rosendal, T. 354, 438 Roth, W.M. 104 Roth-​Gordon, J. 337

Rough Rock Demonstration School 135 Roux, S. 434 Runa people 90 Rwanda 214, 215, 438 Rydell, M. 289 Sabino, R. 22 Sah, P.K. 103 Sak, R. 199 Salaün, M. 195–​196 Sall, T.S. 11 Salonga, A.O. 68, 373 Samaraweera, V. 9 Sámi 127, 133, 323 Samoan xxxii, 104 Sanas app 51 Sánchez, M.T. 103–​104, 234 Sanöma 201 Sanskrit 10, 13 Santiago, R. 306–​307 São Tomé e Príncipe 215 Sarabadzic, L. 182 Saussure, F.D. 80, 82, 97 Saussurean essentialism 91 Saussurian structuralist linguistics 84–​85 Savan 82 “Savi” (“Rain”) (poem) 35 Schaaf, A. 372 Schieffelin, B. 162, 417 science classrooms 116, 446 Scollon, R. 112, 115, 429–​431 Scollon, S.W. 112, 115, 429–​431 screen-​based language uses 177 Scribner, S. 161 Seals, C. xxxii, 104 secondness 82–​83 second-​order languages/​ing xxxi, 20, 80–​81, 86, 98–​99 securitization 300, 448–​449; see also (in) securitization self-​determination 129, 131–​133, 136–​137 Selleck, C. 374 Seltzer, K. 166 Semai Orang Asli people, community learning centre for 202 semilingualism 48, 154 semiotics 92, 98; assemblages 89, 434; complexity 155; and complexity 123; diversity, and social justice orientation 110; flows of 83; landscape 430; multimodal 110; and multimodality 430; place semiotics 431; repertoires xxiv, xxviii, 55, 112, 123; resources 118, 176; social 111; visual 431; see also signs Sengupta, P. 384 sensorium, multilingualism as xxviii sensory knowledge xxv, 455

477

Index service provision xxix, 286; see also emergency language services; language services Set, B. 116 Setswana 209, 212 Shankar, S. 81, 83 Shearer, K. 327 Shehata, K. 324 Sheridan, C. 326 Shi, L. 388 Shohamy, E. 429, 430 Shona 21 Sichra, E. 134 Sidnell, J. 81, 83 signs 82, 111; emplacement of 429; material quality of 82; placeness, in geosemiotics theory 112; theories 80; top-​down and bottom-​up/​official and non-​official arrangement of 430; see also semiotics silencing xxxvii, 64, 145, 152, 303, 312, 313, 429, 456 Silverstein, M. 20, 417 Simpson, J. 448 Simungala, G.N. 435 Singapore 263, 292 Sinhalese and Sinhala 9–​10 Siragusa, L. 81, 84 Skutnabb-​Kangas, S. 132 Smirnova, N.V. 326 Smith, L.T. xxvii, 458 social construct, language as 22, 96 social hierarchies 55 social inequalities 209–​210, 217, 219, 292, 296, 443, 447, 453, 457 social injustice 217, 241, 246 social justice 18, 35, 44, 89, 110, 114, 183, 246, 383 social media 175, 180, 183–​184, 353; Facebook 356–​357; normativity in 181; surveillance and policing 184; Twitter, agentic activism on 357 societal plurilingualism 4 socio-​material assemblages 89 Solorza, C. 234 Somalia 212, 214, 215 “Somos Mujeres Somos hip hop” (“We are women We are hip hop”) project 39 South Africa 18, 102, 167, 215, 224, 227–​229, 259, 454; Afrikaans in education 252; apartheid, and hip hop culture see hip hop cultures; apartheid government in 227; Dutch and British rules 227; English in education 252; hip hop in 23; inequity of access to technology 274; linguistic coloniality and schooling in 227–​228; linguistic landscapes in 432; multilingual science classrooms in 116; performing South African languages songs in youth choir 147; programmes for racialized bi/​ multilinguals in 233

South Africa, higher education in 240, 248–​249; and apartheid 244; and language in society and schooling 242–​244; linguistic justice in 241; linguistic third spaces 244–​246; post-​ apartheid national language policy 243; reading intervention 247; theoretical framework 241–​242; translanguaging pedagogy 246–​248 South America 5, 24, 135; Indigenous language richness in 134 South Asia 5; as a multilingual region 6–​7; pre-​colonial era in 445 South Australia, Indigenous communities in 20 Southeast Asia 167 Southern multilingualisms 18, 25–​27; balanced multilingualism 24; and colonialism 20–​21; differences 24–​25; educational multilingualism 26; first-​order activities 19–​20; geopolitical contexts 18; language inventions 19–​21, 22, 26; multilanguaging 22–​24, 26; multilingua francas 22–​24, 26; remixing multilingualism 22–​24; see also Global South Southern Theory xxvii South Korea 292; yeongeo yeolpung (English frenzy) in 69 Soy José Mamani (play) 43 spaces 370–​371; of language learning 371, 372–​373; of managing multilingualism 371, 375–​376; ownership of 433; of transience and multilingualism 371; of valuing multilingualism 371, 373–​375; of work and languages 371–​376; see also multilingual workplaces Spanish language 24, 43, 53, 86, 199, 201 spatial repertoires xxviii, 98, 110, 112, 115, 123 Spaza Rap 339 Spinoza, B. 88 Spolsky, B. 428 Sri Lanka 6; English in 67, 69, 167; pre-​colonial 6 Standard English 360; homogenization or whitening towards 51; and internalized racism 65; privileging in global and multinational companies 68, 70 standardization of language 21, 208 standardized language 105; and coloniality 97; standard media in 353 standard languages 166, 167, 230, 312 state-​sponsored education 69 stigmatization of multilingual competence 195 Stites, A. 234–​235 Storch, A. 457 strategic essentialism xxxi Street, B. 161 Stroud, C. 149, 217–​218, 434, 436, 447 structuralism 79, 208 structure-​agency binary xxx subjectivization of speakers 287 subjugated knowledges 153–​154

478

Index submersion programmes 200 subordinated languages 147 Sub-​Saharan Africa, languages of learning and teaching in: colonial discourse 211; colonial language-​in-​education legacy, attempts to change 213–​214; colonial language-​in-​education policies 210–​212; decolonization 208; and domestic language planners 213–​214; early developments 210–​212; language-​in-​education policies (LiEPs) 207; modernization, critical sociolinguistics and access 208–​209; monolingual model 213–​214; new world order, post-​modernism and LHR 209–​210, 214; pragmatism 208; structuralism 208; towards decolonial approaches 217–​219 Suburban Menace 341–​342, 343 superdiversity of linguistic backgrounds 263, 265–​266 supra-​national politic-​economic structures 214 Swain, M. 96–​97 Sweden, construction site workers 376 Swinehart, K. 38, 40 symbolic capital 296 symbolic function 429 symbolic violence 303 symbols 82 Tabiola, H.B. 373 Takaki, N.H. 258 Talanco Leal, E. 37 Tamang 230 Tamils 9–​10, 13 Tamma, S. 195 Tanzania 212, 215, 337 Tarahumaras 42 Tassinari, A. 133, 198 tattoos and tattooing 434–​435 Taylor, C. 115 teachers: capabilities perspective 264; code-​ switching of 259; during COVID-​19 pandemic 276; de-​professionalization and employment precarity, experience of 290; education, through translanguaging 265; engagement in translanguaging practices 263; familiarity with the L1 of the learners 260; lack of confidence in English language abilities 252; language proficiency and status of 200; militant teachers 200; negative consequences in language industry 290; pre-​service teacher programme 265 Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) 64 Teatro Campesino e Indígena X’ocen (Peasant and Indigenous Theatre X’ocen) 42 Teatro para la Memoria (Theatre for Memory) 42 technological evolution, and media 362–​363 Tembo, P. 435

Tenorio, A. 36 testimonial epistemic injustice 152 Thailand 196, 388 theatrical performances 41–​43 Thibault, P. 81, 99 thirdness 82–​83 third spaces 4, 244–​246, 248 Thorne, S.F. 11–​12 Thurlow, C. 430–​431 Tiantian, G. 387 TL-​TS see translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing (TL-​TS) tolerance-​oriented rights 130 Tollefson, J.W. 67, 209 Toohey, K. 89 touristification 285–​286 transcription 114–​115, 123 transduction 417, 418 transfeaturing 100 transformation 417 transglossia xxiii, 178, 455 translanguaging xxiii, 89, 165–​166, 233, 253, 438, 444, 446, 448, 455; aspects of individual workers 376; and body 113; critical xxxii; as a decolonial pedagogy 153; definition of 255–​259; in dual-​ language bilingual classrooms 234; intervention in Zimbabwe 259; leveraging 231–​234; limits and possibilities of xxxi–​xxxiii; and marginalized learners 152; and marginalized/​less powerful languages xxxi; and multi-​semiotic approach 112; pedagogical practice 232; praxis 167; registers 260; remnants of process 99; script-​focused xxiii; as solidarity-​building 376; spaces 435; spontaneous or intentional 253; sustainable 104; transformative goals of xxxii; weak and strong forms of xxxii translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing (TL-​TS) 96; and access paradox 101, 102–​103; in education 100–​104; and language as social construct 96; and minority languages 103; and non-​standardized ways of communicating 96; possibilities and future research directions 104–​105; as practice 99–​100; principles 103–​104; and protect minoritized (named) languages 101; and standardized language 105; and student learning 101–​102; and teachers 105; as a theoretical perspective 97–​99 translanguaging pedagogies 252–​254, 265–​266; analytical frames employed by the studies reviewed 263; in assessments 261; challenges to 263; collaborative groupings 260; for comprehending academic texts in English 247–​248; for critique and linguistic activism 246–​247; in critiquing Language Policies and Practices 264–​265; dominance of English 264; humanization of 263; (in)visibility of local

479

Index languages 264; scale and impact of interventions 261–​263; science lessons 260–​261; strategies in classrooms 259–​260 translation 111, 115, 152, 415, 452–​453; American students of traditional Chinese medicine, preference of 417; archival records of early Christian missionaries in Central America 417; bidirectional 416; cross-​cultural 417; deictic shifts 421, 422; discourse markers 419; indexicality and social meaning 416; in institutional contexts 418; in legal sphere 418–​419; in the linguistic landscape 422; and linguistics studies, cross-​disciplinary connections 423; machine translation 184, 416, 422–​423; as multilingual practice 184; and political activism 423; in the process of Christianization 417; quasi-​translation 415; role in cultural and linguistic change 417; and social identity 420; translatability of referential content 417; unidirectional 416; un-​selfing of 152 translingualism xxiii, 3–​5, 7, 10, 12, 165–​166, 455 translocal solidarities and alignments 66, 70–​71 transmodal multilanguaging 23 transnationalism, and literacy 164–​165 transnational migrants 384 transnational youth, literacy development and identity work of 179 trans-​semiotizing xxiv, xxviii, 110, 113, 446, 447, 448, 455; semiotic repertoires xxiii; see also translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing (TL-​TS) TRT channels 275 Tsotsil peoples of Chiapas 198 Tulp, S.M. 428 Tupas, R. 168, 373 Turkey 270, 275; distance learning modes 271–​272 Turkish classes in Greek Cypriot 308–​312, 449 Turkish Cypriots 301 Turner, M. 101–​102 Tusting, K. xxvii Twitter 357 Tyler, R. xxxii, 115, 456 ubuntu language 100, 232, 264–​265 ubuntu translanguaging xxiii, xxiv, 23, 210, 455; pedagogy 217, 218 Uganda 167 ukolonia 209, 215 Ulrichs.com 326 Unamuno, V. xxvii, xxxii unequal Englishes in the Global South 63–​64, 71–​72; configurations of 67–​72; local nexuses of power 67–​69; and neoliberalism 69; translocal solidarities and alignments 66, 70–​71; see also Global South United Arab Emirates 103 United Kingdom 70, 113, 211, 301, 448

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) xxxi, 131–​132, 133 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic or Religious Minorities 131 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 193, 269, 271 United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) 196, 269–​270 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 129 United States 70, 103–​104, 133, 228–​229, 323, 445; Asian American students during COVID-​19 pandemic 275; civil rights struggles 228; COVID-​19 pandemic and language education in 270, 278; dual-​language education, raciolinguistic ideologies 51–​54; dual-​language programmes 228, 230, 231, 234; elements of pedagogical practices 234; folk linguistics in 230; linguistic coloniality and schooling in 224, 228–​229; multilingualism and translation in justice system of 417; police interrogations of Spanish-​speaking suspects in 420; Programmes for racialized bi/​multilinguals in 233; securitization in 301; use of Spanish in schools 229 universal human property, language as 21 un-​selfing, of translation 152 urban environments 432 urban language dynamism 139 urban vernaculars xxiii urbilingualisms 23 Urciuoli, B. 287, 292 urgency, conceptualization of 91 Urla, J. 287, 291 Urutetagoyena, A. 37 user-​generated content 353, 356, 362 Vaish, V. 263 Valdés, G. 49, 420 Valdez, V.E. 167 Valiñas Coalla, L. 31 value production 287–​290 valuing multilingualism, spaces of 371–​376 Van Leeuwen, T. 431 Varela, F.G. 147 Vázquez, B. 198, 263 Veps 84 vernaculars 9–​10 Veronelli, G.A. xxvi, 49, 116 Verwoerd, H.F. 227 videomaking, as a socio-​material assemblage 89 “Viento Florido” (“Flowery Wind”) 39 Vigers, D. 422 Vigouroux, C.B. 50, 375, 422

480

Index Villari, C. 199 violence and language in politics, differentiation between 305 Virtanen, P. 81 virtual linguistic landscape (VLL) 431, 432, 439; semiotic modes used in 431; see also linguistic landscapes (LL) virtual spaces 431–​432 visual semiotics 431 voice: idea of 444; selective recognition of 147 Voloshinov, V.N. 83 volunteer services 387 vowel alternations 56 Wadensjö, C. 421 Waitangi, Treaty of 136 walking methodology 436, 439, 454 Walsh, C. 31–​32 Wang, L. 387 Wang, W. 102 Warriner, D.S. 164 Welsh language 163 western labour markets 372; see also workplaces western modernity, darker side of xxvi, 445 white listening subject 48–​49, 50, 56, 58, 59, 232 Whiteside, A. 448 whole-​body sense-​making 110, 113, 115, 123, 447 Wichi xxxii Williams, A. 162 Williams, C. 165 Williams, Q. 23 Williams, R. 81, 83 work for language 289 workplaces 451; conceptions of the term ‘work’ 371; English language requirement 372–​373; and ethnic economies 374; language brokers 375–​376; languaged labour market 372; local

language needs, and multilingual workers 373; and migrant economy 374; and privileged languages 377; see also multilingual workplaces; spaces World Bank 213, 269–​270, 271–​272 writing systems 199 Wu, Y. 104, 113–​114 Wynter, S. 91 Xakriabá children 198 Xu, X. 326 ‘y a’bon’ 50 Yafele, S. 247–​248 Yanomami, D.K. 202 Yanomami Indigenous territory 201 Yonjan-​Tamang, A. 230 Yoruba 20 Young, V.A. 4 YouTube 356–​357 Yucatán peninsula 273 Yunnan 388 Zambia 212, 434, 437, 454; Chinese signage in rural landscapes 432 Zambia, University of 435 Zapatista 84 Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) 194 Zapotec 31, 273 Zavala, V. 55, 197, 198, 235, 294–​295 Zef Rap 339 Zhang, J. 388, 390 Zhukova, O. 84 Zimbabwe 21, 259 Zinny, D. 438 Zurich Airport, multilingual workers at 374

481