Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism: The DYLAN project [1 ed.] 9789027271372, 9789027200563

Citation preview

Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism

Multilingualism and Diversity Management (MDM) This book series collects a wide range of scholarship on different, yet mutually complementary dimensions of multilingualism. It contains the main findings of a five-year integrated research project supported by the European Commission and brings together researchers from eighteen universities across the continent. The project, known under its acronym of DYLAN (Language Dynamics and Management of Diversity), examines the interconnections between social actors’ representations of language and multilingualism, policies adopted by various organisations to deal with multilingualism, the role of context which shapes, but is also shaped by representations and policies regarding multilingualism, and actual language practices. These interconnections are explored on three types of terrain: private-sector companies, the political institutions of the European Union, and the sphere of education (with an emphasis on universities in bi- or trilingual settings). In addition, three major themes cutting across these different terrains are analysed, namely, efficiency and fairness in language choices, emerging language varieties, and the historical dimensions of multilingualism.

For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/mdm

Editors Anne-Claude Berthoud

François Grin

Georges Lüdi

Jan Blommaert

Françoise Gadet

Ruth Wodak

Jean-Marc Dewaele

Tom Moring

University of Lausanne

University of Geneva

University of Basel

Advisory Board Tilburg University Birkbeck College, University of London

University of Paris-10

Lancaster University

Swedish School of Social Science, Helsinki

Volume 2 Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism. The DYLAN project Edited by Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin and Georges Lüdi

Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism The DYLAN project Edited by

Anne-Claude Berthoud University of Lausanne

François Grin University of Geneva

Georges Lüdi University of Basel

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism : the DYLAN project / edited by Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin, Georges Lüdi. p. cm. (Multilingualism and Diversity Management, issn 2210-7010 ; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Multilingualism--Research--Methodology. 2. Language acquisition. I. Berthoud, AnneClaude. II. Grin, François. III. Lüdi, Georges. P115.E96   2013 306.44’6--dc23 2013023652 isbn 978 90 272 0056 3 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 7137 2 (Eb)

© 2013 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents Introduction Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi

ix

part i.  Companies Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings: Keeping the delicate balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity Vassiliki Markaki, Sara Merlino, Lorenza Mondada, Florence Oloff & Véronique Traverso Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities: ‘Border-crossing’ and ‘languaging’ in multilingual workplaces Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies in the Upper Rhine Region Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart Chapter 4.  Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity in companies: Intertwining of collective monophony and polyphony in individual enunciators Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger

3

33

59

83

Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management in the Danish corporate sector Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

101

Chapter 6.  What can Gaelic teach us about effective policy through planning? Strategies in Gaelic language planning Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell

121

Chapter 7.  Language diversity management on corporate websites Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander

137

 Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism

part ii.  European institutions Chapter 8.  Language competence and language choice within EU institutions and their effects on national legislative authorities Jan Kruse & Ulrich Ammon Chapter 9.  EU and lesser-used languages: Slovene language in EU institutions Mojca Stritar & Marko Stabej Chapter 10.  Dynamics of multilingualism in post-Enlargement EU institutions: Perceptions, Conceptions and Practices Michał Krzyżanowski & Ruth Wodak

157

179

205

part iii.  Higher education Chapter 11.  Accomplishing multilingualism through plurilingual activities Luci Nussbaum, Emily Moore & Eulàlia Borràs Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices: A case study Daniela Veronesi, Lorenzo Spreafico, Cecilia Varcasia, Alessandra Vietti & Rita Franceschini

229

253

Chapter 13.  Plurilingualisms and knowledge construction in higher education 279 Laurent Gajo, Anne Grobet, Cecilia Serra, Gabriela Steffen, Gabriela Müller & Anne-Claude Berthoud Chapter 14.  Language policies in universities and their outcomes: The University of Helsinki in a Northern European context Tom Moring, Sebastian Godenhjelm, Saara Haapamäki, Jan Lindström, Jan-Ola Östman, Mirja Saari & Jenny Sylvin

299

Chapter 15.  Policies and practices of multilingualism at Babeş-Bolyai University (Cluj, Romania) Ştefan Oltean, Liana Pop, Diana Cotrău, Delia Marga & Manuela Mihăescu

323

Chapter 16.  How policies influence multilingual education and the impact of multilingual education on practices Piet Van de Craen, Jill Surmont, Evy Ceuleers & Laure Allain

343

  

part iv.  Transversal issues Chapter 17.  Assessing efficiency and fairness in multilingual communication: Theory and application through indicators François Grin & Michele Gazzola Chapter 18.  English as a lingua franca in European multilingualism Cornelia Hülmbauer & Barbara Seidlhofer Chapter 19.  Europe’s multilingualism in the context of a European culture of standard languages Olivier Moliner, Ulrike Vogl & Matthias Hüning

365

387

407

Conclusion Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi

429

Index

437

Introduction Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi Université de Lausanne / Université de Genève / Universität Basel

1.  Context The research presented in this book originated in the context of rapid changes affecting societies throughout Europe and all over the world, including its many language dimensions. The steady increase in the numbers of migrants, expats, refugees, etc. entails many forms of social multilingualism, with the result that traditional categories no longer suffice to capture the full scope of manifestations of diversity in modern societies. Various commentators had already alerted us to this evolution, and some propose the use of the term “super-diversity”, whereby allowance is made for the fact that earlier categories must be supplemented by new ones, and our understanding of these categories needs to be updated substantially at times. In this changing c­ ontext, organisations such as the official institutions of the European Union, universities and private-sector businesses (as well as the people working and studying in these ­organisations) must meet the manifold challenges of linguistic diversity. This implies that they must find ways to manage the corresponding linguistic repertoires, which include the official languages of EU member states, regional and minority languages and, increasingly, additional languages whose demolinguistic and sociological importance increase apace with migration from non-European countries. A frequently expressed view is that the best way to respond to this challenge lies in the choice of a small number of so-called “working languages” or even of one “corporate language”. The reasons given for this are mostly economic even if, from an economic standpoint, they amount not to an actual saving but to a mere shifting of costs, as shown by recent research in language economics. A restriction in the range of languages for given political purposes is seen by some scholars as necessary for fostering a deliberative democracy inside the European Union, since excessive linguistic diversity might hamper the development, through discourse, of a public political space in Europe. This development would then require using a single, agreed-upon lingua franca. Along similar lines, many commentators make a distinction between



Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi

languages for identification, that respect the language regimes of the member states, and a language for communication. This view appears to be widely held in politically and economically influential circles. Many scholars, however, question the compatibility of increasing the use of one particular language (in this case English) with the EU’s commitment to maintaining the diversity of its languages. They argue in favour of a balance between languages, so as to prevent the entrenchment of a language hierarchy and, possibly, among language communities themselves, with unequal access to political and other resources. This debate is developing against the backdrop of an ongoing revision, in scientific research, of fundamental ideas about languages themselves, about the definition of language groups and speakers, and about the nature of communication processes. One important question, therefore, is what bearing this revision may have on the management of linguistic diversity at various levels. This is the context of the DYLAN Research Project1 on which the chapters of this book draw. The aim was to track language dynamics in order to contribute in an innovative way to the discovery of the optimal means by which to develop diversity management, the challenge being to formulate research questions which were likely to be relevant both to the immediate demands of practitioners as well as to the researchers’ interests. The overarching orientation was to explore the conditions under which the linguistic diversity prevalent in Europe is an asset rather than an obstacle. In accordance with the goals of the project, this book proposes some answers to three key questions: ––

–– ––

Can a European, knowledge-based society designed to ensure economic competitiveness and social cohesion be created within a European Union that is ­linguistically more diverse than ever and, if so, how? How do organisations and individuals actually cope with this diversity? In what way, and under what conditions, are “multilingual solutions” not just a response to a problem, but a genuine advantage for companies, European ­institutions and bodies, and higher education? These three terrains have ­particular importance with respect to multilingualism.

.  The DYLAN Project was an “Integrated Project” of the Sixth Framework Programme, ­Priority 7, “Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society”, with 19 partners, from twelve countries. It addresses the core issue underlying topic 3.3.1 – whether and, if so, how a European knowledge-based society designed to ensure that economic competitiveness and social cohesion can be created despite the fact that, following enlargement, the European Union is linguistically more diverse than ever before.

Introduction 

Against this backdrop, three main objectives were formulated: a. to develop a fine-grained understanding of the ways in which multilingual ­repertoires are developed and used in various situations, b. to identify the conditions that need to be met in order for the development and use of multilingual repertoires, which are part of the European heritage and ethos, to be prioritised so that they might contribute to the development of a ­knowledge-based society and lead to broader conceptual, argumentative and ­strategic opportunities, c. to help formulate proposals for the effective, cost-effective and democratic ­management of linguistic diversity in Europe by investigating the ways in which different modes of thinking and different forms of behaviour, carried by d ­ ifferent languages, can promote the creation, transfer and application of knowledge, and contribute a genuinely valuable input in the sharing and transfer of information, problem-solving and operations control. The research results are intended to serve as a benchmark for a better understanding of complex processes in which key aspects of language learning and communicational practices are combined. The answers put forward in this book carry implications at four distinct levels: ––

––

–– ––

economic: strengthening economic performance through the implementation of linguistically diversified modes of control, problem management and problemsolving in production, consumption and exchange; political: ensuring fairness in the treatment of various languages and their ­speakers, and contributing to social justice by facilitating the access of all citizens to multilingualism; educational: contributing to the construction, transmission and use of knowledge; scientific: contributing to the development of a scientific approach to the management of linguistic and cultural diversity.

2.  Analytical framework Many of these questions have been the subject of numerous recent publications across most disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. Even if we were to focus only on various branches of linguistics and neighbouring specialisations, it would be illusory to mention more than a very brief, and necessarily incomplete selection of contributions, and it is wiser to refer the reader to the references provided in the individual chapters of this book. Much of the literature emphasises the study of language practices; some authors derive, from the analysis of these practices, implications for the management of l­ inguistic diversity in different contexts. Some research has been carried out on ­discourses about



Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi

the subject, but usually without linking them to actual practices or management measures. Finally, the more macro-level language policy tradition, often coming not from the language disciplines but from other disciplines such as political science, economics or sociology, does focus on such measures, but tends to pay inadequate attention to the actors’ linguistic practices. One of the original aspects of the work undertaken in the DYLAN project, which lies at the root of this book, is that it goes a few steps further by providing a fresh look at these questions. For this purpose, the emphasis is placed on the interrelationships between actual language practices, people’s representations about multilingualism, their declared choices (often enshrined in explicit language policies), and the contexts in which they encounter linguistic diversity. The analytical framework of the project has been designed to address all these ­levels. In the research based on this framework and reported in this book, the ­development and use of multilingual repertoires in a number of situated contexts is approached with a dual concern in mind: first, to be scientifically sound; second, to be practically relevant from the standpoint of actors – including those who might later refer to this framework when selecting, designing, implementing and evaluating policies on linguistic diversity. At the same time, the framework is flexible enough to accommodate new questions that emerge as a normal result of the internal dynamics of a practice-oriented research process. These requirements have given rise, as a shared starting point, to an a­ nalytical framework made up of four dimensions which make up the project’s conceptual cornerstones: –– ––

––

––

actual language practices, with a focus on oral and interactional practices; representations of multilingualism and linguistic diversity, bearing in mind that we were concerned, in particular, with what organisations and individuals say about multilingualism and linguistic diversity; the language policies of various institutions. The latter include not only states or other public bodies (particularly local, regional or national authorities, as well as supra-national organisations), but also universities (whether public or private) as well as private-sector companies; the linguistic context (or language environment) in which agents operate. No ­particular assumption was made at the outset regarding context since, with research teams from various parts of Europe, observations could reflect a potentially endless variety of specific situations at national, regional and local levels.

Rather than a repository of testable propositions (which the project would serve to assess), this framework was intended as a meta-level point of reference, whose main function was to provide researchers with an interface through which their respective investigations and findings could be placed and perceived in relation to one another. In line with this approach, this book focuses on the relationships between the four dimensions, with the further implications that the conceptual contents of these ­dimensions could evolve as the project progressed.

Introduction 

Generally, the authors of this book have been confronted with the need to rethink the a priori concepts with which the project was initially framed. For example, the implicit (and deliberately simplifying) assumption of the conceptual autonomy of practices, ­policies, representations and contexts was substantially revised. Researchers have often found it relevant, in light of the observations repeatedly made on the terrain to treat activities, representations, and policies as fundamentally interrelated. The implication, for many of them, is that the discursive manifestations of these initial dimensions must be approached at two levels, namely as both the result of situated social practices located upstream, and a structuring feature of new action. In the same way, language policies, strategies and more specific prescriptions are relevant at many levels simultaneously, as they are elaborated, formulated and disseminated through institutional and administrative practices. This is illustrated, in practice, by the fact that not only do decision makers draft a document but they also decide where and how it is to be disseminated and implemented, with the implementation itself being embodied in specific practices. The four a priori dimensions, as well as their subsequent reconsiderations, along with the manifold relationships between them, have been studied in different settings described as “terrains”. Three types of terrains have been selected, namely companies, official bodies of the European Union and institutions of higher education. In ­addition, the development and use of multilingual repertoires, as well as some key features of the changing contexts surrounding them, have been examined in connection with three additional sets of transversal issues: efficiency and fairness and emergent varieties and forms of multilingualism in European history.

Policies & strategies

Companies EU Institutions Educational systems

Language pratices

Representations

Context

sal issues Transver iency and fairness history ff 1. E ic European varieties t in n e sm rg li e a gu 2. Em of multilin 3. Forms

 Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi

All eighteen research teams were asked to position their research questions with respect to this set of conceptual clusters and relationships, and then to refer to this framework when contributing their own specific answers to the project’s central questions. Obviously, all this work has been taking place against a backdrop of sustained scientific debates on various aspects of multilingualism in the context of globalisation. Project teams, therefore, have found it necessary to position and reposition themselves vis-à-vis a wide range of issues, such as linguistic imperialism, the concept of “(multi) languaging”, linguistic human rights, or the conditions for democratic participation, to name but a few.

3.  Integrating different methodological orientations One of the original features of the DYLAN project was the adoption of a mixed-­ methods approach in order to cope with the wide range of questions it addresses. These methods are well established in the language sciences; however, the wide range of approaches brought to bear on the core research questions implies that the ­conceptual and methodological cornerstones of the work of various teams could not all be the same. Thus, the positioning of DYLAN with respect to the stateof-the art in research on multilingualism is done within the individual chapters that follow. In accordance with the hypothesis that the terrains analysed are regulated by ­different types of institutionalised language practices, these methods aim at understanding how forms of discourse can serve as indicators of how the various institutions operate, and at revealing associated patterns of language use through a fine-grained analysis. They include discourse analysis, ethnography of communication, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, policy analysis, analysis of the linguistic landscape as well as the use of secondary, quantitative data sources. The latter type of ­information, in particular, characterises key features of the linguistic environment described in the research design and provides the backdrop for the actors’ choices regarding their language practices. It also defines the actual context that many public policies and corporate strategies seek to influence. In addition, some teams hailing from other disciplinary perspectives have applied distinct instruments, particularly from socio-economics and policy analysis. The DYLAN project has tackled the issue of how to document the variety of ­multilingual settings and practices in companies, in European institutions and in higher education. Reflections on the observability and traceability of practice and ­discourse in context were at the core of the investigations. Different methodologies were ­mobilised, motivated by these various theoretical perspectives:

Introduction 

––

––

––

from a conversation analytical perspective, a collection of multilingual interactions in various professional contexts is gathered on the basis of audio and video recordings; from the perspective of representation analysis, a collection of discourses and statements from social actors is built through (more or less structured) research interviews; from a discourse and content analytical perspective, a collection of documents that implement language policies and strategies is constituted through fieldwork and work in the archives.

Different types of methods have been applied. The language disciplines, in particular, have contributed the following. One first method was the analysis of data recorded in situ, during collaborative activities in more or less (in)formal meetings and lectures. Through this type of analysis, the details of multilingual practice could be investigated, whether participants used a lingua franca (usually, but not only English), code-switching, or other adjusted conversational formats between native and alloglot speakers, etc. From this perspective language choice, in particular interactional settings, became observable. ­Multilingualism was studied as it occurs locally, as it is configured in an emergent way and adapted to the possibilities and constraints of a given context. The categorisation of multilingualism as an asset or as an obstacle depends on interactional trajectories, that is, on sequences that feature phenomena like “repairs”, misunderstandings, word searches, reformulations or indicators of a more or less problematic interaction. A second method applied in the research rested on the analysis of interviews with different types of actors in the three terrains, more or less focused on the ­language biography of those speakers. This analytical perspective aimed at studying how privileged witnesses describe their attitudes to language, as well as their perception of their own language policies. In such cases, language choice was not directly observable; instead, it was talked about and transformed into an object of vernacular theories by social actors, who reported on their decisions, choices, constraints, or regulations, resulting in a possible clash between business or institutional logic and individual ­reasoning. In this case, the perception of multilingualism as an asset or as an obstacle concerned individual representations expressed through discourse, in which attitudes to l­ anguage are strongly influenced by the way in which languages or general d ­ ecisions were related to partners, hierarchies, or competitors. In this approach, researchers usually combined content analysis with discourse analysis (dealing with discursive positioning, different degrees of involvement, polyphony, as these can be detected in the use of personal pronouns, modalities and modal markers, or in axiological ­lexical choices), or even with interactional analysis (taking into account the dynamics of questions and answers, and the expectations that they project onto each other).

 Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi

Thirdly, official documents collected in companies, European institutions and universities, or circulating in the public space, such as national-level legislation and other official documents containing regulations and recommendations, have been examined. Through these documents, it was possible to capture the prescriptive ­discourse of firms, European institutions and universities, as well as corresponding official perceptions of multilingualism. The documents demonstrated how much space and importance is granted to multilingualism within company and institutional regulations. Furthermore, official documents showed how multilingualism is associated with economic factors, local or global cultural values, normative attitudes, or with perceived efficiency. Fourthly, we have analysed other types of sources collected in situ, including written boards or documents used by participants during meetings (such as PowerPoint presentations, agendas, or individual notes, plans or written documents for internal purposes). The meaning of such artefacts arises from the specific activities in which they are used. The analysis of companies’ linguistic landscapes and websites contributed to understand how much space and importance is granted to multilingualism within these companies’ institutional regulations and practices. Other methods used in the project include, in the main, two types of tools. The first may be characterised as forms of survey-based socioeconomic approaches, which do not examine the detail of communication processes, but study how the use of ­different languages reflects the actors’ choices given certain goals (such as profit maximisation in the case of companies) and a set of constraints (such as the greater or lesser social acceptability of one language or another). The second is standard policy analysis, which examines the policies of public or private-sector institutions in terms of their advantages and drawbacks, in order, for example, to identify the effects – and hence the relative merits – of alternative policy choices. This also holds true for a third type of instrument, namely, the development of indicators, which further brings in the theory of indicator systems. All three rest on implicit or explicit comparisons between different states of affairs, both in terms of the observations of distinct cases and in terms of reconstructed counterfactuals.

4.  Overview of the book The book is divided into four parts. The first three present the results which emanated from the three terrains – companies, European Union bodies and institutions of higher education – while the fourth part describes the results of the transversal issues addressed in the project: efficiency and fairness, emergent varieties, and forms of ­multilingualism in European history.

Introduction 

PART I: Companies The first part of the book focuses on the study of multilingualism in professional settings, more specifically in the corporate world. In this way, it addresses a fundamental issue: the globalised economy is characterised by an increasing and faster circulation of people, skills, knowledge, and goods, and by the distribution of responsibilities and tasks within multilingual and multicultural teams, who often engage in long-distance collaboration and stand out due to a growing mobility. In this context, firms represent a particularly fertile observation site for researchers aiming at investigating the conditions under which multilingualism is managed at all organisational levels, ranging from internal company policies to marketing activities, from recruitment strategies to everyday practices. The research carried out in this part of the project therefore aims at describing how actors with a large variety of backgrounds manage multilingual matters in practice. This investigation could equally well concern the way in which actors organise their meetings, structure their collaborative practices, take decisions, set up rules, negotiate or even impose general attitudes concerning the use of languages within the business. More specifically, this line of research investigates the extent to which actors perceive multilingual situations at work as an asset, or as a feature that might enhance creativity, while simultaneously respecting and expressing diversity. Some chapters of this book also address the opposite case, namely, situations where, in the experience of actors, multilingualism is perceived as a source of difficulty. PART I comprises seven chapters. Chapter 1 investigates how multilingualism is used as a resource for the organisation of professional activities in a variety of international and multilingual work meetings in the region of Lyon. It aims at showing how the use of multilingual resources helps participants to organise their interactions at work in specific ways, and how these multilingual resources interact with other, especially multimodal resources within the practices of collaboration. Chapter 2 focuses on professional interactions in different contexts in Paris. It looks at the use of code-switching and other multilingual practices sensitive to ­collaborative dynamics, influencing decision-making processes and “joint design”, and studies how multilingual practice shapes the participants’ concepts and ideas of ­language and languages. Chapter 3 investigates interaction in work settings based in Switzerland by describing how and where employees mobilise which languages, and with whom. It combines an analysis of those linguistic practices with observations about the actors’ communication strategies and the language policy of the company. Chapter 4 studies the language choice of, and in, Alsatian firms by looking at the discourse “about” languages. On the one hand, it focuses on representations of

 Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi

­ ractices and linguistic’ skills at work, by means of free or structured interviews based p on “triggers” and “scripts”. On the other hand, there is a strong interest in “language treatment” in the company’s discourse and decision-making processes. Chapter 5 approaches representations of multilingualism considering their ­construction by, and circulation among, the private and public actors, and in ­different social settings. Its main focus is on the dynamic transformation of representations as they emerge in public discussion and as they are possibly integrated into political programmes. The data were collected in small and large Danish businesses, with particular consideration of their exposure to English. Chapter 6 deals with language policies within a paradoxical context: the research takes into account speakers and local authorities who, in Great Britain, speak Scots or Gaelic, and for whom English is a “foreign”, though hegemonic, language. A main issue concerns the content and efficiency of language policies adopted by private and public institutions with regard to these minority languages. Chapter 7 addresses the question of the language choices made on companies’ websites and their implications for communication and access to information in the corporate sector. It examines the way in which companies manage linguistic diversity in their websites, in order to identify possible models of language management as well as the possible consequences of such choices on the structure and contents of a website. PART II: European institutions The second part of the book examines the relationship between language practices, policies, and representations in selected EU institutional contexts, namely, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council. It also looks at the language practices, attitudes and representations of MEPs from two member states (Germany and Slovenia). In these contexts, it is of particular interest to explore how EU institutions relate both multi-and/or monolingual as well internal and external communication to each other, in which ways language policies, strategies and practices evolve in a rapidly changing context, and how such developments are reflected in regulations or other official provisions. The main focus is on studying the motivations for specific choices in various EU institutional spaces, along with the language representations (ideologies) shaping specific multilingual communication within, between, and outside EU institutions. PART II is divided into three chapters. They are all characterised by a multi-level perspective which allows for the recognition of the complex nature of their common research object, that is, communication within and beyond the post-Enlargement European Union institutions. Chapter 8 focuses on discovering the overarching role of the choice of working languages in the transformation of European Union institutions. It also examines

Introduction 

whether these languages have also become central in both internal (i.e. intra- and inter-institutional) and external communication (between the EU and the member states). Does growing institutional monolingualism privilege English (and if so, how) and thereby progressively exert spill-over effects? Does it gradually affect other languages and their use? How do major EU institutions regulate (if at all) the issue of working languages? Chapter 9 examines the compatibility (or incompatibility) of declared policies to promote multilingualism and the languages of smaller member states of the EU with actual communicative practices. Using the example of Slovene and its changing role within and beyond the EU institutional system, it proposes an assessment of the policies and practices of empowerment (or lack thereof) in favour of small, lesser-used official languages in the aftermath of the 2004 enlargement. Chapter 10 presents the results of extensive fieldwork in a study of the European Union’s institutional language regimes and regulations from the point of view of their perceptions, conceptions and practices. It proposes a typology of language ideologies produced and disseminated by Europe’s media, which contributes to shaping expectations about multilingualism. In addition, the EU-relevant language ideologies (perceptions, conceptions) are confronted with the ways in which multilingualism is de facto regulated and practiced, and also provide a means of observing how multilingualism in EU institutions is changing. PART III: Higher education The third part of the book focuses on the relationships between language practices, policies and representations in selected universities throughout Europe (Finland and the other Nordic countries, Italy, Romania, Spain and Switzerland). In addition, one case of secondary education was studied (Belgium). Its main goal was to determine how a rapidly changing context can affect language policies and strategies in specific educational institutions, and how multilingualism is constructed in policies, strategies, representations and practices. In particular, it explores new approaches to l­earning, drawing on the opportunities afforded by teaching through the means of several languages. Two main research areas have been selected: first, policy and language planning research in universities, that is, approaches meant to foster local and international social relationships and measures to develop linguistic diversity; secondly, research on effective practices and, particularly, on the way members of university communities manage, in specific activities, their linguistic resources to fulfil their communicative purposes; in this perspective, multilingualism is understood as the use of different languages in the same speech event, both in the classroom (lectures, seminars or ­workshops) and outside of it (between students and service encounters). This part of the book tries to answer one of the main DYLAN questions: to what extent and under



Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi

what conditions is multilingualism an asset for the construction, transmission and use of knowledge? PART III of the book is divided into six chapters. Chapter 11 analyses how changes in context modify language policies and strategies and affect language learning practices and representations of multilingualism in e­ ducational institutions of higher education – and in particular in the Catalan context. Chapter 12 examines the role of multilingual institutions of higher education – more specifically the University of Bolzano – and its influence on the language practices of individual speakers, in particular with regard to their adoption of multilingual communication practices. Chapter 13 analyses the multilingual practices in six Swiss universities and high schools, and their impact on methods of building up, transmitting and using languages within given tasks. It also analyses the relationships between practices and discourses about multilingualism, or so-called representations. Chapter 14 examines the impact of language policies on institutional strategies in universities at European, national and regional levels, and in particular in the ­context of Finland and other Nordic countries. It points to inefficiencies in the existing ­policies, modes of policy implementation and strategies of educational systems. Chapter 15 studies the impact of language policies and institutional strategies on multilingual learning practices at Romanian universities, with a focus on the ­University of Cluj-Napoca. This study brings to light the links between multilingual practices, representations and the University’s political agenda. Chapter 16 examines the impact of language policies on multilingual education in secondary schools. It focuses on the Brussels context, and considers the role of specific parameters that have influenced the introduction of bilingual education, contrasting it with the experience found in other European cases. PART IV: Transversal issues This part of the book is markedly different, in its goals and structure, from the other parts. Whereas parts I, II and III focus on their respective terrains, part IV cuts across these terrains to address three “transversal issues”. The latter play an important role not just because they are relevant to very different types of communicational challenges, but also because through the interdisciplinary character of the questions they address, these transversal issues provide much of the integrative substance of the project. Let us recall that a cross-disciplinary outlook was intended from the start to be an i­ mportant feature of the DYLAN project, which addresses multilingualism from a variety of mutually complementary angles. Even if none of the project teams specialised in the epistemology of the social sciences and humanities, the research process necessarily

Introduction 

called for some in vivo encounters, or even confrontation, between the mindsets and conceptual tools associated with canonical disciplines. This is particularly in evidence for Part IV, divided into three chapters. Chapter 17 “Efficiency and fairness” approaches multilingualism from the ­perspective of policy evaluation. Its main thrust is the operationalisation of communication processes in multilingual settings in order to allow for systematic comparisons between strategies and to develop a set of indicators that can capture the “efficiency” (wise allocation of resources) and “fairness” (just distribution, between actors, of material and symbolic resources) of more or less multilingual ways of communicating. Chapter 18 “Emergent varieties” investigates whether and how new forms of communication “emerge” in communication between actors with different linguistic repertoires in linguistically diverse settings. It focuses on the interaction between ­multilingualism and English as a lingua franca in this context, highlighting the dynamic combination of elements drawn from actors’ language repertoires. Chapter 19 “Forms of multilingualism in European history” studies changing representations of language, language use and multilingualism and the impact that these representations have on language selection in different terrains and how these processes are reflected in language education. The ebb and flow of language standardisation is used as a red thread to generate a “periodisation” of the fortunes of multilingualism. We now invite the reader to discover the 19 chapters that follow. They are highly diverse in their concerns, epistemological underpinnings, core concepts and methodology. They are all mutually connected, however, through their respective positioning in relation to the DYLAN analytical framework sketched out above, reflecting DYLAN’s comprehensive approach to communication in multilingual contexts. Beyond this variability, the convergence between projects is borne out by the fact that, taken together, they yield a number of results. The latter have already been presented in compact, accessible fashion in the DYLAN Project Booklet,2 which is intended for the general public. This book, which is mainly aimed at a readership of scholars, shows in detail how these results were arrived at. It also highlights, in the concluding chapter, what we consider to be the six main ideas learned from DYLAN. It is our hope that these six ideas will prove useful to many in future work.

.  Available on www.dylan-project.org.

part i

Companies

chapter 1

Multilingual practices in professional settings Keeping the delicate balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity Vassiliki Markaki, Sara Merlino, Lorenza Mondada, Florence Oloff & Véronique Traverso Université Lyon 2

Drawing on naturalistic video and audio recordings of international meetings, and within the framework of conversation analysis, ethnomethodology and interactional linguistics, this chapter studies how multilingual resources are mobilised in social interactions among professionals, how available linguistic and embodied resources are identified and used by the participants, which solutions are locally elaborated by them when they are confronted with various languages spoken but not shared among them, and which definition of multilingualism they adopt for all practical purposes. Focusing on the multilingual solutions emically elaborated in international professional meetings, we show that the participants orient to a double principle: on the one hand, they orient to the progressivity of the interaction, adopting all the possible resources that enable them to go on within the current activity; on the other hand, they orient to the intersubjectivity of the interaction, treating, preventing and repairing possible troubles and problems of understanding. Specific multilingual solutions can be adopted to keep this difficult balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity; they vary according to the settings, the competences at hand, the linguistic and embodied resources locally defined by the participants as publicly available, the ­multilingual resources treated as totally or partially shared, as transparent or opaque, and as ­needing repair or not. The paper begins by sketching the analytical framework, including the methodology and the data collected; it then presents some general findings, before offering an analysis of various ways in which participants keep the balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity in different multilingual interactional contexts.



Vassiliki Markaki et al.

1.1  Introduction Multilingual and multicultural meetings are becoming the rule rather than the ­exception in contemporary workplaces, characterised by international cooperation, services and exchanges. In these international professional settings, the way in which participants actually cope in situ with the diversity of languages spoken is a key issue both for fundamental research and within applied perspectives. Drawing on a variety of naturalistic video and audio recordings of international meetings, and working within the framework of conversation analysis, ethnomethodology and interactional linguistics, we studied how multilingual resources are mobilised within social interactions among professionals, how available linguistic and embodied resources are identified, considered and used by the participants, which solutions are locally elaborated by them when they are confronted with various ­languages spoken but not shared among them, and which definition of multilingualism they adopt for all practical purposes. More broadly, we investigated multilingualism as it is experienced, configured and treated in situated and embodied ways by the participants, and the conditions under which they may define multilingualism as an asset or as a possible obstacle. Those questions contribute, on the one hand, to a praxeological approach to ­multilingualism in action, as it is locally seen and practiced by actual speakers in actual settings – within an emic perspective. On the other hand, they are crucial for ­understanding multilingualism both as a potential for, or a threat to, collaboration, decision-making, participation, recognition of expertise, and categorisation at work. In this paper, we focus on the multilingual solutions emically elaborated in international professional meetings. We show that the participants orient to a double principle: on the one hand, they orient to the progressivity of the interaction, adopting all the possible resources that enable them to go on within the current activity; on the other hand, they orient to the intersubjectivity of the interaction, treating, preventing and repairing possible troubles and problems of understanding (Mondada 2012a). Specific multilingual solutions can be adopted to maintain this difficult balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity; they vary according to the settings, the competences at hand, the linguistic and embodied resources locally defined by the participants as publicly available, the multilingual resources treated as totally or partially shared, transparent or opaque, and as needing repair or not. The paper begins by sketching the analytical framework (Section 1.2), including the ­methodology and the video and audio data collected in international meetings; it then presents some general findings (Section 1.3.1), before offering an analysis of various ways in which the participants keep the balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity in different multilingual interactional contexts (Section 1.3.2).



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings

1.2  Analytical framework 1.2.1  Theoretical references Within the scope of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, three p ­ erspectives are fundamental for our study: a conversation analytic approach to language in ­interaction (Section 1.2.1.1), professional interactions (Section 1.2.1.2), and multilingualism in ­interaction (Section 1.2.1.3).

1.2.1.1  Th  e study of language in interaction: Conversation analysis and interactional linguistics The framework adopted for our research is ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (Garfinkel 1967; Heritage 1984; Sacks 1992; Schegloff 1992, 2007). Within ethnomethodology, interaction is not thought of as a simple reflection of social structure, but as a place where social order is actively established. This view is particularly inspired by Garfinkel, who shows that social facts are not pre-existing and external to interaction, but created by the members of society (Garfinkel 1967). The accomplishment of social order is constantly (re)produced and maintained throughout ordinary activities. The observation of these activities enables the analyst to describe the members’ methods, which are embodied in their interactional practices. Social order is therefore produced in a local, situated and recognisable way. Conversation analysis is interested in the production of social order by ­observing the details of the methods participants use for the organisation of interaction. Through recordings and detailed transcriptions of naturally occurring interactions, its ­founders, Sacks and Schegloff, started to take into account the systematic character of talk (for an introduction, see Sacks 1984; ten Have 1999; Gülich & Mondada 2001). The machinery on which this systematicity is based is turn-taking, characterised by the moment-by-moment organisation of turns at talk and turn-constructional units. Those units are formatted in a way that transition-relevance places, i.e. moments in which a speaker-change may occur, become recognisable for the interlocutors (­Schegloff & Sacks 1973; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974). Therefore, the transitions from one turn to another and the organisation of larger sequences are the product of a constant interpretation and adaptation between speakers. The detailed observation and analysis of the members’ interactional work achieving the smoothly c­ oordinated alternation of turns shows how social order is locally accomplished (Atkinson & ­Heritage 1984; Lerner 2004). In linguistics, conversation analysis has led to the development of a specific appr­ oach to grammar in interaction (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996), conceived as a set of resources that participants mobilise and (re)configure for all practical ­purposes





Vassiliki Markaki et al.

for the moment-by-moment organisation of the production and interpretation of their utterances. This resulted in the development of a sequential, incremental, temporal and emergent approach to turns at talk (Hopper 1987; Auer 2009). The focus on multilingual settings as well as on multimodality enables the analyst to reveal the variety and richness of those resources, as well as the way in which speakers creatively exploit them in interaction.

1.2.1.2  Studies of professional interactions and work settings Conversation analysis and ethnomethodology have fostered various approaches to interaction in work settings (Mondada 2006): ––

––

––

the study of institutional talk at work (Drew & Heritage 1992) is interested in institutional settings, often in asymmetric relations between professionals and citizens (such as in doctor/patient, interviewer/interviewee, call-taker/caller, consultant/ job applicant interactions). The focus of analysis is on the way in which particular features of the interaction accomplish its institutional character. the ethnomethodological studies of work (Garfinkel 1986) investigate situated and embodied professional practices, by identifying the specific procedures and ­methods through which they accomplish the formal, factual, official, institutional or scientific nature of work. workplace studies (Heath & Luff 2000; Hindmarsh, Luff & Heath 2000) focus on the situated and embodied nature of professional practices (Suchman 1987; Goodwin & Goodwin 1996), analysing the way in which they arise in complex settings, and considering more specifically multimodal (gesture, gaze, body ­posture, movements, etc.), artifactual (objects, inscriptions), and spatial (material environment) resources.

Recently, these perspectives have fuelled the analysis of professional talk during ­interaction in meetings (Boden 1994; Ford 2008; Asmuß & Svennevig 2009; Svennevig 2012; Deppermann et al. 2010). These studies are interested in the joint organisation of discussions, decision-making, the finding of solutions, negotiations, the interactional accomplishment of identities, roles, hierarchies, and the use of artifacts (texts, computers, PowerPoint presentations) in professional discussions. As our corpora essentially consist of meetings, these developments – to which we are contributing (Mondada et al. 2009; Markaki & Mondada 2009, 2012; Markaki et al. 2010; Traverso 2011; ­Mondada 2012a, 2012b; Traverso & Charif in press) – are particularly relevant here.

1.2.1.3  Studies of multilingualism in interaction Studies dealing with multilingualism in interaction within a conversational approach are relatively recent. They have been strongly influenced by the work of Gumperz (Blom  & Gumperz 1972; Gumperz 1982) on code-switching as a contextualisation



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings

device. Gumperz treats code-switching as a practice through which participants emphasise, reproduce and transform specific elements of the context that are made relevant for the interpretation of the ongoing utterance. His distinction between metaphorical and situational code-switching shows that the switch can be induced by participants considering either their interlocutor’s specificities or particular organisational features of the ongoing activity. Later, Auer (1984) took up these two notions within his distinction between participant-related and discourse-related code-switching. Auer introduced a sequential and conversational approach to code-switching as early as 1984 (see also Auer 1988, 1995, 1998; Cromdal 2000; Gafaranga 2001, 2005; Wei 2002; Steensig 2003; Mondada 2004, 2007a). Within this framework, the main issue is not so much knowing why speakers do switch than identifying and describing how they use code-switching within actual practices. The focus on the how of the social action emerges from the analytical attention paid to interactional details, which are not thought of as markers with predefined and stable functions, but above all as endogenous resources made relevant for the participants and implemented by them within the recognisable and intelligible production of their conduct. Therefore, conversation analysis deals with code-switching as a resource used by the participants for formatting their turns, coordinating their actions, initiating sequences and (dis)aligning with what has been projected by the previous action. Interestingly, studies of code-switching have mainly focused on encounters among friends or within the family, where high informality favours the use of hybrid resources. Code-switching has been less investigated in multilingual practices of ­professionals (for some exceptions, see Day 1994; Wagner 1998; Rasmussen & Wagner 2002; Mondada 2004; Skårup 2004). Within the broader domain of discourse analysis of meetings, see Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris 1997; Bargiela-Chiappini & Nickerson 2003; Poncini 2007. Moreover, multilingual interactions at work seem to mobilise other forms of linguistic resources than just code-switching. One form is lingua franca  – ­c urrently being investigated by an increasing body of literature, dealing, among other things, with its communicational dimension (House 2003; Seidlhofer 2004, 2009; Mauranen 2006), which has also been treated within conversational studies (­Jordan & Fuller 1975; Firth 1990, 1996). Moreover, studies of interactions between native and non-native speakers (Gardner & Wagner 2004), as well as studies of exolingual communication (Lüdi 1987; De Pietro 1988), have pointed out how participants manage the asymmetric distribution of linguistic resources and competences. A more radical form of asymmetry is observable in interactions mediated by translation, either by a professional (Wadensjö 1998) or by a nonprofessional (Harris 1977; Müller 1989; De Stefani, Miezcnikowski & ­Mondada 2000; Traverso 2002, in press a; Merlino & Traverso 2009; Merlino 2010, 2011, 2012, in press; Merlino & Mondada in press). All these forms occur in our data, which will be presented below.





Vassiliki Markaki et al.

1.2.2  Methodology Conversation analysis and interactional linguistics are interested in the participants’ situated practices and in the way in which they mobilise grammatical, multilingual and embodied resources in an occasioned and contingent way. The emphasis on this situatedness generates specific methodological demands that aim to collect data from naturally occurring social interactions, i.e. situations of talk and action documented within their usual, ordinary context. For this reason, we adopted both an ethnographic and videographic approach: thanks to an important amount of fieldwork, we succeeded in gaining access to work settings and in obtaining authorisations for audio and video recordings of professionals’ activities involved in international collaborations. We videotaped numerous hours of meetings in a large variety of professional ­settings, respecting the demands of our analytic mentality: continual recordings of the documented activities, also throughout entire days, including all the participants in the camera shots, and considering not only their turns at talk, but also their gestures, gaze, body postures, movements and manipulations of artifacts (texts, PowerPoint presentations, etc.). The recordings have been transcribed in a detailed way, in particular through multimodal annotations, concerning gestures, gaze, head movements, body ­posture and movements (see Markaki et al. 2010; Markaki et al. 2012 for examples). For this purpose, we adopted the ICOR transcription conventions and Mondada’s conventions for multimodality (http://icar.univ-lyon2.fr/projets/corinte/bandeau_droit/ convention_icor.htm). Furthermore, the transcription of multilingual hybrid forms led us to discuss issues and solutions concerning the problems of identifying ­different languages, non-standard forms, uncertainties as to the labelling of the language in which utterances are produced, and the translation of multilingual data (Traverso 2003). In this paper, we essentially draw on four data sets: ––

––

––

the VAX corpus, recorded in a big multinational company based in France, consisting of several meetings in which the top managers of the European branches participate (30 to 200 persons attending) (45 video-recorded hours); the HAMMAM corpus, recorded within an international network of experts in social and environmental sciences, dealing with sustainable development and cultural heritage in the Mediterranean region, consisting of several meetings in which experts from all over Europe participate (35 audio-recorded hours); the JEU corpus, video-recorded during five days of meetings between delegations of young citizens coming from six different European countries, and preparing socio-economical recommendations about the environment, health and education, to be presented at the EU parliament in Brussels (25 video-recorded hours);



––

Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings

the QT corpus, which is a bit peculiar since it is based on the rushes of a ­documentary film shot in China, and documents three meetings between a French engineer and a group of Chinese colleagues (two hours of video-recorded data), within the context of the delocalisation of the activities of a French paper enterprise in China.

1.3  Results and discussion 1.3.1  General results: Multilingualism in action Our results are based on a rich set of empirical data which document the practices deployed by multilingual groups in different workplaces. They fuel the reconceptualisation of a certain number of key issues for the study of multilingualism. These contributions can be summarised in four points. ––

––

In multilingual work contexts, where participants experience competences as different or even asymmetrical, the solutions which allow the multilingual situation to be handled are worked out during the activity in progress, in a way which is locally adapted to the details of this same activity. This means that participants orient not to pre-existing models that they could just adopt, but to practical ­solutions that emerge in situ and constantly change. Even when a multilingual or a monolingual format is chosen at the beginning of a meeting, it can be constantly renegotiated (Mondada & Oloff 2011; Markaki et al. 2012; Mondada 2012b). This feature, characterising the solutions adopted by the participants, is produced (through bricolage) and negotiated during their interactions, makes the wording of general models difficult but allows for extensive flexibility and maximum adaptability to the context. Beyond the natural availability of these solutions, it is possible to identify some principles which account for their systematicity. Two fundamental orientations govern the linguistic choices, the formatting of the actions and the organisation of the interaction: on the one hand, an orientation to the task to be carried out, to the problems to be solved, to the decisions to be taken, to the contents to be treated; on the other hand, an attention to the participation of the largest number of people, at least of the interlocutors locally connected with the problem being dealt with (cf. Mondada & Nussbaum 2012, for different approaches to multilingual participation). These two orientations engender the research of a balance which is often quite fragile. They can be formulated with concepts inspired by conversation analysis (Mondada 2012a): on the one hand, interaction is governed by a principle of progressivity, which aims to advance within the ongoing ­activity;



 Vassiliki Markaki et al.

––

––

on the other hand, interaction responds to a principle of intersubjectivity, which aims to secure mutual comprehension (Heritage 2007; Schegloff 2007). The first principle is oriented prospectively and tends to minimise the resources being mobilised; the second is oriented retrospectively and tends, conversely, to expand the resources being used. In work meetings, the first principle is exemplified by moments where the participants focus on the action they accomplish together without paying attention to the normative features of the language they use (see the procedure of let it pass, Firth 1996). The second principle is exemplified by repairs (Schegloff 1992) and by the use of translation, which produces returns back to what was previously said and therefore some redundancy within the progression of turns at talk. The systematicity that governs the various practices observable during multilingual meetings can be related to a relatively limited set of techniques, methods, procedures and micro-practices which allow the situation to be handled in an optimal way. Among these procedures, we find repairs, language negotiations, side sequences, collective word searches and inserted questions. The analysis of these procedures allows for the identification, within the interaction, of specific sequential positions that give the participants the occasion to initiate a sequence for solving problems of participation or of mutual comprehension. The most sensitive sequential moments are the openings of the interaction (Mondada 2004; Mondada & Oloff 2011), the transitions from one topic to another or from one activity to another (Markaki et al. 2012), and the moments of selection of the next speaker on whom depends the pursuit of the activity (Markaki & Mondada 2012; Mondada 2012b). During the activity, and within the sequential procedures adopted to secure both the progressivity and the intersubjectivity, participants mobilise a rich set of multimodal, linguistic and bodily, audible and visible resources. On the one hand, the organisation of multilingual interaction is based on the use of the available linguistic resources and on a locally situated linguistic creativity; participants produce (through bricolage) the resources they need in a way that is contingent, emergent but always adapted to what they perceive as local constraints and restrictions (Mondada 2012a), which can still be repaired (Merlino & Traverso 2009). This emergent progression is always self-regulated in a locally situated way – it is adjusted according to the interlocutors’ responses. On the other hand, participants do not only mobilise linguistic resources but they also imbricate them within other types of resources: gestures, body postures, facial expressions and gaze. Our studies show, in addition, that participants actively exploit the position and distribution of bodies within space – constituting the interactional space of the exchange (Mondada 2007b, 2009, 2011a, 2012b). Space is a resource for handling differentiated orientations towards groups or categories of speakers



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings

requiring distinct actions (e.g. the Anglophones vs. the Francophones, those who understand vs. those who need a translation, etc.) (Merlino 2010; Mondada & Oloff 2011; Mondada 2012b; Traverso in press b). The mobilisation of these multimodal resources is not only oriented towards efficiency in communication aiming to guarantee the progressivity of the interaction; it both depends on and gives rise to the way participants orient themselves towards co-present identities and categories. Sequences of linguistic renegotiation, as well as activities of word search, repair and questioning, often integrate the evaluations and attributions of linguistic competences and of ethnic and national affiliations, which nourish the intelligibility of the situation for the participants (Markaki et al. 2010; Markaki & Mondada 2012; Traverso in press b, in press c). These categorisations fluctuate (the same speaker can switch from one identity to the other very quickly, Merlino & ­Mondada in press) and can be renegotiated (so that a speaker treated as monolingual can reject this categorisation and engage in a bilingual exchange, Mondada 2012b). Furthermore, these categories are subtly nuanced (for example, by distinguishing between Francophones and Francophiles, thus allowing different types of resistance to ELF to be expressed – see Mondada & Oloff 2011; Markaki et al. 2012). These identity performances interfere in an important way with the regulation of the linguistic bricolage and with the ­negotiation of locally emergent solutions.

1.3.2  Detailed analyses: Between progressivity and intersubjectivity Participants mobilise the multilingual resources locally available by taking into account the constraints and the possibilities of the setting, the ongoing activity and the constellation of the participants as well as of their competences. They do so by orienting themselves to the two principles of progressivity and intersubjectivity, by locally solving the tensions that are emerging between them in a given context. This section presents some results issued from a larger set of analyses, and illustrates them by ­discussing various forms of tension and balance between these principles. For the sake of clarity, we synthesise these results by successively focusing on a series of settings. We start by showing that interactions in ELF – especially when concerning participants not sharing any other language (corpus QT) – favour specific turn and sequential formats, characterised by an emergent and incremental organisation that permits the participants to manage both the progressivity and the intersubjectivity, thanks to the specific temporal arrangement of the linguistic and embodied resources at hand. We then focus on other, more hybrid, configurations of ELF, presenting more instances of code-switching: the use of hybrid resources can foster progressivity but also generate problems of intersubjectivity (corpus VAX and HAMMAM). Finally, we show that the use of translation (frequent in the corpus JEU) secures intersubjectivity, but slows down the progressivity of the activity.



 Vassiliki Markaki et al.

1.3.2.1  P  rogressivity step by step: The incremental organisation of Lingua Franca (QT) The QT corpus documents a specific situation involving lingua franca, which contrasts with the other corpora we recorded in Europe; shot in Asia, it shows a French engineer interacting with his Chinese partners with whom he organises the delocalisation of his enterprise. The participants do not have any competence in each other’s language and rely massively on ELF, without being able to use code-switching or insertions in their L1. In this context, turns at talk are formatted by adopting a specific form of progressivity, characterised by the incremental expansion, step by step, of turns at talk (progressivity) and by the consequent production of frequent opportunities offered to the interlocutor either to repair or acknowledge what has been produced so far (­intersubjectivity) (see Mondada 2012a, for a more detailed analysis). We focus here on a fragment in which Pascal instructs his Chinese partners, Joe and Peter, about the production and the delivery of paper. The participants are sitting at a table: Pascal is in front of Joe, Peter is between them, on Pascal’s left (image 1). Pascal is explaining the importance of the information to be associated with the ­pallet in order to secure a good management and storage of paper, including the differentiation between various qualities (in terms of size, density, weight, thickness, etc.). Later in the meeting, this explanation will generate the elaboration, on the side of the ­Chinese partners, of a form in which these pieces of information are pre-structured and inscribed. We join the action at the beginning of a new instruction: Extract 1 (QT) 1 PAS *aft*er/ you: *   (0.3) you *keep/ (.) *  your *... *2H parallel* *2H palm hor*2H––> 2 paper/# (0.5) *with eh# (.) -parallel–––––*2H rectangle-> im #im.1 im.2# 3 label*/ (0.2) to *+kn+ow/ (.) which ->* *repeated pointings––––––> joe +nods+ 4 paper is *it\ ––––––––>*holds pointing––––––> 5 (0.5) 6 JOE +0yes0+ +big nod+ 7 (0.*3) pas ->*points––––––> 8 PAS on/ each pallet\*in the workshop/* ->*points––––––––––*points 9 (0.3) i want to see/* ––*



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings  10 PAS *(0.3) a label/* *draws rectangle* 11 (0.3) 12 JOE +0yes0+ +nods+

Pascal’s explanation is organised into two subsequent turns (1–4 and 8–10). The ­second reformulates the first: whereas the former focuses on what will be done by the Chinese team (use of the second-person pronoun), the latter strengthens the instructional dimension of the action, formatted as an order, and positions Pascal as being responsible for the organisation of the industrial process (use of the first person pronoun). The second is produced after a delayed response by Joe (6). Although Joe has nodded already when the “label” is mentioned in line 3, his response is treated as minimal by Pascal upgrading his action – oriented to ­securing intersubjectivity. These two turns are organised in an incremental way, step by step, by the ­progressive addition of lexical and syntactic resources, building an emergent turn. Frequent pauses delimit smaller units, such as nominal phrases, verbal phrases and prepositional expansions, supplemented by a series of little touches. A ­specific feature of this incremental organisation is the fact that utterances, although ­ ­possibly complete, can constantly be expanded by a new added segment. So, with “your paper/” (1–2), the argument of the verb “to keep” is uttered with a continuative intonation which p ­ rojects more to come. After a pause of 0.5 seconds, Pascal continues with a prepositional ­phrase (“with eh (.) label/”, 2–3). At this point, the turn is possibly complete. But its completion is revised by the addition of an infinite clause after the pause of 0.2 seconds (“to know/ (.) which paper is it\”, 3–4). The latter constitutes what Schegloff (1996), Ford, Fox and Thompson (2002) and Couper-Kuhlen and Ono (2007) call an increment, i.e. a segment which is syntactically dependent on the preceding segment, which was possibly complete but is retrospectively redefined as incomplete by this addition. The emergent organisation of the turn confers on it a plasticity which permits a redefinition and renegotiation of the completion at each point.

 Vassiliki Markaki et al.

This incremental organisation not only concerns the verbal formatting of the turn, but also its gestural format. Each fragment delimited by a pause is accompanied by a co-verbal gesture; this makes each fragment even more visible and intelligible as being part of a series of units. Lines 1–2, a series of iconic gestures co-occurs with the step-by-step production of the utterance: Pascal’s hands, held in parallel at the beginning of the utterance (image 1), anticipate the drawing, in the air, of the rectangle (image 2), which is produced just after, and which in turn anticipates its lexical affiliate (Schegloff 1984), “label”, which is produced a bit later (at the beginning of line 3). This gesture is suspended when Pascal inserts another iconic gesture, created by both hands, palm horizontal above the table, co-occurring with the accentuated verb “keep/”. These iconic gestures contribute in two ways to the emergent intelligibility of the turn. Firstly, they organise a semantic redundancy between what is said and what is gesticulated, facilitating their comprehension. Secondly, their rhythmic production along with the production of the utterance makes visible and intelligible its incremental organisation in smaller units, in successive slots created by projections and additions, each one being highlighted by a specific gesture. This first turn by Pascal is attended to by Joe, sitting in front of him, and by Peter, beside him – as shown by their continuous gaze on Pascal. Joe produces a first nod in line 3, displaying his identification of a possible completion of Pascal’s turn. Nonetheless, Pascal adds an increment (“to know/ (.) which paper is it\”, 3–4). This increment co-occurs with a repeated pointing gesture, used as a beat gesture (which, according to McNeill 1992: 325, “marks a breakdown flow of speech”). The pointing gesture here is not referential; it rather has the effect of marking the rhythm of the emerging turn: each gesture completion corresponds to the completion of the slot reflexively created by the pauses and the scansion of the gesture, strengthened by the prosody (see the multimodal transcript of the three slots of lines 8–9, each co-occurring and ­punctuated by a beat gesture). This short segment shows how the principles of progressivity and ­intersubjectivity deeply govern the emergent construction of the turn: the incremental step-by-step multimodal organisation secures the progressivity, and at the same time offers ­frequent possible opportunities to the recipients for either nodding and producing continuers or for initiating repairs. In this specific turn format, each slot is offered to the ­co-participants’ monitoring; in turn, the displays of the co-participants (or delayed, minimised, absent displays) are constantly treated as indicators of the current status of intersubjective understanding (Mondada 2011b).

1.3.2.2  O  rienting to lingua franca’s hybridity: Securing and slowing down progressivity (VAX) The VAX corpus offers typical instances of a glocal practice of ELF in work meetings (Robertson 1995). On the one hand, even if those meetings are held in English, the language of the head office and management is always present: French is spoken on a



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings 

regular basis, English may be spoken in a French way, and even participants who are not native speakers of French may speak it during the meetings. On the other hand, turns in ELF are often hybridised by insertions in other languages, which support progressivity, for example by offering solutions to word searches. Additionally, most of the time, speakers do not correct any difficulties in the pronunciation or grammar of their interlocutors, do not comment on possibly asymmetrical linguistic ­competences and do not display an orientation towards heterogeneous resources as belonging to different languages (House 2003; Seidlhofer 2004: 218; Mauranen 2006: 131). This ­represents an opportunity to observe the way in which speakers themselves deal with the linguistic resources they mobilise as being part of English or as being part of another language. Those categorisations of languages arise locally (Sacks 1972; M ­ ondada 1999) and contradict the idea of homogeneity which could be induced by the notion of English as a lingua franca. Here, we focus on the consequences of this variable categorisation of hybrid ELF forms for the progressivity and the intersubjectivity of the exchange. Several cases are observable. Sometimes, speakers clearly orient towards linguistic elements which do not belong to English, as in the following example. In line 3, Vincent underlines that the word “déjà” is French, a linguistic choice he treats as inappropriate: Extract 2 (VAX_01048_ora_010332_deja) 1 VIN these are the topics euh: that i think i gott(a:) 2 through the:::\ the e-mails i got from several 3 of you (0.4) .h   could be:: déjà euh: 0pfrh::0 already ehm: 4 (.) *0i start* to speak in french0 (0.3) vin *shakes left hand*,,, 5 XXX 0th::[:0 6 VIN [ER::[::\ 7 XXX [0hehehe/.h:0 8 (0.3) 9 VIN (it) would be::: euh already in- eh: included 10 in in in:\ in the topics to be addressed in in:\ 11 in two weeks/   .h::

Vincent categorises “déjà” by his audible negative assessment (“0pfrh::0”, 3) and by the gesture of his left hand. Other participants align themselves with this categorisation by laughing (5, 7), and Vincent finally restarts his incomplete construction by using the English word “already” (9–11). However, those self-repairs are far from being systematic. Although speakers may display a normative orientation towards two distinct languages, French and English, and towards a form that needs to be replaced, repair (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977) remains a practice that is locally and selectively mobilised. Instead of aiming at the

 Vassiliki Markaki et al.

­ roduction of a normative and standardised language type of English, ­speakers generp ally favour the intelligibility of their turns for their co-participants. So, the p ­ rogressivity of a current turn is delayed by repair only if a problem (e.g. of understanding) arises, as in excerpt 3: Extract 3 (VAX_010408_allouwed) 1 2 VAL 3 4 5 ERN 6 7 VAL 8 9 ERN 10 VAL

(1.8) are they allou::(we)d::^euh:: in the future/ to keep that for them/ (0.5) sorry/ (0.9) can they keep:(h) (.) it (.) for them/ (0.6) of [(course) [is it a possibility/

Although Valérie produces a peculiar form of the verb “allowed” in her question (2–3), she corrects it only after Ernesto has other-initiated a repair (“sorry”, 5). Only then does she eliminate the problematic word, when reinitialising her question (7). This shows that she has identified the word “allowed” as the source of the trouble, even if Ernesto’s repair initiation does not point to an exact linguistic target (Drew 1997). Speakers do not systematically focus on errors in English made by their interlocutors, but prefer to adopt a let it pass strategy (Firth 1996). This means that the accomplishment of common interactional tasks is more important to them than the use of a normative variety of English (task-as-target vs. standard linguistic form-astarget, Firth 2009). Although the preference for self-repair is also generally observable in interactions between non-native speakers (Gardner & Wagner 2004), in some cases a speaker may point to an incorrect form that an interlocutor has used. The sequential environment in which this phenomenon occurs reveals the action that this practice accomplishes. It not only addresses problems of understanding or normativity, but may be used as a resource for other types of actions, responding to interactional issues like the display of disagreement. In excerpt 4, Richard finishes his PowerPoint presentation with a slide that shows a duckling surrounded by grass, with a speech bubble attributing to him a critique about excessive workload. Richard reads this assessment (5–8, 10), pronouncing the “s” of “sinking” like the “th” of “thinking” (10). This is immediately picked up by Claire as an error (12): Extract 4 (VAX_27097_com_sinking) 1 RIC

and then: the conclusion/ the final

3 XXX

[.hh hh

2

[conclusion is this:/



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings  4

$(0.4)$(0.4)

5 RIC

eh::\ a:- a vAlue of the company is act quickly/



$.....$speech bubble visible on the ppt––>>

6  it’s very important/ (.) be creative i think we 7

8

9 CLA

should do that/ h:: and NEVER give Up/ (0.3) 0and0

Even [if you think that you]& [ffff:::]

10 RIC

&Are\ (.)  thinking\

12 CLA

hh[: S[inking\]

11 XXX 13 VER? 14 RIC

hf:

[0xxxxx0

15 MAR? mhm/

[thank you\] eHE/ he he/

16 RIC [he he eh hh

17 REB [>>qu’est-ce que ça veut dire sinking/>what does that mean sinking/ ric

£...lifts Rhand£,,,,

The correction of the “s” sound is even more interesting as this pronunciation is very frequent within the group and is generally not corrected. Furthermore, the inscription on the PowerPoint slide disambiguates Richard’s pronunciation. In this case, otherrepair responds to the possibly problematic nature of Richard’s critique (the excessive workload imposed by the company). It considerably delays the preferred action of laughing, as well as those of thanking or clapping expected at the end of a talk, by the chairwoman, Claire (22), or by the audience. Here, the participants make use of a linguistic problem to display their disaffiliation from Richard (also visible in Claire’s

 Vassiliki Markaki et al.

negative assessment, 9). Instead of responding to Richard’s laughter (14, 16), other participants extend the repair sequence by asking for the meaning of the word Claire has pointed to (17, 19, 23–28). This example shows that the repair of linguistic problems can be exploited for issues of affiliation and participation within the team (Mondada & Oloff 2011; Markaki et al. 2012). Slowing down progressivity can be interpreted in relation to the temporal and interactional organisation of preference (in the sense of Schegloff 2007). Thus, the orientation towards problems of understanding or pronunciation may override the speakers’ basic concern for intersubjectivity: they may use the linguistic problems to display convergent or divergent positions, and assess the way in which the group ­interacts, or how decisions are taken, etc.

1.3.2.3  S olving and adding problems through code-switching and other resources (HAMMAM) Whereas the VAX corpus documents the work of members of the same company ­sharing a corporate culture, the HAMMAM corpus illustrates a situation in which participants have very different disciplinary backgrounds (from chemistry to archaeology or social sciences) and asymmetrical linguistic competences that go hand in hand with different types of knowledge about the programme topic (hammams), and that are related to the region they come from: only a few of them are natives of Mediterranean regions (Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Turkey) and, in addition to being experts, have an insider’s knowledge about what hammams are, could or should be. The participants also have very different competences in English. If some of them have a rather ordinary, functional command of English as a working language, others frequently code-switch from English to French and to Arabic. Furthermore, some claim not to speak English, even if they are actually competent in it; some might also claim their right to speak French instead of English or Arabic. In this context, practices like let it pass, code-switching or the use of ELF are ­heterogeneously used, with different outcomes, which can foster as well as impede progressivity and intersubjectivity. This shows that the contribution of a given ­ ­practice is locally assessed, and cannot be generalised. The next extract illustrates how language choice both orients to progressivity and slows it down. Warda is explaining how her team made an inquiry during fieldwork in Morocco in order to investigate how the inhabitants perceive the neighbourhood (the notion of neighbourhood is the topic of the ongoing discussion): Extract 5 (Hammam) 1 WAR  hmm: (0.6) euh:/ in Fes we asked some people 2 euh mhm (0.4)    ta- concerning her euh: their 3  perception/ (0.4) of the: neighborhood (0.6) 4 euh:: they defined/ (0.9) 0définir0/ 0define0/



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings  5 LEA hé hé 6 DUN hm   [hm 7 TRI [define  yes] 8 WAR [define/     ] yeah\ (0.4) euh neighborhood  9 (0.3) euh by activité\ activity\ 10 TRI yeah 11 WAR by acti- Safari::ne/= 12 TRI =(yeah) activity yeah 13 XXX xxxx

Warda starts her contribution in English. Long pauses and hesitations display her uneasiness in English (1–2). This lack of fluency is further shown by the self-repair ­occurring in line 4. Although “they defined” in English has already been produced, she adds “0définir0”, which operates a step backwards, slowing down the progression of the interaction, and indicates the speaker’s uncertainty. The sequence opened by this request for confirmation is rather long (4–8), with interventions from three of the participants. Once the lexical choice has been confirmed (“define/ yeah\” 8), Warda resumes the utterance by adding some complements (9). One of them is in French (“by activité”, 9): it is ratified twice by Trine (10, 12), who is Warda’s main addressee, and produces both the recognition of the form (10) and its translation (12) – thus securing intersubjectivity. Thus, Warda’s use of French can either achieve a step backwards (4) or a step ­forward (9). In both cases, it occasions a side sequence, which slows down the progressivity of the interaction. Her use of French can be confusing, as in the continuation of her description: Extract 6 (Hammam, continuation of excerpt 5) 14 WAR Safarine\ neighborhood Safarine is Safarine 15 (0.3)  dinandiers or euh:: (0.8) Safarine\  coppersmith's (district) 16 activité Safarine activity 17 (0.7) 18 TRI [(achso) [(oh really) 19 WAR [hm 20 (0.3) 21 TRI yeah yeah

Having explained that the inhabitants define the neighbourhood as activity, Warda starts a reformulation (14), which instead of clarifying her point, is a little c­ onfusing for the interlocutors: her turn is not easily segmented into meaningful syntactic parts, and she switches to French twice, which does not help. Although Trine ­continues to acknowledge Warda’s talk, the 0.7 second pause which occurs before

 Vassiliki Markaki et al.

her receipt token (18) and the choice of “achso” (“oh”) probably indicate a problem (Golato & Betz 2008) with her comprehension. Contrary to extract 5, here the use of French is not ratified by a translation – and this might indicate a more problematic status of intersubjectivity. In a third and last attempt to complete her contribution, Warda adds a last point, in French: Extract 7 (Hammam, continuation of excerpt 6) 22 WAR ((laughter)) (0.5) c’est euh:: (1.8) la remarque it’s eum:: (1.8) the observation 23 c’est que le hammam ne figure pas dans le- la- la is that the hammam does not appear in th- th- the 24 définition des quartiers definition of the districts 25 (0.4) 26 WAR le hammam n’est pas- n’est- ne- [ne figure ]& the hammam doesn’t- doesn- doesn- [does never]& 27 TRI [n’existe pas\] [doesn’t exist\] 28 WAR &jamais (.) dans la définition\ oui &appear (.) in the definition\ yes 29 TRI so you were-  sorry  (0.4) you were asking people::/ 30 (0.4) how (0.5) whether they see any relationship 31 between the hammam [and the 32 WAR [the ḥammām and= 33 TRI  =and what they relate to as the neighborhood  [and 34 WAR [yeah 35 TRI there was always no (0.4) 36 XXX [0xxxxxxxxxxx0] 37 WAR  [c’est- c’est] toujours/ la réponse c’est [it’s- it’s]     always/ the answer it’s 38 l’activité\ (0.7) toujours c’est [l’activité the activity\(0.7) always it’s the [activity

Warda’s turn (22–24) presents her most important point (that the hammam is not mentioned as being a part of the neighbourhood) in French. As nobody responds (25), Warda adds a new utterance (26–28), a repeat which is collaboratively completed by Trine (27). Trine’s turn in line 29, beginning with “so”, is designed so as to perform two ­different actions towards the various parties constituting the participation framework established through the use of French: on the one hand, she achieves a reformulation primarily addressed to Warda and secondarily to those who can understand French, asking for confirmation; on the other hand, she translates into English what



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings 

Warda said for those who do not understand French. This generates some exchanges between Warda and Trine, in a “one person one language” manner (29–38). So, although Warda switches to French, a language in which she is more comfortable and confident, and which should secure the progressivity of her talk, she is confronted with the non-response of her co-participants (25), occasioning different forms of redundancy – through her and Trine’s reformulations, both in French and in English, orienting to intersubjectivity. A few moments later, Trine begins to offer what she makes recognisable as a translation: Extract 8 (Hammam, after excerpt 7) 43 TRI [xxxxx she says (.) the people re- but you can 44 speak en[glish 45 WAR [((laughter)) 46 TRI come  on:: ((laughter)) 47 (0.4)

In line 43, the use of “she says” indicates that Trine is about to translate what Warda has just said; what comes after the micro-pause appears as a report, in English, of Warda’s words. But Trine stops abruptly and addresses back to Warda, other-selecting her and encouraging her to speak in English (43–44, 46). These extracts show how the participants incessantly fluctuate between various multilingual solutions and do not choose any of them definitively. Here, within only a few minutes, participants resort first to lingua franca, then switch to French (either for local insertions of words into English, or for longer stretches of talk), then each one speaks in his or her own language, and finally translates. All of these solutions can potentially solve problems but can also generate them: they contribute both to speeding up and to slowing down progressivity.

1.3.2.4  S uspending progressivity: Securing mutual comprehension through ­translation (JEU) Translation can be a local and occasioned practice – as in excerpt 8 – or it can become a more systematically used solution. The latter case is massively documented in the corpus JEU. Even if English is announced as the official lingua franca for the five-day meeting, other practices are actively promoted by the participants: as they engage in specific activities (especially when they become the main speaker, e.g. when ­giving presentations, talks or instructions to the group), they manifest their willingness, ­preference or need to speak in their own language or in a language other than ELF. Often, a professional translator or a colleague recognised as competent in the language in question self-selects or is selected to translate into the lingua franca. In this way, the diversity of the linguistic repertoires and their intelligibility are guaranteed for all

 Vassiliki Markaki et al.

the participants. The systematic translation, turn by turn, of the talk of a participant is heavily structured for the activity in progress. Translation can be introduced by a simple request from a speaker, at the b ­ eginning of her extended talk (2–3), as in the following excerpt: Extract 9 (JEU) 1 TOM okay\ maria/ 2 MAR => tu:: tu pourras/[eh traduire/ could you:: could you/[eh translate/ 3 TOM => [OUi: eh: je traduis/ [YEs: eh:: i translate/ 4 (0.2) 5 MAR =(gentiment)/ =(kindly)/ 6 (0.9) 7 MAR alors eh:: je suis maria frantini:/ so eh:: i’m maria frantini/ 8 je viens d’italie\ (0.2) e[h:       ]:::::] [(notr-) i come from italy\ (0.2) e[h:      ]:::::] [(our-) 9 TOM => [so:/](0.4)] [maria 10 frantini i’m from italy/

Tom is the chairman of the meeting; in line 1, he gives the  floor to Maria for a ­presentation of her team. However, Maria, before realising the action for which she has been selected, initiates a side sequence, asking him, in French, if he could translate into English (2). Tom accepts and is enrolled into the interaction, no longer as c­ hairman but as translator. Once publicly established, Maria begins her talk, and the translation is realised one turn after the other (see 7–10), within a practical segmentation of the speech to be translated, which is collectively negotiated by the translator and the translated person (as shown by the overlap in line 9). These requests for translation can be accompanied by accounts showing a dispreferred orientation towards the fact of not using ELF, as is the case here: Extract 10 (JEU) 1 LEA 2 3 4 AUD 5 LEA

eh thank you very much/ eH:: (0.4) i’ll speak in french/ (.) sorry/ (0.3) i can’t speak in english

he/ he translate 0de toute façon0 0in any case0

In this explicit account, Léa produces an excuse and a claim of incompetence with regard to English (2), as well as the minimisation of the problem thanks to the ­translation (5). The laughter addresses both the manifestation of incompetence and the contrast between the claim and the fact that it is formulated in English.



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings 

Even though translation is a crucial resource to guarantee occasionally, and in an ad hoc way, the diversity and the comprehension of various linguistic ­repertoires, it results in a slowdown of the progressivity of the interaction. Unlike code-­ switching, translation, when occurring successively (vs. simultaneously), implies a redundancy of the contents expressed and of the actions realised by the participants. This is visible in the actual organisation of talk, with the translator taking the turn after each “potentially translatable unit” (Merlino in press), as in the following example: Extract 11 (JEU) 1 LUC  ts.h je voudrais dire que ce thème il est  ts.h i would like to say that this theme is 2 important pour/ (0.3) deux grandes raisons\ important for/   (0.3) two big reasons\ 3 (.) 4 FAB  .h:: so this theme is important for two main 5 reasons\ 6 (1) 7 LUC  la première raison (0.2) c’est que je crois the first reason (0.2) is that i believe 8 que vous êtes la génération du that you are   the generation of 9 développement soutenable= 10 FAB 11 12

sustainable development= =.h:: s::o euh:::    the first reason/ it’s because i believe that you are the generation of sustainable development

The translator, who is also a participant in the meeting, can orient himself towards the slowdown produced by translation and accelerate the interactional rhythm, through different practices. Firstly, he can realise reduced translations that select the most relevant elements of the source turn. Secondly, he can even not translate some turns, which are then implicitly categorised as not relevant. Thirdly, the translator’s orientation towards progressivity is displayed by his exploitation of the current speaker’s hesitations or difficulties of formulation for the purpose of inserting the translation (Merlino 2012). In other words, when the progressivity of the turn is compromised, the translator might nevertheless foster it by going on with the translation, as in the next fragment: Extract 12 (JEU) 1 MAR (eh:::/ e:t) et donc/ en:- en:- en (eh:::/  a:nd) and so/ in:- in:- in 2  parallèle/ on travaillai::t on- eh:::  parallel/ we were wo:rking   we- eh::: 3 (.) 0mhr::0 on construit-       o:- on::\ (.) 0mhr::0 we were buildin- w:- we::\

 Vassiliki Markaki et al. 4 (0.4) cr:[éon-]

(0.4) we::re cr:[eatin-] 5 TOM [ %>at the same] tom %agitates hand, ‘go on’ gesture->> 6 +time they were working on/ mar +looks at tom–>>

In this way, the insertion of the translation allows for the pursuit of the main activity, in spite of interruptions and slowdowns provoked by hesitations and word searches in the turn to be translated. In this excerpt, this is particularly visible in the gesture Tom makes in line 5, when taking the turn: the circular movement of his hand clearly invites the speaker to go on. The organisation of these transitions also relies on the translator’s monitoring of the turn in progress and the practical solutions he offers to problems in relation to segmenting the current turn into translation units (Merlino 2012, in press). Similarly, when word searches occur within the translator’s turn – further slowing down the reduced progressivity of the translation – members of the audience can participate in resolving the search: Extract 13 (JEU) 1 MAR fo:rse (.) eh:\ é possibile/ ehr: sarà maybe (.) eh:\ it’s possible/ ehr: it will be 2 possibile nella seconda fase/ (0.2) possible in the second phase/ (0.2) 3 ri:nforzarlo questo suggerimento/ to rei:nforce this suggestion/ 4 (0.8) 5 ANN  o:kay/ maybe in the second part/ (0.3) of:/ our 6 work where >we will be< divided into different 7 groups\ could be::/ (0.2) possibile to: 8 => (0.1) eh:::f (0.4) [.hts: (0.2)& 9 SIM    => [rei:nforce 10 ANN &underline (.) this: (0.2) s:ug[ges11 FRA    => [strongen 12 (0.2) 13 MAR    => r[in]forzar[lo r[ein]force [it 14 ANN [tion\] 15 FRA => [to make strong0er0 to 16 ma[ke this stronger] 17 ANN [yea:h/ to make s:]tronger thi:s suggestion

These collective word searches show not only that the introduction of a translation format does not preclude the accessibility of other participants to the different linguistic repertoires at stake, but also that ad hoc translation (vs. professional translation) is treated by participants as an activity that concerns everybody (at least those who can contribute



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings 

to it – within possible alliances among them; see Bolden 2012). These sequences which are devoted to lexical explorations aimed at the resolution of linguistic difficulties can further slow down the progress of the interaction and amplify the redundancy effected by the translation (especially when multiple repetitions of the searched pattern occur). The fact that participants orient to translation as redundant is not only ­visible in their conduct but also in their explicit comments. In the next excerpt, Tom closes a meeting that has been entirely translated, and invites the participants to continue the discussion in small groups in which they will be able to speak in their own language: Extract 14 (JEU) 1 TOM .hh so i would encourage you to go back and continue 2 your activity with your local (.) officials (.).hhh  3 je vous encourage à: à continuer cette activité à i encourage you to: to continue this activity on 4 votre propre initiative à l’initiative de vos petits your own initiative on the initiative of your small 5 groupes avec les élus que vous rencontrez/ groups with the elected officials that you meet/ ((a few lines omitted)) 8 => you have been able to speak the same language/ and 9 => so you can spend twice as much time talking/ 10 => vous pouvez parler la même langue donc vous avez you can speak the same language so you have 11 => deux fois plus de temps pour pour échanger que ce twice more time to to exchange than what 12 => qu’on a eu ici aujourd’hui we had here today

Translation here is clearly categorised in terms of a loss of time (8–12), by Tom ­orienting to the redundancy it provokes rather than to the intersubjectivity it enables. These comments show that the price paid for intersubjectivity can be rather high in terms of progressivity.

1.4  Conclusion Our analyses cast some light on various interactional procedures through which the participants secure both the progressivity and the intersubjectivity of their ­ongoing activities in multilingual settings. In order to do so, they mobilise multilingual resources together with embodied resources, within practices like the use of codeswitching, the adoption of a lingua franca, informal translation, and word searches. These language choices and hybridised practices are achieved by strongly orienting towards the context and adjusting to the local interactional issues.

 Vassiliki Markaki et al.

These analyses contribute to the conceptualisation of multilingualism in various ways. They show that what is often generically designed with the category of lingua franca is actually constituted by very heterogeneous and multilingual varieties. They show the importance of the local orientations of the participants towards the very ­categorisation of these varieties, which can be embodied through an indifference to non-standard ways of speaking (let it pass) or through special attention to peculiar ­features (often related to issues of affiliation and identity; see Markaki et al. 2010). They also show that linguistic choices are made relevant and meaningful within the sequential environment, the participation framework, and the situated ecology in which they are achieved. In this paper, we have explored various multilingual configurations, described from the perspective of the local solutions they offer to problems of progressivity and intersubjectivity within the course of interaction. These solutions adjust to, and ­reflexively define, the available multilingual resources, the good enough intelligibility they have for the participants and the extent to which they can be used relevantly for the design of turns at talk and social actions. On the one hand, multilingual ­settings may be characterised by the use of all possible resources in quite a flexible way. Let it pass practices increase their mobilisation for the practical purpose of sustaining progressivity. But multilingual settings may also be characterised by the fact that some resources result – in the course of the interaction – in being too opaque, too difficult to understand, too a-normative, and thus are categorised as not usable by the participants. In this latter case, the participants orient to them as troubles to be repaired, in order to repristinate intersubjectivity. The balance between these two aspects is often discovered only in the course of the activity, within the emergent organisation of interaction, when speakers are suddenly confronted with non-responses, displays of non-understanding and repair initiations. This balance is particularly sensitive to the activity, to the constellation of participants (who is co-present, who is the main speaker, who are the targeted recipients?) and to the particular actions achieved (showing (dis)agreement, (dis)affiliation, (dis)alignment). As a result, multilingual practices in professional settings appear highly fl ­ exible and adaptable. The categorisation of multilingual resources in terms of transparent vs. opaque, difficult vs. straightforward, available vs. non-available, etc. is never decided once and for all in a general way, but is always a local achievement of the participants. Moreover, social interaction does not need a pre-existing common ground in order to work: participants have methods that can rebuild at every moment the necessary architecture of intersubjectivity (Heritage 1984). Seemingly, if multilingual resources can sometimes appear as problematic, opaque and difficult to understand, participants mobilise various practices for identifying and categorising them, as well as for repairing possible problems. Multilingual interaction is made up of constant adjustments between the use of multimodal and multilingual resources, the let it pass and the repair machinery, which can be managed in some



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings 

cases by favouring progressivity – at the risk of having to take a step backward for the restoration of intersubjectivity – or by favouring intersubjectivity, at the risk of sacrificing progressivity.

Transcript conventions Talk: Talk has been transcribed according to ICOR conventions (see http://icar.univ-lyon2. fr/projets/corinte/bandeau_droit/convention_icor.htm) Translation is indicative and aims at supporting the reading of the original

Embodied conduct: An indicative translation is provided line per line. Multimodal details have been transcribed according to the following conventions (Mondada 2009): *  * delimit descriptions of the actions done by a participant (one specific symbol is used for every participant) *---> action described continues across subsequent lines. *--->> action described continues until and after excerpt’s end. ---->* action described continues until the same symbol is reached. >>– action described begins before the excerpt’s beginning. …. action’s preparation. ,,,,, action’s retraction. joe participant doing the action is identified in small characters when he is not the current speaker im image; screen shot # indicates the exact moment to which the screen shot refers $ text on Powerpoint presentation

References Asmuß, Birte, and Jan Svennevig. 2009. “Meeting Talk: An Introduction.” Journal of Business Communication 46 (3): 3–22. Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage (eds). 1984. Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, Paul. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, Paul. 1988. “A Conversation Analytic Approach to Code-switching.” In Code-switching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by M. Heller, 187–214. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

 Vassiliki Markaki et al. Auer, Paul. 1995. “The Pragmatics of Code-switching: A Sequential Approach.” In One Speaker Two languages: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Code-switching, ed. by L. Milroy, and P. Muysken, 115–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, Paul. 1998. “From Code-switching via Language Mixing to Fused Lects: Toward a Dynamic Typology of Bilingual Speech.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 6: 1–28. Auer, Paul. 2009. “Online Syntax. Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language ­Sciences 31: 1–13. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Sandra J. Harris (eds). 1997. The Languages of Business: An International Perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 3–15. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Catherine Nickerson. 2003. “Intercultural Business Communication: A Rich Field of Studies.” Journal of Intercultural Studies 24/1: 3–15. Blom, Jan-Petter, and John J. Gumperz. (1972). “Social meaning in linguistic structure: codeswitching in N ­ orway.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics, ed. by J. J. Gumperz, and D. Hymes, 407–434. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Boden, Deidre. 1994. The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bolden, Galina. 2012. “Across Languages and Cultures: Brokering Problems of Understanding in ­Conversational Repair.” Language in Society 41: 97–121. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono. 2007. “Incrementing in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17 (4): 513–552. Cromdal, Jakob. 2000. Code-Switching for all Practical Purposes. Bilingual Organization of Children’s Play. Linköping University. Day, Dennis. 1994. “Tang’s Dilemma and Other Problems: Ethnification Processes at Some ­Multicultural Workplaces. Pragmatics 4/3: 315–336. De Pietro, Jean-François. 1988. “Vers une typologie des situations de contacts linguistiques.” Langage et Société 43: 65–89. De Stefani, Elwys, Johanna Miezcnikowski, and Lorenza Mondada. 2000. “Les activités de traduction dans des réunions de travail plurilingues: Können Sie vielleicht kurz übersetzen?” Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée 5/1: 25–42. Deppermann, Arnulf, Lorenza Mondada, and Reinhold Schmitt. 2010. “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1700–1718. Drew, Paul. 1997. “‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage (eds). 1992. Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings. ­Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Firth, Alan. 1990. ““Lingua Franca” Negotiations: Towards an Interactional Approach.” World ­Englishes 9 (3): 269–280. Firth, Alan. 1996. “The Discursive Accomplishment of Normality: On ‘Lingua Franca’ English and Conversation Analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 237–259. Firth, A. 2009. “The Lingua Franca Factor.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2): 147–170. Ford, Cecilia E. 2008. Women Speaking Up: Getting and Using Turns in Workplace Meetings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn ­Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by C.E. Ford, B.A. Fox, and S.A. Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gafaranga, Joseph. 2001. “Linguistic Identities in Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1901–1125.



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings 

Gafaranga, Joseph. 2005. “Demythologising Language Alternation Studies: Conversational Structure vs. Social Structure in Bilingual Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 281–300. Gardner, Rod, and Johannes Wagner (eds). 2004. Second Language Conversations. Advances in Applied ­Linguistics. London: Continuum. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Garfinkel, Harold (ed.). 1986. Ethnomethodological Studies of Work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Golato Andrea, and Emma Betz. 2008. “German Ach and Achso in Repair Uptake: Resources to Sustain or Remove Epistemic Asymmetry.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27: 7–37. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin. 1996. “Seeing as a Situated Activity: Formulating Planes.” In Cognition and Communication at Work, ed. by, D. Middleton, and Y. Engeström. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gülich, Elisabeth, and Lorenza Mondada. 2001. “Analyse conversationnelle.” In Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik, ed. by G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, and C. Schmitt, 196–250. ­Tübingen: Niemeyer. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Brian. 1977. “The Importance of Natural Translation.” Working Papers on Bilingualism 12: 96–114. Have, Paul ten. 1999. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage. Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff. 2000. Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, John. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. New York: Polity Press. Heritage, John. (2007). “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and place) Reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and S. Levinson, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hindmarsh, Jon, Paul Luff, and Christian Heath (eds). 2000. Workplace Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge ­University Press. Hopper, Paul. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 139–157. House, Juliane. 2003. “English as a Lingua Franca: A Threat to Multilingualism?” Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (4): 556–578. Jordan, Brigitte, and Nancy Fuller. 1975. “On the Non-fatal Nature of Trouble: Sense-making and Trouble- Managing in Lingua Franca Talk.” Semiotica 13: 11–31. Lerner, Gene H. (ed.). 2004. Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation. ­Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lüdi, Georges. 1987. “Exolinguale Kommunikation und mehrsprachige Rede. Untersuchugen zur Kommunikation in Sprachkontaktsituationen.” In Soziokulturelle Perspektiven und Spracherwerb, ed. by E. Oksaar, 76–100. Tübingen: Narr. Markaki, Vicky, Sara Merlino, Lorenza Mondada, and Florence Oloff. (2010). “Laughter in a Professional Meeting: The Emergent Organization of an Ethnic Joke.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1526–1542. Markaki, Vassiliki, Sara Merlino, Lorenza Mondada, Florence Oloff, and Véronique Traverso. (2012). Choix de langues et gestion de la participation dans des réunions internationales. In Interactions cosmopolites: l’organisation de la participation plurilingue, ed. by L. Mondada, and L. Nussbaum. Limoges: Lambert Lucas. Markaki, Vassiliki, and Lorenza Mondada. 2009. “Gérer le temps et la participation pendant l’exposé: contributions de l’analyse séquentielle et multimodale à la formation et au conseil de managers.” Bulletin VALS-ASLA 90: 75–97.

 Vassiliki Markaki et al. Markaki, Vassiliki, and Lorenza Mondada. 2012. “Embodied Orientations Towards Co-participants in Multinational Meetings.” Discourse Studies 14/1: 31–52. Mauranen, Anna. 2006. “Signalling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 123–150. McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Merlino, Sara. 2010. “Un’analisi multimodale della ricerca di parola nelle sequenze di ­traduzione orale.” In La comunicazione parlata 3, Atti del terzo congresso internazionale, Vol. 1, ed. by M. Pettorino, A. Giannini, and F.M. Dovetto, 473–492. Napoli: Università degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale. Merlino, Sara. 2011. “Dinamiche di contatto fra lingue: Traduzione orale spontanea e categorizzazione delle risorse linguistiche.” In Lingue e culture in contatto. Atti del 100 Congresso AItLA, ed. by R. Bombi, M. D’Agostino, and S. Dal Negro, 125–147 Perugia: Guerra. Merlino, Sara. 2012. Négocier la transition de la parole du traduit au traducteur: l’organisation séquentielle et multimodale de la traduction orale. Ph.D. dissertation, University Lyon 2 & University of Torino. Merlino, Sara. in press. “Traduction orale et organisation de la parole: la gestion multimodale des transitions.” In Corps en Interaction, ed. by L. Mondada. Lyon: ENS éditions. Merlino, Sara, and Lorenza Mondada. in press. “Identités fluides dans le travail interactionnel du traducteur improvisé.” In Identités en Interaction, ed. by L. Greco, L. Mondada, and P. Renaud. Paris: Ed. Faits de Langue. Merlino, Sara, and Véronique Traverso. 2009. “Les séquences de traduction spontanée comme mécanisme de réparation dans des interactions professionnelles.” Synergies Pays Germanophones 2: 129–143. Mondada, Véronique. 1999. “L’accomplissement de l’ ‘étrangéité’ dans et par l’interaction: procédures de catégorisation des locuteurs.” Langages 134: 20–34. Mondada, Lorenza. 2004. “Ways of ‘Doing Being Plurlingual’ in International Work Meetings.” In Second Language Conversations: Studies of Communication in Everyday Settings, ed. by R. Gardner, and J. Wagner, 18–39. London: Continuum. Mondada, Lorenza. 2006. “Interactions en situations professionnelles et institutionnelles: de l’analyse détaillée aux retombées pratiques.” Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée XI-2: 5–16. Mondada, Lorenza. 2007a. “Bilingualism and the Analysis of Talk at Work: Code-switching as a Resource for the Organization of Action and Interaction.” In Bilingualism. Advances in Linguistics, ed. by M. Heller. London: Macmillan. Mondada, Lorenza. 2007b. “Le code-switching comme ressource pour l’organisation de la parole-en-interaction.” Journal of Languages and Contact 1: 168–197. Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. “Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1977–1997. Mondada, Lorenza. 2011a. “The Interactional Production of Multiple Spatialities within a Participatory Democracy Meeting.” Social Semiotics 21/2: 283–308. Mondada, Lorenza. 2011b. “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. Mondada, Lorenza. 2012a. “L’organisation émergente des ressources multimodales dans l’interaction en lingua franca: entre progressivité et intersubjectivité.” Bulletin VALSASLA 95: 97–121.



Chapter 1.  Multilingual practices in professional settings 

Mondada, Lorenza. 2012b. “The Dynamics of Embodied Participation and Language Choice in Multilingual Meetings.” Language in Society 41/2: 213–235. Mondada, Lorenza, Lucas Greco, Vassiliki Markaki, Florence Oloff, Patrick Renaud, Roxana Taquechel, and Véronique Traverso. 2009. “Étudier les pratiques professionnelles plurilingues: enjeux analytiques, défis pratiques.” In Intervenir: Appliquer, s’impliquer? Actes du 5ème colloque ­international du Réseau français de sociolinguistique, ed. by I. Pierozak, and J.M. Eloy, 137–148. Paris: l’Harmattan. Mondada, Lorenza, and Luci Nussbaum (eds). 2012. Interactions cosmopolites: l’organisation de la ­participation plurilingue. Limoges: Editions Lambert Lucas. Mondada, Lorenza, and Florence Oloff. 2011. “Gestion de la participation et choix de langue en ouverture de réunions plurilingues.” Bulletin VALS/ASLA 94: 49–67. Müller, Frank E. 1989. “Translation in Bilingual Conversation: Pragmatic Aspects of Translatory Interaction” Journal of Pragmatics 13: 713–739. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds). 1996. Interaction and Grammar. C ­ ambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poncini, Gina. 2007. Discursive Strategies in Multicultural Business Meetings. Bern: Lang. Rasmussen, Gitte, and Johannes Wagner. 2002. “Language Choice in International Telephone Conversations.” In Telephone Calls. Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, ed. by K.K. Luke, and Th. Pavlidou, 111–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Robertson, Roland. 1995. “Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity.” In Global Modernities, ed. by M. Featherstone et al., 25–44. London: Sage. Sacks, Harvey. 1972. “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Materials for Doing Sociology.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by D. Sudnow, 31–74. New York: Free Press. Sacks, Harvey. 1984. “Notes on Methodology.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the ­Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening Up Closings.” Semiotica 8: 289–327. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1984. “On Some Gestures’ Relation to Talk.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 266–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. “Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97: 1295–1345. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Grammar and Interaction, ed. by E.  Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2004. “Research Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua Franca.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–242. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. “Accommodation and the Idiom Principle in English as a Lingua Franca.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2): 195–215.

 Vassiliki Markaki et al. Skårup, Terkel. 2004. “Brokering and Membership in a Multilingual Community of Practice.” In Second Language Conversations: Studies of Communication in Everyday Settings, R. Gardner, and J. Wagner. London: Continuum. Steensig, Jakob. 2003. “Conversation Analysis and the Study of Bilingual Interaction.” Nordlyd 31/5: 796–818. Svennevig, Jan (ed.). 2012. Special Issue on Multimodal Analyses of Meetings. Discourse Studies 4/1. Suchman, Lucy. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine ­Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traverso, Véronique. 2002. “Analyse de consultations médicales en présence d’un intermédiaire ­linguistique non professionnel.” Actes du VIII Congrès de l’ARIC. http://www.unige.ch/ fapse/SSE/groups/aric/Actes.htm#T. Traverso, Véronique. 2003. “Transcription et traduction des interactions en langue étrangère.” Cahiers de Praxématique 39: 77–99. Traverso Véronique. 2011. “Modalités de constructions identitaires dans des réunions de travail ­plurilingues.” In Construction identitaire dans la communication interpersonnelle, ed. by M. Palander-Collin, H. Lenk, M. Nevala, P. Sihvonen, and M. Vesalainen, LXXXI, 67–82. Helsinki: Mémoire de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki. Traverso, Véronique, and Charif Fadoua. in press. “Points de vue divergents sur le hammam: étude d’une réunion de participation entre les experts et les habitants.” In The Traditionnel Hammam: A Gift from the Past to the Future, ed. by H. Dumreicher. Damas: Publications de l’IFPO. Traverso, Véronique. in press a. “Ad hoc Interpreting in Multilingual Work Meetings: Who Translates for Whom?” In Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. by C. Baraldi, and L. Gavioli. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traverso, Véronique. in press b. “Construire l’(in)intelligibilité dans des réunions plurilingues.“ In Cultures, discours, langues: regards croisés, ed. by C. Claudel, and P. Von Münchow. Traverso, Véronique. in press c. “Positionnements identitaires multiples dans une réunion plurilingue: traces dans l’interaction et effets structurants.” In Identités en Interaction, ed. by L. Greco, L. Mondada, and P. Renaud. Paris: Ed. Faits de Langue. Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman. Wagner, Johannes. 1998. “Silences in international communication.” In Perspectives on Foreign and Second Language Pedagogy, ed. by D. Albrechtsen et al., 79–91. Odense: Odense University Press. Wei, Li. (2002). “‘What Do You Want Me to Say?’ On the Conversation Analysis Approach to ­Bilingual Interaction.” Language in Society 31 (2): 159–180.

chapter 2

The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities ‘Border-crossing’ and ‘languaging’ in multilingual workplaces Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel Université de Paris 3

Our study seeks to go beyond a conception of “multilingualism” overtly attached to a view of language as a closed set of rules over-determining the form of utterances purely defined in terms of grammar. Our study focuses on a diversity of linguistic practices locally elaborated by the participants in the course of their actions – what has been called a “languaging” activity. This invites us to think about language-at-work and the online development of syntactic and pragmatic resources. Adopting the framework of Conversation Analysis inspired by ethnomethodology, on the basis of the analysis of ten extracts of professional exchanges in multilingual settings, this chapter attempts to contribute to the development of a step-by-step examination of the way in which participants process the heterogeneity of their available resources, particularly visible in situations of multilingual interaction.

2.1  Introduction For this paper we worked on more than sixty hours of multilingual ­interactions, audioand video-recorded by R. Taquechel (see below 2.2.1) in two international companies and an intergovernmental organisation. As our fieldwork and analysis continued to progress over the five years of the DYLAN project, we focused on the way in which participants treat the linguistic diversity of their verbal repertoires within social interactions. We worked therefore on complex, heterogeneous ‘linguistic material’, handled in a manner chosen by the participants to make it mutually intelligible, as well as on the conditions of its categorisation in terms of “communities of practice” rather than in purely linguistic terms (Wenger 1998; Duranti 1997: 82).

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel

Thus, the choice of adopting the viewpoint of the participants in the analysis of their plurilingual practices – i.e. an endogenous or ‘emic’ viewpoint – led us to stop using the scientific sense of the word ‘language’ [langue] (below 2.1) in our work, for fear of adopting unwittingly the theories and models it presupposes and leads to, dealing with a hypothetical object rather than an empirical phenomenon as viewed by speakers (Lüdi 2011: 48–50). This allows us, therefore, in introducing the results of our analysis of plurilingual practices in professional activities, to return to the concept of plurilingualism1 and to the notions we used of ‘language space’, ‘border-crossing’ and the ‘bricolage’ of verbal resources or ‘languaging’.

2.1.1  P  lurilingualism used and processed by the participants: Language spaces, border-crossing, and ‘languaging’. Based on the analysis of plurilingual interactions in a work situation, our task was to focus in particular on the effects produced during the participants’ deployment of verbally heterogeneous repertoires which, linguistically speaking, were not ­referable to a ‘code’ supposedly shared by all, as in R. Jakobson’s (1963) communication model, possibly complexified (e.g. Grize 1990). Moreover, the linguistic diversity in the repertoires deployed is distributed unevenly among the members of a working group. A round-table meeting of representatives of different language cultures often has two categories of members: ‘bilingual speakers’ of varying degrees of competence, and ‘monolingual speakers’ with no language skills other than their mother tongue. The question was eventually formulated as follows: how does one reconstruct the identification and treatment of a plurilingual phenomenon by participants in a course of action, without imposing the point of view of external linguistic observers? To this question, we could only find the makings of an answer in the participants’ own practices, that is to say by reconstructing their ways of doing in order both to signify and work on this heterogeneity-for-them for the benefit of current interaction and the maintenance of intersubjectivity around the table. Inspired by the tradition of dialectological investigations (see below 2.1.2) and by forming an analogy with the concept of ‘dialect variation areas’, we examined, in the ‘language space’ opened up by any interaction, the implementation of phenomena we have called ‘border-crossing’, which can signify on the one hand the limit reached by specific ‘ways of doing’, and on the other the anchoring of this process in a new ‘language space’ categorised and treated as referring to other ‘ways of doing’. As for the ‘linguistic’ forms used, we have come to treat these as language resources.

.  We do not make any distinction here between multilingualism and plurilingualism.

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities 

­ sually interpreted in the context of the normative expectations of their communiU ties of origin, they are, in a situation of plurilingualism, variably affected, depending on the participants, by a process of bricolage free of regulatory constraints, but also of the social meanings associated with social or stylistic variation (Labov 1972). The extracts that we present below, and analyse in more detail in what follows, illustrate the ideas we shall introduce: ‘language space’, ‘border-crossing’, ‘bricolage’ and ‘languaging’.

2.1.1.1  Language space We begin with the notion of language space and an extract from a work meeting at Agence ArchiNova (AAN) around a table of scale models, under the direction of Bruce (BRU), the project leader. Extract 1. (American-point-of-view_AAN-070307RT) Bruce (BRU) speaks after a young Bulgarian architect. She was speaking in French and did not offer a convincing solution to the problem she had been given. (…) 09 BRU looks at the artwork on his right 10 #(0.7s)# 11 BRU  #BRU arranges a pile of tracings in front of him # 12 BRU  $I look at this with- from a traditional point of 13 $takes a bundle and pulls it towards him --> 14 view$(2.3s) #because I’m American and that’s what 15 ––>$  #leans forward and picks up a bundle––> 16 Americans do# 17 ––>#

In lines 12–16, Bruce opens up a space of doing things, both linguistically in his manner of speaking and visually (l. 12 “I look at this”) at the start of a project like that of the study, a space of practices characterised by him as “American”. This “space” is simply the reduction in the here and now of the observed institutional space of the community of practices constituted by the project team and more broadly by the staff of Agence ArchiNova. We call this a “language space” rather than a “linguistic space” because the verbal resources that contribute to its production are, unlike abstract and decontextualised “linguistic” forms, forms that are adjusted to the current activity and to the diversity of resources brought to bear – pointing, posture, gaze, documents, objects handled, etc. These are situated in relation to the context and to their sequential position (Schegloff 2007) which make them interpretable, and embodied in the participation framework (Goffman 1981).

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel

2.1.1.2  Border-crossing: Leaving one language space for another The example below successively provides two different spaces, one opened up by Emilie, the other by Martine, who invites Emilie to ‘cross the border’ that separates them and join her and the other participants (including Julian (JUL)). Extract 2. (English_VIA-091208RT) At Viadeo, a company specializing in creation, management and professional social network equipment, it is understood that they are supposed to work in an English language space. Émilie (EMI) is commenting on the request of a client company (l. 1: “ILS (…)”). 1 EMI [ILS NOUS AVAIENT DEMANDÉ] [THEY HAD ASKED US] 2 JUL +[ou:::h ou::h ((general protests))]+ 3 + points an accusing finger at EMI    + 4 MAR [ENGLish §ENGLish ENGLish] 5 EMI §bangs her forehead and turns to her right––> 6 ??? [O:::::H    O::::::H   O:::H] 7 ((laughter))§ 8 ––>§ 9 EMI  OKAY (.) HE::: §okay we gone a:h i’ve gone a::::::h 10 §turns towards 2 people sitting on her right––>

The language space in which Emilie intends speaking is met by general booing (l. 2: “ou:::h ou::h ((general protests))”), and she is urged to adopt the agreed language for speaking and operating at Viadeo, categorised as “English” by Martine (l. 4: “English English English”). Emilie’s “okay” (l. 9) marks the abandonment of the space she first adopted, which was deemed inappropriate and was rejected by the other participants, in favour of the “English” space, in which Martine had positioned herself (l. 4) in making her call for Emilie to join the agreed space.

2.1.1.3  Searching for words and language bricolage or ‘languaging’ Extract (3) below illustrates participants venturing to a language space in which they have only limited competence. This leads to guesswork and searching for words, and to approximations in using the resources within their reach, which we call ‘languaging’. Extract 3. (OPEN DAY_VIA-091208RT) Following the previous exchange (extract 2.), a few turns later: Frédéric (FRE), Claire (CLA). 1  FRE we can offer to the:: to the school eu::h a global euh a 2 global solution euh for the recruiting and you have to 3 know that schools organize eu::h some euh (another) name 4 in English is the- journée [portes] ouvertes open days 5 CLA [open   ]          open doors/ 6 FRE → open doors yeah 7 CLA → open doors day/

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities 

Frédéric and Claire are operating in a language space designated as English (l. 4: “in English”) where they are seeking to find the English equivalent to the French “journées portes ouvertes”, noted as inadequate by Frédéric (l. 3–4 “(another) name in English is the-”). The form “in English” of the expression is gradually found through two incremental proposals from Claire (l. 5; l. 7), of which the second provides the finishing touch to a first already approved in “English” mode by ­Frédéric (l. 6: “open doors yeah”). We can speak here of the phonetic bricolage used by ­Frédéric, who processes supposedly English lexical and syntactic resources in a French phonetic space, and by Claire, who strives towards English forms of utterance, at a greater distance than F ­ rédéric from his French space. Bricolage occurs again in the expression “open doors day”, whose components are constructed step by step – through Claire’s translation – from the space of French resources to the space of English lexical and syntactic resources, where the determinant precedes the determined, thus reversing the s­ yntactical order of resources in French. Finally, the awaited expression “open day” in the “English” language space dispenses with “portes ~ doors”: the form cobbled together by Claire, “open doors day”, with her limited English resources, is only an approximation of spoken English: the use of the preformed French “journée portes ouvertes” (Gülich 2008) is transferred ­unaltered to the English language space. This process of bricolage by the participants in plurilingual interaction makes ­particularly evident both the instability of the forms produced during their interactions and the emergence of online syntactic resources (Helasvuo 2001; Hopper 2004; Hopper & Closs-Traugott 2003) conveyed by the activity itself towards an accomplishment downstream on the basis of the upstream resources of the participants’ ­verbal repertoires. We come back to this inventive process of working on language in plurilingual interaction in referring to the idea of “languaging” (Makoni & Makoni 2010; ­Pennycook 2010; Lüdi 2011). This idea can be defined as a situated activity by which the interacting members of a plurilingual group elaborate their talk in a lingua franca form (Seidlhofer 2005) taking as its target such ‘language’ defined in a practical way. This talk, in a “nascent state”, is not necessarily conducive to a stabilisation of its resources.

2.1.2  P  articipation framework and language spaces: Implementation of resources in plurilingual processing 2.1.2.1  O  rganisation of the participation framework around the border between two language spaces The extract below (4) organises the participation framework (Goffman 1981) as a means of going from one language space to another: an Italian space and a French space on either side of a bilingual Italian-French participant (Fabrice) embodying the border between the two language spaces in the following extract (4):

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel Extract 4. (primo-impatto_AAN-230307RT) Luca (LUC), the Italian project architect, has encountered an unforeseen problem, and Daniel (DAN), project manager at AAN, are sitting on either side of Fabrice (FAB), who, more than providing a translation, as the analysis reveals, provides a continuity of interaction by going from one language space to the other. The images below clearly illustrate the spatial organisation of the participation framework in the two language spaces “Italian” (image A) and “French” (image B), which organise the interaction.

View of the participation framework

DAN

FAB

LUC

01 LUC &il fatto che questo qui non è stato ancora tirato the fact that this one has not yet been realised 02 &A–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––> 03 su è solo una prima:: (0.4s) un primo impatto= is just a first (0.4s) a first sketch=



04 FAB =ah [NO:: MA ] =oh [NO:: BUT] 05 LUC [xxx è solo] xxx è da studia:re [xxx it’s just] xxx it has still to be studied

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities  06 FAB si si ma vedrà & yes yes but you’ll see & 08 ((laughters)) 09 FAB #j’ai pas j’ai pas je:: je t’ai pas dit que::   I haven’t I haven’t I:: I didn’t tell you that:: 10 # B––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––––––––––> 11 ça c’est un premier plan on a:: on ABOR:de le sujet this is a first sketch we have:: we broach the subject 12 DAN [>oui oui ouiyes yes yes#

In this extract, Luca is speaking (l. 1–5), addressing a problem with the construction of a library. His approach is expressed in the position of his body and the ­direction of his gaze, clearly directed towards Fabrice (image A), thus making Daniel a bystander (Goffman 1981). Independently of the Italian language space initiated by Luca between he and Fabrice, his pointing to the details of plans and diagrams spread over the table can be seen and interpreted by Daniel. L. 06–09, Fabrice physically turns away from the Italian space by turning towards Daniel (image B), at the same time as he opens up a French language space between them. In doing so, Luca in turn becomes the non-addressed participant, on the other side of the language border who will jump alternately in one direction and then the other throughout the interaction, shifting the interaction from one to the other.

2.1.2.2  Plurilingualism as a creative resource in languaging We can speak of “creativity” in regard to plurilingual situations where creation, i.e. the co-construction of new linguistic forms, can be understood through the coexistence and the contribution of each of the “repertoires”, resulting from the crossing of various language spaces and from hybridisation in the course of the interactions. This “linguistic creativity” has been analysed by some authors in terms of “interlanguage”, “original discursive creativity” (Lüdi & Py 1986: 119) and “mixed or hybrid speech” (Manessy 1989). In the analyses that follow, the notion of creativity will lead us to consider each p ­ erson’s verbal repertoire as a set of open, non-delimited resources (Amselle 2004: 276). On this basis each person operates by using hybridisations in which there is a recycling of resources that give unexpected forms to courses of action, upsetting normative expectations, but which can be interpreted by the various participants in their adjustment to the ­contingencies of the interaction context. The extract below, “barbarismes”, taken from the Union Latine (UL) corpus, ­illustrates this idea of “creativity” in the contrasting of French and Spanish lexical

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel

resources. The search for a better equivalent to the Spanish “barbarismo” than the French “barbarisme” offered by a participant, initiates a metalinguistic process in which all the members participate by sharing the verbal repertoires available. Extract 5. (barbarismes_UL-061207RT) UL terminologists at the meeting: David (DAV), Renata (REN), Victor (VIC), Sandra (SAN), Roxana (ROX). 01 DAV eu:::h vous (.) me passez/ eh:::m you (.) pass me 02 (0.5s) 03 #eu::h BON donc eu:::h 0eu:h00(0.5s) là pour les autres eh::m RIGHT so eh::m 0eh:m0(0.5s) there for the others 04 #taking a document and looking at it. ––> 05 (0.3s) la REI nou:::s (1.1s) ah no no le cabe la REI (0.3s) the REI us (1.1s) oh no no fits the REI asks 06  nous demande/ de participer à l’observatoire de.h de us/ to participate to the observatory of .h of 07 → b arbarisme(s)^ou étrang-# #0comment est-ce qu’on dit barbarisme(s) or foreign- 0how do we say 08 ––># #turns to REN ––> 09 → ça en français/0# that in French/0 10 ––># 11 (0.7s) 12 DAV [eh eh 13 REN [termes étrangers/ je ne sais pas/= [foreign terms/ I don’t know/= 14 DAV =termes étrangers xxx =foreign terms xxx 15 (2.6s) 16 DAV #cómo se dice/ how do you say/ 17 #addressing ROX ––> 18 (1.4s) 19 VIC demande [(à xxx) ]# ask [(to xxx)] 20 dav ––># 21 DAV [BARBARIS]MOS= 22 REN =[forencilismos] 23 ROX [BARBARISMOS/] 24 REN forencilismos [donc eh les termes tous les termes étr [so eh the terms all the terms for25 DAV [extranjerismos] 26 REN étrangers: (0.8s) qui entrent dans une langue foreigners (0.8s) that enter into a language 27 VIC 0barbarismes0 28 SAN 0barbarismos0 29 REN pas forcément    [0xxx0 not necessarily [0xxx0 30 ROX [N:O (0.7s) préstamos [NO (0.7s) borrowings 31 (0.6s)

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities  32 DAV 0.hhh0 E::[:H ] 33 ROX [no/] 34 DAV  e::h non le problème ce que: c’est c’est plus que e::h no the problem what it: it’s it’s more than 35  préstamos c’est l- l’ensemble non/ les termes qui sont borrowings it’s t- the whole no/ the terms that are 36 (0.9s) 37 DAV eu:h (0.8s) si (1.0s) on  [peut dire préstamos ] eh:m (0.8s) if (1.0s) we [can say borrowings] 0ça peut être [0en fait0 38 REN [ [0this can be (0actually0 39 DAV  [mais  [but 40  en fait d- de le terme a un peu plus une connotation actually o- of the term has a bit more a connotation 41 → un peu plus (0.6) plus forte que (.) que préstamos a bit more (0.6) stronger than (.) than borrowings 42 mais bon on va dire 0préstamos0 but well we can say 0borrowings0

The extract is interesting. Starting from the problem of translating the Italian prestito into French (l. 7–9: “barbarisme(s) ou étrang- 0comment est-ce qu’on dit ça en français/0”), the UL terminologists, in the French working space session, travel around their various porous language spaces in search of a ‘satisfactory’ answer to the question raised l. 7–9 by David: l. 21, 23, 28 Span. barbarismos is suggested; l. 22 is the turn of the Spanish morphological bricolage from the Italian lexical resources forencilismos (Ital. forestiero “stranger”, forestierismo “loan ~ barbarism” crossed with forense “lawyer”), taken up l. 25 in Span. extranjerismos; exchanged in l. 26 against the French étrangers, then l. 27 the return to the French barbarismes seems to ­complete the tour of the available language spaces; and finally, at l. 30, it is the Span. préstamos that is weighed up (l. 34–41) before finally being proposed for adoption by the group (l. 41–42). This navigation between possible French and Spanish candidates for the translation of Italian has at the same time  been an ­opportunity for feedback on their merits in terms of how they contribute to ­configuring the object of research to which the REI is inviting the terminologists of the Union Latine to contribute. Finally, with all borders now opened to the group’s language space, it is the word préstamos that David suggests to the group, for its work programme, as the equivalent of the Italian prestito, in preference to a French word. Here, the language spaces do not organise the participatory framework as above in 1.2.1, but contribute to offering their resources to the group’s language space, projected onto the horizon of its activities. For how does one categorise the lexical resource finally adopted to represent the Italian referent prestito: Italian, French, Spanish? After being worked on in three language spaces through successive proposals by the participants, the Spanish resource préstamos is proposed to the group, in an emic perspective, by David: l. 41 “mais bon on va dire”, i.e. “in our own way of doing”.

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel

2.2  Analytical and methodological framework 2.2.1  Theoretical concepts Our study therefore aims to analyse observable practices among participants in a situation of multilingual professional activity. The participants are constrained by the logic of a collective endeavor by one and/or other of the two orientations ‘language space border-crossing’ and ‘languaging’, each of which represents, for the person initiating it, a solution to a problem, whether it concerns his/her participation in the current activity or the context that it helps to configure. Our choice of conversation analysis (CA) orients our focus toward the methodological and systemic aspects of participants’ practices, aspects viewed as constitutive of their intelligibility. It is therefore the point of view of the participants which the analysis seeks to reconstruct from data reputed to ensure its availability. In what follows we briefly recall the analytical approach adopted (2.1.1) and the research it has contributed to on multilingual practices (2.1.2).

2.2.1.1  Analytical approach The theoretical framework guiding the present contribution is that of Conversation Analysis (CA), first developed in the 1970s in the United States following Harold ­Garfinkel (1967) and then Harvey Sacks (1992 [1972] ). The approach aims to reconstruct the so-called “emic” viewpoint of participants in the production of the social order of their activities. This social order is supposed to make itself recognisable to each participant due to its twofold indexical and reflexive dimension (Heritage 1984). The same thus goes for the social order methodically and systematically deployed in interaction (Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson 1974). Compared with a ‘socio-linguistics’ that attempts to articulate the two worlds of the “social” and the “linguistic” viewed as mutually pre-existing each other, conversation analysis postulates and highlights the production of the reflexive social order implied by the intelligibility of linguistic practices. The notion of ‘sequentiality’ takes account of the temporality constitutive of verbal interaction, observed in the alternation that authorises and organises its development and it led us to prefer an analysis of linguistic forms in terms of their contribution to the units of the conversation – turns, constructional units, and sequences (Sacks, ­Schegloff, Jefferson 1974) – rather than their inclusion in a given grammar. Thus, the linguistic output of the actors takes shape in the time of the action by making intelligible the principle of progressivity (Schegloff 2007), which takes shape as well within a turn of talk as within a sequence of turns (Heritage 2007). The praxeological viewpoint of CA, which constitutes language in a mode of action, allows the renewed questioning of certain traditional concepts in sociolinguistics such as multilingualism, speech

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities 

event, setting, context, code-switching, code-mixing, pidginisation, creolisation, etc. while incorporating them as resources in situated ways of accomplishing a course of action that in return helps shape them. Since the 1970s a number of researchers working in CA have been interested in interactional practices in the workplace, by structuring their studies through two fields of activity that are now clearly mapped: “talk at work” (Drew & Heritage 1992), such as in hospitals, courts and schools; and “workplace practices” initiated by Luff, ­Hindmarsh & Heath (2000), that are today extended to all kinds of professional ­activities, including research work (Mondada 2005). In line with the endogenous viewpoint of CA, the analysis is interested in the participants and their ways of orienting themselves toward certain details characterising the ‘institutionality’ or asymmetry of the activity produced, rather than in its a priori characterisation. It is in how participants construct their turns, introduce topics, contribute to sequential formats or construct specific participation frameworks that the activity becomes recognisable as institutional rather than everyday, for example. Workplace studies of interactions have focused more on the collaborative and multimodal character of the practices observed. The semiotic nature of the resources mobilised by the participants includes not only verbal, gestural, postural, kinetic and visual resources but even material and artifactual resources. These studies have had the merit – among others – of not opposing “verbal” and “non-verbal” resources, p ­ referring to integrate them, in terms of their fine intricacy in courses of action, into a complex set of varied and mutually constitutive semiotic fields (Ch. Goodwin 1979, 1994, 2000).

2.2.1.2  Crossing language space borders: ‘Code-switching’ within interaction What we have addressed so far in terms of “border-crossing” (see above § 1.1.2) refers to the phenomenon of code-switching, widely described in the linguistic literature on languages in contact. From the long history of these studies (Weinreich 1953 up to Heller 2007) we ­initially took two analytical orientations that enabled us to approach code-switching as a practice endowed with social meaning (Gumperz 1966; also 1964, 1977, 1982a, 1982b) in the current activity: the identity approach initiated by Gumperz (1982a, 1982c) and the interactionist approach, which a significant number of authors subscribe to (for example, Auer 1984; Milroy & Wei 1995; Gafaranga 2001; Mondada 2007a). The research of P. Auer (1984, 1996) encouraged us to focus less on the wellstudied syntactic (Poplack 1980) and sociolinguistic (Myers-Scotton 1988) constraints of code-switching than its interactionally contingent dimensions. In underlining the constitutively situated nature of the problem, Auer (1984, 1996) enriched the study of code-switching by introducing into the analysis the sequential placement of ­alternation and the viewpoints of the participants.

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel

Research on plurilingual practices in professional situations (Firth 1995; Firth & Wagner 1997; Mondada 2004, 2005, 2007b) has taken advantage of the increasingly frequent opening up of companies to an international dimension, along with intercultural practices. Hitherto few studies in the field of sociolinguistics were devoted to such international contexts. One can find three reasons for this lacuna. (1) “Bilingualat-work” speakers represent a methodological challenge for sociolinguistic studies, because of the overly ephemeral and contingent character of their language practices for contributing to the manifestation and affirmation of a ‘linguistic community’ (Day & Wagner 2007). (2) In studies of bilingualism the tendency has been to focus on informal conversations among peers. (3) Methodological constraints impede observation inside companies. Observation is hard to carry out unobtrusively, with the need for audio and video recording perceived by participants as intrusive if not disturbing (Mondada et al. 2009). As we explained in the introduction (above §1. and following), we gradually distanced ourselves, in the course of observations and analysis, from the traditional conception which assimilates multilingualism to a variety of codes that structure verbal repertoires both linguistically and socially (Gumperz 1964, 1966) and led to, among bilingual speakers, what is generally called code-switching and/or code-mixing. More in resonance with the viewpoints and ambitions of linguistic anthropology (Duranti 1997), we therefore finally converged on the dialectological tradition, one that is familiar with the concept of “speech variety” [fr. parler] and its problematic borders (Straka & Gardette 1973 ) and sensitive in its empirical approach to the organisation by the witnesses themselves of their day-to-day experience of linguistic diversity and its “borders” or “discontinuities”, crossed in moving from one way of speaking to another as well as in the geographical traversal of a fragmented space (Wald et al. 1973; Poche 1996).

2.2.2  Methodology Access to the way the actors being observed perform their professional activities calls for an ethnographic stage observing the three reflexively articulated categories of actors, activities and workspaces. The ‘naturalistic’ position adopted in respect of the production of data led to our choosing, as stated above, video recordings of interactions so as to preserve the pace and temporality of the activity and its spatial characteristics (Mondada 2006; Heath & Luff 1993; Heath, Hindmarsh, Luff 2010). Unlike work based solely on observing the participants and taking notes, recording the exchanges allowed us to see and review them and each time to look at the interaction studied within a renewed analytical ­perspective (Pomerantz & Fehr 2008 [1997]).

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities 

2.2.2.1  Fieldwork The linguistic diversity of activities is a standard mode of work in the three sites observed: the architectural firm ArchiNova (AAN), the intergovernmental organisation Union Latine (UL) and the professional social network Viadeo (VIA). What they have in common is the international nature of the coordinative and collaborative activities taking place between their teams and clients around the world. These companies and organisations hold working sessions either by physically bringing together the members working in France and abroad or by using remote ­communication systems – computers, telephone and video-conferencing  – that allow low-cost regular exchanges at a distance. The professional activities investigated take place, moreover, within a “deterritorialisation” dynamic that plays with geopolitical affiliations and rootedness (Appadurai 2005 [1996]) – thus relativising the local identity of our various sites – and what this could imply in the ­participants’ ways of doing. 2.2.2.2  Recording and transcription The data were produced using technical audio-video tools under ‘natural’ c­ onditions, i.e. not created or modified by the researcher. Everything was basically taken from multi-participant and possibly “multi-site” (using video and/or audio systems) ­working meetings (VIA site). The proceedings were carefully listened to and viewed, allowing detailed ­transcribed extracts to be selected for purposes related to the phenomena revealed by the ­recordings. It is through the consolidation of the relationship between the researcher and the participants in the real-life situation and throughout the data analysing process – successive transcripts and analysis in relation to reflexivity –, that the methods of the participants in their multilingual language practices were shown in detail as well as their reoccurrence over time. 2.2.3  Corpus Our corpus assembles all the data collected at the three sites AAN, UL and VIA. It represents more than sixty hours of recordings, divided up as follows. AAN. An architectural firm renamed AtelierArchiNova for reasons of confidentiality requested by the firm itself. We recorded interactions between architects of various nationalities working in a variety of languages: English, French, Italian and Portuguese. This corpus amounted to some 30 hours of recordings. UL. The intergovernmental organisation Union Latine employs experts in ‘Latin’ languages – mainly Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese – particularly in relation to translation and terminology. About 21 hours of recordings.

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel

VIA. A high visibility professional social network on the Internet created and managed by the company Viadeo. Its teams, located in various countries, try and use English to manage their cultural and linguistic diversity. About 13 hours of recordings. Much of this corpus is available for reading through the initial transcript, which was used to generate extracts calling for a more detailed transcription.

2.3  Findings and discussions 2.3.1  General findings 2.3.1.1  Multilingual setting and language in action In the situations of multilingual interaction observed, we identified the components of a setting (Blom, Gumperz 1972: 423) that is specifically multilingual in view of the variety of the verbal repertoires of the participants (physically present or at a distance) and of the language activity itself that takes place in one or other or both of the two vernacular modes – “language space border crossing” and “languaging” – that o ­ rganise the passage of the interactions toward the horizon of the target language. We have tried to show both how linguistic diversity can be a feature of the setting imposed on participants in the interaction and how this diversity is also a resource mobilised in the activity and constituted by it, whether it be – as in the analysis of Markaki et al. (this volume) – from the standpoint of maintaining intersubjectivity within the group (Schegloff 1992) or from the standpoint of the progressive development of the activity. That said, the activity of “languaging” is not limited to multilingual interaction, even if it is particularly visible there. Indeed all verbal interaction involves bricolage and the adjustment of language resources mobilised by the participants. If there is a difference, it lies in the importance “languaging” acquires in multilingual ­interactions, and in its insensitivity to the social norms in each of the language spaces made use of. Both in the service of intersubjectivity within the group and in making progress in the activity itself, “languaging” should be viewed as one of the constitutive components of any verbal interaction. Especially visible in multilingual interactions, however, it possibly reaches its logical conclusion in the particular social conditions with which it may be related, those where the principles of pidginisation, then ­re-elaboration, (creolisation) go, as far as the production of reworked speech which can lead to the emergence of new variants (Manessy 1989) just as, in less extreme circumstances, it leads to those speech varieties through which members of the group affirm their adhesion to it. This “languaging” work, though not thematised as such by the participants, ­therefore makes situations of multilingual communication particularly interesting

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities 

insofar as they enlarge, in a kind of magnifying glass effect, a standard practice in verbal interaction. For this reason we leave aside what we have called the “language space border-crossing” mode in order to present two cases where a ‘decision-making’ process is accomplished in a languaging work context (3.1.2.) and during the use of linguistic diversity in the service of accomplishing the activity (3.1.3.).

2.3.1.2  The work of “languaging”: To produce a shared language We wish to report here the procedures used by participants to address issues related to the heterogeneity of their language resources and, reflexively, to ­maintain intersubjectivity within the group. These procedures are essentially (A)  the ­ ­negotiation  of the choice of language, (B) the search for words and (C) repair (­Schegloff 1992). We will describe and illustrate each of these procedures through some short extracts. A. “Languaging” at any cost. We have selected language negotiation sequences that provide opportunities for the participants to situate themselves or to reconsider their linguistic choices. Extract 6. (English_VIA-091208RT)[cf. Extract 2. § 1.1.2] Carlos (CAR), Émilie (EMI), Julien (JUL), Martine (MAR) 1 CAR you (respect) the:: reality 2 EMI 0j’ai rien compris là\0 0I don’t have understood anything there0 3 CAR (nnan::ss) (.) okay we [h’ve 4 EMI [ >en fait il nous a bienactually they have really< 5 &[ILS NOUS AVAIENT DEMANDÉ] [THEY ASKED US] 6 JUL +[ou:::h ou::h]+ 7 + waves his finger towards EMI as a reproach+ 8 all + [((remonstrating)) 9 MAR [ENGLish §ENGLish ENGLish] 10 EMI §touches her front, turned to her right-> 11 ??? [O:::::H O::::::H O:::H] 12 all ((laughter))§ 13 ––>§ 14 EMI  OKAY (.) HE::: §okay we gone u:h i’ve gone u::::h 15 §turns tow 2 mbers on her right––>

Here we see Émilie (l. 2) indicating sotto voce in French a problem of intelligibility, self-corrected by Carlos, who reformulates “you” (l. 1) as “we” (l. 3). This allows Émilie to reply, in French, to Carlos (l. 4–5). In doing so she provokes (l. 6) a general protest,

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel

in the form of booing that interrupts her turn. Julien points an accusing finger at her and Martine reminds her of the English rule (l. 9: “English, English, English”). The reminder is noted by Émilie, who acknowledges her momentary aberration with a gesture (l.  10). That said, English evidently causes a problem (l.1–2) as the activity proceeds, but not enough to alter the rule transgressed by Émilie, who submits immediately (l. 10, 15). The orientation of her body (l. 15) towards the two participants from the London team seated on her right reworks the expected figure of recipient design (Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson 1974: 727), while the participation framework legitimates and gives meaning to the subsequent return to English by Émilie (l. 14). Thus the initially agreed decision at Viadeo “to do things in English”, recalled in this instance of transgression, maintained an (English) “languaging” interaction space. B. “Languaging” and searching for words Studies on participation (Goodwin & Goodwin 2004) show that a process such as searching for words which is relatively common in plurilingual communication, should be approached from the standpoint of its integration into a detailed coordination of the social components of the activity and of its sequentiality. These sequences make particularly visible and analysable how participants work with their verbal resources in order to maintain intersubjectivity – as already mentioned – and to meet the needs of the current activity. Such work brings out linguistic preferences (Auer 1984, 1996) that vary from one participant to another. The following extract clearly shows a preference for Spanish by David (DAV), put to use in looking for a French word. Extract 7. (Burbuja_UL-091007RT) In a work meeting of the Union Latine: David (DAV), Laurence (LAU), Florence (FLO) 01 DAV et tu mets un #tu mets un: comment est-ce que= and you put a you put a: how do you 02 #opens and closes his hand 03 =(ça) s’appelle ça/ 0u:::n0 una burbuja/ una:# call this/ 0a0 a speech bubble/ a: 04 ––># 05 LAU un clignotant a blinker 06 DAV non pas un clignotant (.) como una burbuja= no not a blinker (.) as a speech bubble= 07 =de: de esas (0.3s) psh (0.4s)= =of: of these (0.3s) psh (0.4s)= 08 =#como las (0.4s) las de comics =like those (0.4s)those of the comics 09 #does a circle with both hands...-->

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities  10 (0.6s) 11 FLO [mhm ] 12 DAV [0xxx0] (0.4s) cuando habla chim#= [0xxx0] (0.4s) when chim speaks= 13 ––># 14 LAU =une bull- une BULLE= =a speech b- a SPEECH BUBBLE= 15 DAV =une BULLE VOILA =a SPEECH BUBBLE THAT’S IT

It is a matter here of the graphical posting of information on a web site. The adjacent pair Q/A initiated by David (l. 1–3) and his gestural mimicry (l. 2) opens a lexical search sequence where multimodal and code-switching resources are deployed in the production of languaging used as a resource for facilitating translations and the search for words. At the end of his turn, David (l. 3) shifts from languaging to Spanish, in the form of a temporally nominal syntagm developed in a succession of self-corrected attempts (“u:::n una burbuja/ una:”), thereby orienting the search towards a French equivalent of the candidate word that might be “burbuja” if it were not Spanish. In reply Laurence (l.  5) suggests the French word “clignotant”. This is rejected by David (l. 6: “non pas clignotant”), who switches back to Spanish at his transition point (l. 3), and orients the lexical search, in an onomasiological approach (l.  6–7: “como una burbuja de: de esas (…) como las (0.4) las de comics”), towards a particularly frequent way of seeking the referent of the “word” he is ­looking for, namely comic strips. The use of Spanish by David, after a request made in French, makes particularly visible the semantic effectiveness of a search conducted in a preferred language, Spanish in David’s case, to feed the languaging which is taking place. The solution “BULLE” is suggested by Laurence (l. 14) and confirmed by David in the following turn (l. 15), with a vocal intensity matching his positive reception of the proposal, and with the help of the conclusive particle (l. 15: DAV “…voilà”). The analysis here reproduces David’s entire decision-making process: after the first proposal for a solution is rejected, he decides on a second proposal. C. Repairing: alternation as a remedy for opacity during “languaging” We know the value of repair sequences (Schegloff, Jefferson, Sacks 1977) in the ­analysis of conversational activity and its methodical organisation, and for the maintenance of intersubjectivity. In the context of plurilingual interaction which concerns us here, the repair sequences are a good indicator of the identification and repair by the ­participants of what they consider, in moving from one language to another, may be a disruptive element in the languaging process. We have here, with each participant contributing to the maintenance of the group’s intersubjectivity (Schegloff 1992), access

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel

to conditions for the elaboration of languaging, which draws on the heterogeneity of repertoires to advance the activity. Extract 8. (One-euro_VIA-080109RT) Carlos (CAR), Émilie (EMI), Sébastien (SEB) 01 CAR =YEAH [+when you can’t do it+] 02 +to SEB––––––––––––> + 03 EMI [#who’s got the idea/] 04 #turns towards SEB––> 05 (0.3) 06 SEB [$hein/] [$what/] 07 $turns slightly towards EMI––> 08 CAR [xxx] 09 (0.2) 10 EMI qui qui a eu l’idée/ who who has got the idea/

The end of Carlos’s turn (l.  1) overlaps with Emilie’s question (l.  3) addressed to ­Sébastien (cf. multimodal notation l.  4). Instead of completing the adjacent pair opened by Émilie, Sébastien (l. 6), after a noticeable pause, inserts a new q ­ uestion, proposing in turn the first part of an adjacent pair – “hein/” – that initiates a hetero-correction of the preceding problematic turn (l.  3). This opens an insert-­ expansion (Schegloff 2007: 115–168) within which Sébastien and Émilie focus on the ­correction causing the breakdown. Émilie answers Sébastien’s request by reformulating her turn in French – auto-repair (l. 10). Émilie has therefore clearly attributed the breakdown of the interaction on Sébastien’s side to the English form initially used in his turn (l. 3). Émilie might well have attributed the breakdown to the overlap of her turn with Carlos’s (l. 1). But she did not. This suggests that in situations of orientation towards a languaging situation, the preferred diagnosis in the event of a ­breakdown considers the cost of this choice, and the resulting correction by ­returning to a code-switching orientation, such as we saw in Extract 6 with Émilie, and all the more so here when Sébastien (l. 6) began his response with the French “hein/” rather then “*what”. This extract, among others, is indicative of the richness of the data that allows the analysis to concentrate on the sequential positioning of turn-taking and their distribution among the participants, in relation to the plurilingual resource of forms ­subject to adjustment – in the form of repair here – as well as on how the resources are ­variously worked on and/or corrected following the orientation of the participation framework to the language space border-crossing or languaging situations that we referred to above.

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities 

2.3.1.3  Diversity in the service of carrying out the activity It is clear that far from being simply the site of forms of languaging and of maintaining intersubjectivity, the multilingualism at work in the interactions is a resource for accomplishing the action. Multilingual resources here will appear in the reflexive configuration of new contexts and diverse modes of participation in the activity, for example in the management of various affiliative or disaffiliative positions with specific consequences for following a course of action. Thus the extracts presented below allow us to show how these plurilingual practices can be inscribed – and this often ­happens  – (A) within procedures for handling disagreements between participants and rupture or misalignment in relation to preceding actions, as well as (B) within different forms of participation through which the participants make intelligible their varying degrees of commitment to the activity taking place. A. Managing disagreement and ‘preference’ Apart from the study by Bani-Shoraka (2005), disagreement has received relatively little study up until now in plurilingual situations. This does not mean that language border-crossing only documents oppositional relations between members’ viewpoints (Gumperz 1982a); it can also, as an interactional resource, contribute to practices for managing conflict between participants. Although conversation analysis studies have found that participants generally adopt the so-called “preferential” options among the available choices, for example one that satisfies normative expectations or feeds the orientation offered and received as such from the preceding turn (e.g. Pomerantz 1984; Schegloff 2007), ­nevertheless such a preference should not be understood as a cultural pressure mechanism (Duranti 2000 [1997]) always leading the participants towards implementing preferential ­interactional movements. One of its advantages is, on the contrary, to reveal the existence of a wide range of alternatives opposable at each possible point of preference, to be taken into account throughout an interaction. As J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (1984) have written, the notion of ‘preference’ serves “ to characterise conversational events in which alternative, but non-equivalent, courses of action are available to the participants (Sacks 1973)” (in ibid.: 53). Extract 9. (American-point-of-view_AAN-070307RT) [cf. Extract 1. § 1.1.1] 01 MIR comment (en) fait tu lies le bâtiment avec= how actually do you connect the building with= 02 =le 0pont0$00euh je pense que c’est ça le::00$ =the 0bridge0§00ehm I think that it’s that the::00 03 BRU $looks at the model on his right ––->$ 04 #(7.0s)# 05 BRU #stares at a pile of sketches in front of him#

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel 06 BRU $I look at this with- from a= 07 $takes a pile and brings it to him––> 08 =traditional point of view$ 09 ––>$ 10 (2.3s) 11 BRU #because i’m American and that’s what= 12 BRU #leans over to take a pile––> 13 =Americans do# 14 ––>#

The way in which Myriam ends her turn (l. 2) first with the hesitation marker “euh” and then with an unfinished personal opinion “00je pense que c’est comme ça le::00” configures the utterance in an interrogative mode, inviting another point of view to be produced (cf. turn-exit, Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974: 718). This incomplete remark (l. 2) is linked to the way in which Bruce (looking elsewhere, then with his body leaning over the table, l. 3–7) shows his progressive disaffiliation with regard to Myriam’s exposition (l. 1–2), accompanied by a shift of looks from the space occupied by Myriam to a new work space occupied by Bruce himself (l. 7–14) at the same time as he starts speaking (l. 6). This shift in the focus of attention from one space to another goes hand in hand with the transition from languaging, hitherto oriented towards French by Myriam, to the native speaker of English, Bruce, the linguistic expression of his disaffiliation. Bruce’s account (l. 6–13) seeks to introduce a new way of acting – “that’s what Americans do” – for finding a solution to the architectural problem. Lastly, the decision-making in relation to the problem under discussion develops from the American conception supported by Bruce in English, in contrast to the conception previously presented by Myriam in French “languaging”: the divergence between the two languages opens on to the divergence between the two ways of doing things, of which the second will provide the solution to the problem. B. Participation, categorisation, multimodality Our work has embraced, following Charles Goodwin, a view of participation that is less taxonomic than praxeological. Within this framework, we focused our analysis on the way in which the participants, during a change of language, orient themselves and configure units of participation, with major repercussions for the conduct of the meeting and the constitution and organisation of a working group. Hence, following the work of Mondada (2001) and Goodwin & Goodwin (Ch. Goodwin, M.H. Goodwin 2004), we continued to incorporate multimodality and categorisation into the analysis of participation in the actions of the participants. We thus noted in our analysis that the practices of inclusion and exclusion were often imbricated in a variety of semiotic sources (artefacts, place, gestures, posture, looks.) and reflexively linked to processes of categorisation (insider, outsider, etc.)

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities  Extract 10. (December_VIA-251108RT) Involving a audio phone conversation: only Carlos is not present. Participants: Jacques (JAC), Émilie (EMI), Carlos (CAR) 1 JAC $maybe could be: easy xxx to to speak_e::h= 2 $looks at the screen––> 3 =(0.4s) in face to face/ 4 (0.6s) 5 EMI mhm$ 6 JAC ––>$ 7 $(0.5s) (0.3s) 8 JAC $..... turns his head towards EMI––> 9 JAC 0ils viennent (.) en décembre0/ 0they come (.) in december0/ 10 EMI bien sûr\$ of course\ 11 JAC ––>$ 12 (1.0) 13 CAR yes\ we: we’ll (0.4s) come (0in0) december\ 14 EMI ((laughter))

Jacques’s proposal to Carlos (on the other end of the line) and Émilie “to speak_e::h (0.4) in face to face/” (l. 1–3) is supported by his posture; Émilie agrees with a “mhm” (l. 5), indicating their shared orientation. An aside sequence (l. 8–11) follows, bounded by constitutive pauses, from a transition moment in the proceedings. This sequence is constructed step by step from line 7: firstly by the direction of Jacques’s gaze toward Émilie (l. 8), then by the question in French confirming Émilie as the speaker addressed, and finally by Émilie’s reply which is also in French, taking its place in the participation framework produced by the aside (l. 10). The significant lowering of his voice (l. 9 “0 …0”) and English to French border-crossing are the two resources used by Jacques to leave the “floor” of the telephone conversation taking place. Carlos (l. 13) confirms his agreement, showing that as an over-hearer he has understood. We see how aside sequences appear preferentially in spatially complex contexts such as work meetings involving video or audio conferencing, where the visual, spatial and technical constraints on the activity are all resources for developing different kinds of participation. As a result, language border-crossing in the aside sequences only acquires its full meaning if one takes into account the visual and bodily resources sequentially deployed by the participants in the interaction, which make the aside much clearer. The alternations therefore function as a fluid continuum of situated ways of operating and behaving to which the participants are sensitive and which they reflexively contribute to making intelligible.

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel

2.3.2  Linguistic heterogeneity as a resource in interactions at work Our analysis, conducted from a CA perspective, involved following in detail the work carried out by participants constrained by a multilingual setting. Two key observations emerge. First, the diversity of linguistic resources available from verbal heterogeneous ­repertoires, invested in the interaction, significantly increases the work ordinarily done by the participants with their verbal resources for maintaining intersubjectivity links within the group. This work corresponds to the ‘localness’ or particularity of the languaging process through which the linguistic identity of the participants can emerge, coupled with methods for creating “situated”, locally produced speech. Second, in the multilingual setting so dealt with, it should be kept in mind that the “in-action” language of the verbal interactions is interpreted as a mode of action by the participants whom we were able to observe. ‘Border-crossing’ and the activity of languaging generate a community of practices, however ephemeral. Thus the diversity provided by a multilingual setting opens up a range of choices regarding decisions which an activity carried out in a single language would not be able to rival. We have therefore endeavoured to show how the linguistic diversity present in a work meeting can be the object of an activity that does not apply to monolingual meetings. It is clear that linguistic diversity is not always a resource that contributes to resolving problems; indeed it can become a constraint that is costly in terms of the time taken for the activity concerned and in terms of training for the company ­concerned. Through the analysis of certain sequences (of categorisation of the ­language, searching for words and correction), an orientation is found both towards the reduction of diversity and towards its exploitation. It should nonetheless be emphasised that in sequences of this kind, although the initial focus is on a problem, its solution lies in the diversity first perceived as an obstacle but then used as a resource, not least by creating the conditions for an appropriation of new linguistic forms and uses.

2.4  Conclusion This research has allowed us to develop a conception of plurilingualism fuelled by the observation and analysis of the actual practices of participants in multilingual situations. We have been able to see the group’s language space border-crossing and languaging mobilised in a collaborative accomplishment of tasks: the languages or linguistic varieties do not appear as different forms of packaging of the same content, which an agreed monolingualism would manage more economically, but as the diversification of possible solutions to a given problem.

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities 

The often observed work on linguistic forms opened up for us a possible space for plurilingual accomplishment, far from the tension in which it is inscribed between the constraint and freedom of language production. Faced with the situated convergence of heterogeneous verbal repertoires and different ways of acting, we came to think about the facts of stabilisation not so much as a “lingua franca”-type linguistic variant that would stabilise the members of the same group from one meeting to the next, but as ways of processing multilingual heterogeneity in the service of tasks and ways of acting through which the members of a profession recognise each other. This became clear in our AAN corpus, where there was a constant renewal of design personnel from highly diverse origins. We are far from having exhausted the bilingual phenomenon, however. Indeed, as we have been able to approach it here and there, the contribution of assignable or assigned forms by participants in different languages also presents itself, in the course of our analysis, as a resource constitutive of the production of participation formats and of contexts as they emerge during interactions, as well as of identity categorisation processes. That is why our study of multilingual practices could be extended to the systematic observation of the emergence of participation formats and of all practices at work in the practical and situated ‘management’ of the participation framework by each of the participants.

References Amselle, Jean-Loup. 2004. “Du métissage du branchement des langues. ” In Trames de langues. Usages et métissages linguistiques dans l’historie du Maghreb, ed. by J. Dakhlia, 273–278. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose. Appadurai, Arjun. 2005 [1996]. Après le Colonialisme. Les Conséquences Culturelles de la Globalisation. Paris: Petite Bibliothèque Payot. Auer, Peter. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, Peter. 1996. “Bilingual Conversation, dix ans après.” Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère N0 7: 9–34. Bani-Shoraka, Helena. 2005. Language Choice and Code-switching in the Azerbaijani Community in Tehran: A Conversation Analytic Approach to Bilingual Practices. Uppsala: Acta ­Universitatis Upsaliensis. Blom, Jan-Petter, and John J. Gumperz. 1972. “Social Meaning in Linguistic Structures: Code-­ Switching in Norway.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by J.J. Gumperz, and D. Hymes, 407–434. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Day, Dennis, and Johannes Wagner. 2007. “Bilingual Professionals.” In Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, ed. by P. Auer, and L. Wei. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage (ed.). 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge. CUP. Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel Duranti, Alessandro. 2000 [1997]. Antropología Línguistica. Madrid: Cambridge University Press, Spain. Firth, Alan (ed.). 1995. The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace. Oxford: Pergamon. Firth, Alan, and Johannes Wagner. 1997. “Communication Strategies at Work.” In Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by G. Kasper, and E. Kellerman, 323–344. London, NY: Longman. Gafaranga, Joseph. 2001. “Linguistic Identities in Talk-in-Interaction: Order in Bilingual ­Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1901–1925. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania Press, 124–158. Goodwin, Charles. 1979. “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by G. Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers. Goodwin, Charles. 1994. “Recording Human Interaction in Natural Settings.” Pragmatics 3: 181–209. Goodwin, Charles. 2000. “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin. 2004. “Participation.” In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by A. Duranti, 222–244. Oxford: Basic Blackwell. Grize, Jean-Blaise. 1990. Logique et Langage. Paris: Ophrys, 27–39. Gülich, Elisabeth. 2008. Le recours au préformé: une ressource dans l’interaction conversationnelle. Paris: Congrès mondial de linguistique française (CMLF). http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ cmlf08315. Gumperz, John J. 1964. “Linguistic and Social Interaction in Two Communities.” American Anthropologist N0 66 (2): 137–153. Gumperz, John J. 1966. “Linguistic Repertoires, Grammars and Second Languages Instruction.“ Monograph N018: Report of the Sixteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistic and Language Study, 81–91. Washinton D.C.: Georgetow University Press. Gumperz, John J. 1977. “The Sociolinguistic Significance of Conversational Code-Switching.” RELC Journal 8 (2): 1–34. Gumperz, John J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: University Press Cambridge. Gumperz, John J. 1982b. Engager la Conversation. Introduction à la sociolinguistique interactionnelle.[ trad. française 1989] Paris: Ed. Minuit. Gumperz, John J. 1982c. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff. 1993. “Explicating Face-to-Face Interaction.” In Researching Social Life, ed. by N. Gilbert, 306–326. London: Sage. Heath, Christian, Jon Hindmarsh, and Paul Luff. 2010. Video in Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Syntax in the Making: The Emergence of Syntactic Units in Finnish ­Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Studies in Discourse and Grammar). Heller, Monica (ed.). 2007. Bilingualism: A Social Approach, New York: Polgrave Macmillan. Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, John. 2007. “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person and Place Reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and T. Stivers, 255–280. Cambridge: CUP.

Chapter 2.  The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities  Hopper, Paul J. 2004. “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” Chicago Linguistic ­Society 40. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs-Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Jakobson, Roman. 1963. Essais de linguistique générale. Paris: Minuit, 213–222. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Luff, Paul, Jon Hindmarsh, and Christian Heath (eds). 2000. Workplace Studies. Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge: CUP. Lüdi, Georges. 2011. “Vers de nouvelles approches théoriques du langage et du plurilinguisme.” Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique 53: 47–64. Lüdi, Georges, and Bernard Py, 1986. 32003. Etre bilingue. Bern: Peter Lang. Makoni, Sinfree, and Busi Makoni. 2010. “Multilingual Discourses on Wheels and Public English in Africa: A Case for ‘vague linguistique’.” In The Routledge Companion to English Language Studies, ed. by J. Maybin, and J. Swann, 258–270. London: Routledge. Manessy, Gabriel. 1989. “De la subversion des langues importées: Le français en Afrique noire.” In Langues, Ēconomie et Développement, ed. by R. Chaudenson, and D. de Robillard, Vol. 1, 133–145. Aix-en-Provence: I.E.C.F., Didier-Erudition. Milroy, Lorenza, and Li Wei (eds). 1995. “A Social Network Approach to Code-Switching.” In One Speaker Two Languages, ed. by L. Milory, and P. Muysken, 136–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mondada, Lorenza. 2001. “Intervenir à distance dans une opération chirurgicale: l’organisation ­interactive d’espaces de participation.” In Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée (numéro spécial “Communiquer en milieu hospitalier: de la relation de soins à l’expertise médicale” édité par L. Gajo et L. Mondada), 33–56. Mondada, Lorenza. 2004. “Ways of ‘Doing Being Plurilingual’ in International Work Meetings.” In Second Language Conversations, ed. by R. Gardner, and J. Wagner, 27–60. London: Continuum. Mondada, Lorenza. 2005. Chercheurs en Interaction. Comment Ēmergent les Savoirs. Lausanne: Presses polytechnique et universitaires romandes. Mondada, Lorenza. 2006. “Interactions en situations professionnelles, et institutionnelles: de l’analyse détaillée aux retombées pratiques.” Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée. Interactions en situations de travail. XI-2: 5–16. Mondada, Lorenza. 2007a. “Le Code-Switching comme ressource pour l’organisation de la parole-en-interaction.” Journal of Languages and Contact 1: 168–197. Mondada, Lorenza. 2007b. “Code-Switching et organisation de la participation dans des espaces complexes de travail: une analyse séquentielle et multimodale.” In Cahiers de l’ILSL 23, ed. by L. Gajo, 11–18. Numéro Spécial en Hommage à Cecilia Serra: Langues en contexte et en contact. Mondada, Lorenza, Lucas Greco, Vassiliki Markaki, Florence Oloff, Patrick Renaud, Roxana Taquechel, and Véronique Traverso. 2009. “Étudier les pratiques professionnelles plurilingues: enjeux analytiques, défis pratiques.” In Intervenir: appliquer, s’impliquer ? Actes du 5ème Colloque International du Réseau F ­ rançais de Sociolinguistique (13–15 Juin 2007, Amiens), ed. by I. Pierozak, and J.M. Eloy, 137–148. Paris: L’Harmattan. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1988. “Code-switching as Indexical of Social Negotiation.” In Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by M. Heller, 151–186. ­Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Language as a Local Practice. London: Routledge.

 Luca Greco, Patrick Renaud & Roxana Taquechel Poche, Bernard. 1996. L’espace fragmenté: Éléments pour une analyse sociologique de la territorialité. Paris: L’Harmattan. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomerantz, Anita, and B.J. Fehr. 2008 [1997]. “Análisis de la conversación: enfoque del estudio de la acción social como prácticas de producción de sentido.” In El discurso como interacción social. Estudios sobre el discurso II. Una introducción multidisciplinaria, ed. by T.A. van Dijk, 101–139. Barcelona: Gedisa Editorial. Poplack, Shana. 1980. “Sometimes I’ll Start a Sentence in Spanish y terminó en español: Toward a Typology of Code-Switching.” Linguistics N0 18: 581–618. Sacks, Harvey. 1973. “The Preference for Agreement in Natural Conversation.” Paper Presented at the Linguistic Institute. Ann Arbor, Mich. Sacks, Harvey. 1992 [1964–72]. Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols, ed. by Gail Jefferson, with an Introduction of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organisations of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of ­Intersubjectivty in Conversation.” AJS 97 (5): 1295–1345. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: CUP. Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2005. “English as a Lingua Franca.” ELT Journal: Key Concepts in ELT 59 (4). Straka Georges, and Pierre Gardette. 1973. Les dialectes romans de France à la lumière des Atlas régionaux. Paris: CNRS. Wald Paul, Joëlle Chesny, Marie-Antoinette Hily, and Philippe Poutignat. 1973. Continuité et discontinuité sociolinguistiques: Hypothèses pour une recherche sur le français en Afrique Noire. Nice: Université de Nice (IDERIC), multigraphié, 56. Weinreich, Uriel. 1968 [1953]. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: CUP.

chapter 3

Multilingualism and diversity management in companies in the Upper Rhine Region Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart Universität Basel

The world’s increasing globalisation requires more interaction among people from diverse settings. Maximising on workplace diversity has become an important issue for management today. Many empirical studies clearly show that the management of linguistic diversity is of central importance to both strategic and operational processes. An important part of the preceding research concentrated on a shift of companies’ language to English as a lingua franca, being advised as a constructive source of mutual intelligibility, allowing for more effective communication. Our work is based on a “multilingual mentality”. The basic questions are how, and under what conditions, “multilingual solutions” are a genuine advantage for businesses. The aim is to understand, on the one hand, to what extent companies in the Upper Rhine Region conceive their corporate identity and organise their patterns of language use, but also the impact of their language management measures and, on the other hand, in what way individuals’ multilingual repertoires evolve into a communicative and strategic resource in organisational and professional interactions in mixed teams. The observed practices lead to a fresh view on multilingualism, based on two complementary conceptions: “institutional multilingualism” (largely additive) and “multilanguaging” (exploiting integrated individual plurilingual repertoires).

3.1  Introduction Human societies have always been multilingual. The growing mobility of important parts of the world’s population has, however, led to a massive increase in multilingualism in post-modern societies and a lasting move away from homoglossic to polyglossic communities with important “deterritorialised” linguistic minorities, which are mostly multilingual to a variable degree. Over many centuries – and fostered by the processes of nation-building and language standardisation – the prevalent image of linguistic diversity was that of a patchwork of rather homogeneous language

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart

c­ ommunities which were in contact on their peripheries, through trade relations and exogamous marriages, but remained fundamentally monolingual. In modern, urban contexts such communities interpenetrate each other in new and original ways. The workplace is one of many contexts in which this phenomenon can be observed. This chapter presents the results of a study which was conducted on the question of how European companies working in multilingual contexts manage issues such as corporate language, language-learning and requirements, but also on the imagined and actual language practice of employees. The originality of our research with respect to other chapters of this book and the most important parts of preceding research (Cigada et al. eds. 2001; Schewe 2001; Vollstedt 2002; Reins 2006; Kameyama & Meyer eds. 2007; Truchot ed. 2009; Stalder 2010; Apfelbaum & Meyer 2010) is manifest on three levels: ––

––

We do not concentrate on the companies’ corporate culture, including their language philosophy and language management measures1 (we will use these terms to distinguish them from official policies2 that constitute, for companies, a part of the context) or on language representations or on actual language use,3 but try to relate the three dimensions. We are particularly interested in the impact of management measures on language use and on the ways these measures reflect inversely language representations and use. We adopted a mixed methods approach, collecting and analysing different types of data such as official documents, interviews with agents at different hierarchical

.  By language management (Truchot ed. 2009 talks about traitement des langues) we mean all the measures taken by a company concerning the collaborators’ representations of language(s), the construction of their linguistic repertoires as well as their use in internal and external communication. We investigated, for example, the choice of a corporate language, the role of languages in the hiring and promotion of collaborators, measures aiming at increasing these competences (language courses, exchange programs between language regions [cf. Höchle (2010) and forthcoming]), guidelines for a common corporate style, directives for linguistic landscaping and the companies’ websites, etc. (see Lüdi ed. 2010 for more details). .  By language policy we mean the totality of forms of intervention (including the non­intervention or laissez-faire) taken by a political authority with the aim of orienting and regulating the use of one or several languages by the administration and/or the general public in a given political space. These forms of intervention reflect ideological choices and principles that determine the selection of the objectives. The latter may concern the status, the domains of use, the geographic distribution and the form (corpus) of one or different concurring ­linguistic varieties (Berthoud/Lüdi 2010). .  Note that language practices are not restricted, in this study, to spoken interaction and the ordinary literacy practices (Häcki-Buhofer 1985), but include forms of advertising, the production of websites, linguistic landscaping, job ads and hiring practices, etc.



––

Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

levels,4 job ads, websites, the linguistic landscape, tape recordings of multilingual and monolingual interaction in the workplace,5 etc. The aim was not to verify preestablished hypotheses but to achieve a deep understanding of communicative strategies in the workplace as they are used and reflected upon by the participants themselves. An important part of the preceding research concentrated on a shift of the companies’ language to English (e.g. Vollstedt 2002) and on the forms of English used at work respectively (e.g. Mauranen & Ranta 2009). Our work is based on a multilingual mentality, i.e. we are essentially interested in the diversity of languages present in the workplace and in their alternative or mixed use (e.g. Moore & ­Castellotti 2008; Lüdi & Py 2009). The basic questions are how, and under what conditions, multilingual solutions are not just a response to a problem, but a genuine advantage for businesses?

The terrains investigated include Switzerland-based international companies, Swiss companies operating in all language regions, and companies working within a regional range in the multilingual and tri-national Upper Rhine region (see Lüdi ed. 2010 for a full account). Understanding how these companies conceive their corporate identity and organise their patterns of language use respectively, but also the impact of their language management measures, i.e. the autonomy or dependency of the actors’ language use in practice, as the result of a fine-grained analysis regarding the patterns of language use, is our main focus. An additional and central issue was the question of which advantages and drawbacks multilingualism brings to a company and under what conditions it can be an asset for businesses in the latter’s own view.

3.2  Main findings and conceptual framework In the following sections, we will summarise our main findings concerning the way the companies investigated in our study manage linguistic diversity (3.2.1), the polyphony in companies’ discourse (3.2.2), the case for interculturality (3.2.3) and the communicative strategies for spoken interaction in multilingual settings (3.2.4). We provide for the relevant conceptual framework in each of the following sections.

.  We analysed about 170 interviews with about 140 people (many interviews with multiple partners) in 18 companies. .  Approximately 65 hours of tape recordings in 6 companies.

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart

3.2.1  Corporate language policies An important topic in management literature concerns the corporate language as part of a company’s corporate governance, “the set of processes, customs, policies, laws and institutions affecting the way a company is directed, administered or controlled” (Wikipedia), and as a contribution to corporate identity (e.g. Paulmann 2005; Wheeler 2013). In fact, the notion of corporate language has two different meanings. First, introducing a corporate language means that employees make use of a consistent terminology, a language style that reflects the company’s image and is clear and understandable for the readers. Specialists speak of corporate wording (Reins 2006; Förster 2009). Resulting from a complex process of analysis, a corporate language ­manual is elaborated upon (as a kind of corpus planning; Haugen 1983) comprising model letters, a glossary, etc. An example of good practice is the brochure How do we speak, how do we write? by 〈Public Service B〉. Typically, the underlying philosophy (“we are multilingual”) is only briefly mentioned. There is, however, a version of the brochure in the three official languages of the company: German, French and Italian. Obviously, the company wanted to meet the challenge of expressing its corporate identity in three languages. In this sense, adopting a corporate language policy represents an important ­measure in language management, which is not necessarily linked to multilingualism. Second, the choice of one or several languages to be used for the internal and/ or external communication is of course one of the most important components of a company’s language management policy. Many interviewees have interiorised the stereotype that there should be one main language of the company. The term corporate language is, however, seldom used. Rather, we find wording such as: “English is, as I said, the official management language (…) of the company, so at management meetings, in most mixed conferences, English IS the language.” (AA_PER_KB_090604). The recurrence of such utterances6 is particularly striking with 〈Pharma A〉: “the common language is English” (PA_MAN_MU_ 100519), “what unites us is in fact English” (PA_MAN_US_100622), “finally, English is the common denominator” (PA_MAN_CP_100608), “there, the common denominator is just simply English.” (PA_PER_HG_100611). The easiest solution for responding to the challenge of the linguistic diversity ­prevailing in Europe seems to be a single language, including for oral and written internal communication – the solution known as olon (“one language only”). Until very recently, the single language was usually the local national language; today it is often English, as says Tobias B., senior manager of 〈Pharma A〉:

.  This is the (en-)doxa discussed below.



Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

1. a single language for internal use (PA_MAN_TB_090625)7 TB  We expect that we will gradually switch to a single language for internal use, i.e. English. GL Even among Swiss staff? TB Yes, this would be the holding company’s ultimate aim. GL Hmm. TB Communication would be much easier.



(Senior Manager, 〈Pharma A〉)

This seldom means that no other language is used however. Legislation (e.g. in the French part of the Upper Rhine region), as well as demographic influence, pressure from the local workforce and the pursuit of efficiency and fairness reinforce the role of local languages. In contrast, companies can thus choose a form of institutional multilingualism as their language policy or regime. This not only concerns Swiss national companies that are all trilingual in the country’s official languages. Many international companies, even dominantly monolingual English ones, choose a range of languages for the written communication with their employees from which they themselves can make a choice. They do so to enhance the quality of work and to strengthen people’s emotional involvement with the company, e.g. a multinational in the agribusiness sector: 2. in an emotional way (AA_PER_KB_090129) We realised that to be able to drive home to employees across the world the real ((…)) implications ((…)) of these eight capabilities (…) in an emotional way, we cannot do it by explaining to them in English. (HR Manager, ·Agro AÒ)

Realising that English as a second (or third, fourth, etc.) language does not always facilitate the implementation of a maxim of corporate wording such as “generate images – communicate concretely and pictorially – tell stories“ (Reins 2006) because it is not a “language of the heart”, 〈Agro A〉 translates its major internal strategic documents into many languages. External communication, particularly written communication, is even more diversified than internal (for instance websites in dozens of languages; see Chapter 7 of this book) because of the maxim: “sell in the customer’s language” (and sometimes even “negotiate purchases in the provider’s language”). It is true, however, that the

.  For transcription symbols cf. the annexe pp. 78.

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart

necessary skills are sometimes outsourced (as observed in the case of small c­ ompanies that use the local language exclusively and resort to translators for any external ­communication in other languages). All of these cases involve parallel communication with groups that speak different languages. This is frequently done by translating and (on websites, for instance) by adapting messages to the local context. These examples illustrate a principle known as olat (“one language at a time”). We will come back to the view of multilingualism inherent in this principle, which may be either “additive” or “subtractive”. Thus, we observe that language choice is an important management measure, but that these choices can be best presented not by distinguishing dichoto­mously between monolingual and multilingual policies, but rather on a continuum between more monolingual and more multilingual solutions. In fact, companies’ discourses are quite heterogeneous about it. This observation deserves further consideration.

3.2.2  Multiplicity of voices or polyphony One of the most common metaphors used for speaking about institutions consists of identifying them with persons: company=person (Lakoff & Johnson 1980). We find it in everyday expressions like “company X decided to translate central documents into 25 languages”, “company Y has chosen English as management language”, “­company Z favours mixed teams”, etc. It suggests, for example, that the company is the “author” or agent of all the written signs that we find in its premises, i.e. the company’s linguistic landscape. Everyone knows, of course, about the complexity of culture in general and corporate culture in particular (Wicker 1997) that is produced by individuals and also the collective body by virtue of permanent interactions, negotiations, exchanges, and clashes. Metaphorically, it would thus be much more appropriate to compare the communication of the company with an orchestra (Winkin 1981, resuming work done by psychologists in Palo Alto). One observes, for example, an important stratification of language management in companies. Decision-making can take place both at the highest level of the hierarchy (concerning corporate culture) and at the level of national affiliates (as in the case of 〈Pharma A〉), generating a cascade of language management measures at the level of medium and low management; different divisions (〈Public Service A〉) or regional branches (〈Department Store A〉) may take divergent decisions, the head of a lab has considerable freedom in managing linguistic diversity in his team (〈Pharma A〉), etc. (see Lüdi et al. 2009). But in order to avoid an uncoordinated performance, an orchestra needs a conductor. This is in line with a claim made by business studies that a company’s communication should be under the maximum control of its most responsible managers and, furthermore, be part of their language management. An integrated business communication policy would then aim to unify the different sources of internal and external communication in order to provide different target groups with a consistent image



Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

of the company (Bruhn  32003). Indeed, such a policy helps in understanding how the strategic d ­ ecision of the g­ overning board of 〈Public Service B〉 – “Our company is multilingual” – leads to further language management measures at the operational level (e.g. the elaboration of the guidelines for corporate wording mentioned above or other ones for job ads, advertising campaigns, etc.). Nonetheless, the overall control is not perfect. For example, linguistic landscaping in 〈Pharma A〉 and 〈Factory A〉 represents a form of written language practice that involves many instances and individuals as writers, ordering parties or instances of regulation (see also Malinowski 2008) and partly escapes language management measures (Lüdi ed. 2010; Lüdi 2012). We will also see further on that there are important gaps between the official language philosophy and real ­communicative practices. In this section, we will instead concentrate on the heterogeneity of the companies’ discourse. Indeed, the analysis of official documents, and in particular of members’ views on management measures and practices as collected in interviews, constitutes an important part of our data. We are convinced that the content and form of what they tell us play a most important role in the ways linguistic diversity is organised, perceived and practiced in companies. At first glance, the results of this analysis are extremely heterogeneous. The ­concept of polyphony (or multivoicedness) may help in grasping this heterogeneity. The term was coined by Bakhtin to explain the presence of several cognitive subjects in the ­novels of Dostoyevsky where the author, or rather narrator, acts as one participant among others in the dialogue. If we assimilate the corpus of interviews in each company into one text, we can then find a “plurality of consciousnesses, with equal rights and each with his own world that combine but are not merged” in the unity of the communicative event (Bakhtin 1984: 6–7). Later on, Ducrot (1984) refined the notion, insisting on the fragmentation of the speaker in the framework of a theory of enunciation. Of course, “reality” is never mirrored directly in the discourse we collect, but always refracted by the views of the speakers/writers. In other words, we analyse their representations, both social and individual, on languages, namely their management, value, learning and use (see Bothorel-Witz 2008 and Chapter 4 in this book). A ­psychosocial approach to representations sees them as “interpretative systems ­governing our relation with the world and with others [that] orientate and organise our conduct and social communication” (Jodelet 1989: 36, our translation)). They define “a space of meaning shared by all members of the group” (Moliner & Guterman 2004). The accent lies on the content, i.e. on the “shared character of knowledge disseminated in a location or in a social group” (Bothorel-Witz 2008: 44). In contrast, we insist on their discursive nature resulting from the social construction of a common meaning by virtue of the universe of beliefs held by each interlocutor (Martin 1987). Only as topics of conversation can they be converted into objects of discourse and be made identifiable as such in texts (Gajo 2003, 527). Their social and shared character

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart

results from certain construction processes in discourse and is manifested in the form of sets of recurrent utterances of an inter-discursive nature resulting in a high degree of stereotypicity (Py 2004) and stability. Since Aristotle, two levels of shared social representations are distinguished: doxa (δόξα) and endoxa (ἔνδοξα). Aristotle defined the term (en)doxa as “commonly held beliefs accepted by the wise/by elder rhetors and/or by the public in general.“ Endoxa is a more stable belief than doxa, because it has been “tested” in argumentative struggles in the Polis by prior interlocutors. In the case of companies, one may speak of endoxa when a representation is endorsed or legitimized by the highest levels of management. Mara, a lab assistant in 〈Pharma A〉, said in her interview: “And I know, I heard it many times, English is the language of 〈Pharma A〉” (PA_LABB_MS_070810). english is the language of 〈pharma a〉 fulfils all the conditions for a pre-constructed, recurrent formula. Mara mentions this recurrence herself and thus she echoes what is said throughout the company (as mentioned in Section 2.1) in the form of reported speech that confers on the proposition a kind of evidence. One aspect of polyphony is that Mara does not need to accept this belief. In fact, she mentions the endoxa in order to adopt her distance more easily, to express her personal opinion:  “I don’t want to learn this language (…), do I have to learn this shit?” and expresses her view in opposition to others: “I find it is very convenient for many people” (PA_ LABB_MS_070810). Thus, she manipulates the common belief and places herself in opposition to it. This means, as far as the methodology is concerned, that we distinguish clearly between the propositional content (the stereotypical formula) and the ways in which people put it into words (Py 2004). Indeed, in many cases the contrast is not so extreme as in the case of Mara, for example in interviews with a high-ranking manager of 〈Pharma A〉, who simultaneously defends the company’s English only philosophy and manifests a certain reluctance in relation to it, he stresses the importance of multilingualism, not mainly for his own language behaviour, but at a corporate level (note the contrast in the use of pronouns: I have … we use … you must … those from the holding company … I insist … it is done): 3. it is kind of a struggle (PA_MAN_TB_090625) With respect to the information for collaborators, it is kind of a struggle I have to go through ·in my function ((anonymised))Ò, so languages, the minimum we use is German, French, English; you must always tell it again because those from the holding company ((sc. Apply)) pressure for everything to be in English, but well I insist upon two national languages so it is always also in German and French, that is the way it is done. (Senior Manager, ·Pharma AÒ)



Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

Another form of polyphony appears in the discourse of Wanda (〈Public Service A〉). The endoxa, legitimised by official documents, is everyone can speak his or her language [sc. national languages and english]. But she tells us that an Italian speaker has to know French or German because if s/he sticks to his/her language, s/he won’t be understood (SA_LAN_WM_071218). Again, Wanda is not alone in this belief, which is recurrent in interviews in 〈Public Service A〉 as well as in 〈Department Store A〉. This discrepancy distinguishes the doxa from the endoxa – and illustrates the difficulties inherent in the implementation of a totally egalitarian management of the languages mentioned. One could, of course, try to categorise companies on the basis of their corporate language philosophy and measure the impact of management decisions on actual practices. We could, for example, compare 〈Pharma A〉, 〈Pharma B〉 and 〈Agro A〉, three big international players known for having chosen English as their main l­anguage, with the nationwide operating trilingual (German, French and Italian) 〈Public Service A〉, 〈Public Service B〉 and 〈Department Store A〉, the bilingual (German and French) regional 〈Bank B〉 and local companies like 〈Factory A〉 or 〈Food Service A〉, drawing on the language repertoires of the local workforce. But managers’ discourse manifests an astonishing multivoicedness in the ­corporate language philosophy itself. It reveals, as we have seen, that 〈Pharma A〉 communicates officially with its workforce in Basel in at least two national languages in addition to English, and that 〈Agro A〉 translates important managerial documents into dozens of the world’s languages. For the CEO of 〈Bank B〉 his bilingual bank communicates with its employees in parallel in both official languages, English appears in addition to the national languages as the working language of 〈Public Service A〉, etc. This may complicate the task of comparing management measures with actual practices. But rather than considering this polyphony – in the endoxa, between different forms of doxa, or between (en)doxa and personal beliefs – to be a problem, we consider it as a first indicator of an increased awareness – and positive assessment – of companies’ linguistic diversity and of the range of (local) solutions that are available to meet the challenge of a multilingual workforce at different levels. In other words, we consider that the differences between having one, two or three «  official  » languages may be less decisive than we thought at the beginning, and that the most interesting results are to be found in the great variety of ways there are of implementing the underlying language philosophy or endoxa. The next sections will deal with a variety of such solutions, first at management level (the constitution of mixed teams), and second at the level of interactional practices.

3.2.3  Mixed teams and the intercultural asset Language management is not confined to the choice of one or several languages for the company. The measures taken to manage internal linguistic and cultural ­diversity

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart

are manifold and include the means to assess and improve the staff ’s intercultural and language skills in order to make the institution more competitive, e.g. by establishing internal exchange programs between language regions (Höchle 2010, forthcoming). An important instrument in this context is the creation and preferential treatment of mixed teams. Previous research has emphasised the cognitive and social advantages enjoyed by multilingual individuals (Hakuta 1985; Hakuta & Diaz 1984; Nisbett 2003; ­Bialystok 2005, 2009; Compendium 2009; Furlong 2009). Generally speaking, individual multilingualism appears to favour creativity, be it in linguistic terms (ability to choose between two mental lexica, the emergence of hybrid linguistic forms, see Lüdi 1995, Furlong 2009), at a cognitive level (broader access to information and alternative ways of thinking and perceiving the world), at an interactional one (greater flexibility in adjusting to new communicative contexts) or even at a strategic level (modes of ­negotiation, decision-taking, problem-solving or monitoring action). The experience reported by the managers that were interviewed transfers this finding to mixed teams: 4. truly different ways of encoding (AA_PER_KB_090129) If we are dealing with a team that displays cognitive diversity, truly different ways of encoding and sensing, this has a direct correlation with the effectiveness of that team. ((…)) This is the most concrete driver of innovation, in terms of diversity. (HR Manager, ·Agro AÒ)

5. each language opens up new vistas (AA_PER_MM_100416) Scientific theories always work with words, images, metaphors borrowed from ordinary language. Because each language opens up new vistas on reality and offers different forms of argumentation, using several languages brings gains in knowledge. (Global Head of Learning, ·Agro AÒ)

It is striking that certain companies which attach great importance to diversity ­management – 〈Pharma A〉 even created a staff unit for ‘diversity and inclusion’ – do not mention linguistic diversity, but “consider diversity and inclusion to encompass, but not be limited to, ethnicity, gender, thinking styles, religion and belief, sexual orientation, age, physical ability, education, nationality and life experiences” (­website a) and to be “an essential part of business success” (website b). One reason for the concealment of linguistic diversity is the feeling that ‘language’ is included in factors like ‘ethnicity’, ‘thinking style’ or ‘nationality’ (Frei 2010). The former head of this staff section also argues that this allows for the avoidance of



Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

­ iscussions about the role of English as a corporate language and the local languages d respectively (as mentioned above in Section 3.2.2.) (PA_MAN_MU_100519). Nonetheless, inasmuch as “understanding each other” does not simply mean speaking the same language but also “understanding each other culturally, via the language”, the multilingual asset is always an intercultural asset as well. One could even argue that the advantages mentioned above result, in fact, from a cultural rather than a linguistic diversity in the sense that members of mixed teams do not share the same values and experiences or the same world views due to their roots and their early socialisation in different cultures. Companies’ experiences would thus confirm research findings whereupon cognitive creativity results from the clash of different perspectives, modes of interpretation or prediction (Page 2007), and different forms of language use in “conceptual spaces” (Boden 1996), more precisely in “in-between spaces” (Bhabha 1994) between cultures. These “third spaces” offer stages where a range of possibilities can be explored, and where “thinking for speaking” (Slobin 1991) corresponds with “thinking at or beyond the limit” (Hall & Du Gay 1996). 6. new meanings emerge (AA_PER_KB_090129) ((in mixed teams)) interaction naturally is more visceral, it’s more probing and therefore more co-creative, and generative and emergent ((…)). It’s more meeting each other in a space in the middle where new meanings emerge, and new creations of course. New ideas and innovations. (HR Manager, ·Agro AÒ)

If members of mixed teams use their native language as “a perceptual system (…) in which they have encoded their reality” (AA PER_KB_090129) – even when the final interaction takes place in a lingua franca – an intercultural competence is needed to understand the message fully (Bertaux 1997), and to transform the risk of misunderstandings into creativity. In this sense, the multilingual asset presupposes interculturality.

3.2.4  M  ultilingual repertoires as a communicative and strategic resource in interaction As explained in the introduction, our team carried out a fine-grained observation and analysis of workplace practices in several companies. The aim was to understand which communicative strategies are used in settings with several languages that are not all spoken equally well by all the individuals concerned.

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart

3.2.4.1  Multilingual strategies The first result of this research was the disproval of the common assumption that everyone speaks English. Participants adopt a wide range of strategies, and they do so in an extremely variable and dynamic way, constantly reassessing the solutions chosen. Our corpus of audio recordings contributes to a classification of strategies positioned on two axes. One axis contrasts “monolingual” strategies (also known as “one language only” or olon and “one language at a time” or olat) with “multilingual” ones (also known as “all the languages at all time” or alat and “all the languages at the same time” or alast), and the other one compares the “exolingual” pole (greatly asymmetrical repertoires) with the “endolingual” one (participants share the same repertoire). Endolingual

Monolingual

Multilingual

Exolingual

Choosing a lingua franca such as English – but also, for example, Spanish  – is just one of many options available; in addition, the form of the lingua franca depends heavily on the speakers’ levels of competence, ranging from a monolingual-­ endolingual mode (among speakers with a mastery of the lingua franca at a very high level) to a monolingual-exolingual one (where a barely mastered language is chosen for communication) or a multilingual-exolingual mode (where the speaker draws occasionally on other linguistic resources and the lingua franca is a kind of hybrid, “rough-and-ready” version of the language). Another solution is the lingua receptiva mode (ten Thije 2007) (sometimes known as the “Swiss” or “Scandinavian” model [Lüdi, Höchle & Yanaprasart 2010]) in which everybody is expected to speak his/her own language and to understand those of the other speakers. The choice of language(s) that is available in a mono-/multilingual mode depends largely on the participants’ profiles and competence as well as on the ‘negotiated’ ­framework of participation (see Lüdi, Höchle, Steinbach & Yanaprasart 2012; ­Mondada & Nussbaum 2012). In settings where participants are aware that their competence is asymmetrical, solutions that enable the management of the multilingual situation are developed in the course of the activity. Such solutions are not pre-existing models that are simply adopted as they stand but invented in situ by the multilingual participants and negotiated throughout their interaction, thus ­exploiting



Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

their ­cognitive and ­strategic flexibility as mentioned above. These ‘rough-and-ready’ solutions allow for maximum flexibility and adaptability to the context. Our observations confirm the findings by Markaki et al. (in this book) that actors use all these strategies in a very systematically patterned way, based on underlying, socially constructed knowledge. Note that these patterns are quite different from classic bilingual interactions in traditionally bilingual communities such as is the case for Puerto Ricans in New York (e. g. Poplack 1980) or Alsatians (e. g. Gardner-Chloros 1991), even if the translinguistic markers8 might belong to similar categories.

3.2.4.2  Towards new conceptions of multiple linguistic competences These findings are not easily explainable by current views of multilingualism although clearly there are also two (partly complementary and partly competing) ways of theorising and representing multilingualism as such. The first is rather conventional, and is shared by most of the actors in our field (and most probably by the general public). It reproduces traditional views, based on standardisation processes in national languages that have to be mastered as fully as possible, and on a conception of languages as idealised, timeless and decontextualised “objects”, each neatly separated from the other, with language preceding ­language use. It is on this basis that forms of institutional multilingualism are chosen by 〈Public ­Service A〉, 〈Public Service B〉, 〈Pharma A〉, 〈Department Store A〉, 〈Agro A〉, etc., and that translators perform their crucial work as mediators between people and institutions speaking different languages. It allows stakeholders to stick to one ­language. Such an additive view of multilingualism reflects, as we said before, a fundamentally monolingual concept of communication (OLON or OLAT). It can even lead to subtractive forms of multilingualism where a language is disregarded (see the example of Italian in 〈Public Service A〉 quoted above) or simply where one language has to be  selected to the disadvantage of others as is fixed in the guidelines of 〈Public ­Service B〉: “If the participants come from several linguistic regions, we agree on one working language.” The second is more implicit, more novel and generally less well-known and  less accepted. It corresponds with the ‘rough-and-ready’ notion of languages and  ­multilingualism that emerged from the preceding sub-section. In this case, language use (languaging) precedes language, particularly in the form of ‘multilanguaging’.9 .  Translinguistic markers are phonetic, morpho-syntactic and lexical elements in utterances in a given variety (La) perceived as belonging to another variety (Lb), regardless of their origin and nature. .  Cf. García 2008; Pennycook 2010. “Languagers [are] people who move in the world in a way that allows the risk of stepping out of one’s habitual ways of speaking” (Phipps 2006).

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart

Grounded in the view that human activities and the s­ubjacent ­cognition are contextsensitive and interactional and that grammar emerges (­Hopper 1998; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008; Mondada 2012) from “doing being a speaker of a language” (Mondada 2004), the use of multilingual resources can be very ­heterogeneous. In monolingual ­settings i.e. in the monolingual mode (Grosjean 2001), where one language only is appropriated or possible, participants stick to those rules and elements perceived to belong to one “variety” and thus reproduce additive representations of multilingualism. In a multilingual mode, they exploit the whole range of their resources and juggle with all the elements needed for achieving the purpose of the communication (Lüdi & Py 2009; Lüdi 2011). The underlying linguistic theory does not draw on the ideal monolingual speakerhearer, but on the real plurilingual one. This idea is neither new or revolutionary as concepts like «multilanguaging» (Pennycook), «metro­lingualism» (Otsuji & ­Pennycook 2010), «polylingualism» (Jørgensen 2011) or «­translanguaging» (García) have been proposed in this context. It is compatible with Thorne and Lantolf ’s (2007) view that language is what we do much more than a ­structure that predetermines what we will do. Firmly anchored in numerous practices observed in our terrains, the concept of multilanguaging also appears explicitly in the actors’ social representations or doxa. 7. we found our own Esperanto (PA_MAN_TB_090625) Now I had to chair for the first time a meeting of a completely renewed selection committee, ten totally new people, so you bring them together, and you find a language, and, um, it is a mixture between Basle German and English, in a way we found our own Esperanto ((…)) and it was then that creative processes started. (Senior Manager, ·Pharma AÒ)

8. no one sticks rigidly to his own language (SA_LAN_WM_071218) We have a twice-monthly meeting, and all the languages are represented at this meeting. And the rule, the in-house rule, is that everybody can speak their own language at meetings. ((…)) Sometimes everybody decides ‘Okay, we’re going to speak English today’, so everybody tries to communicate everything. Sometimes it’s French and then other times it’s a mix. ((…)) No-one sticks rigidly to their own language. And then you suddenly find the French speaker doing part of the meeting in German, and it’s just so fluid that in a way you don’t even really think about it. (Coordinator of Language Training, ·Public Service AÒ)



Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

This second view draws upon a functional conception of multilingualism, defined as the ability to interact, even imperfectly, in several languages in everyday settings (CECR 2001). A set of skills in different languages, from perfect to very partial, is seen as an integrated whole which is more than the sum total of its parts. Incidentally, the term multilingual “competence” (Cook 2008 coined the concept ­“multicompetence”) has been replaced by “repertoire” (Gumperz 1982; Gal 1986; Lüdi 2006; Moore & ­Castellotti eds. 2008; Lüdi & Py 2009, etc.), defined as a set of “resources” – both verbal (registers, dialects and languages) and non-verbal (e.g. mime and gestural expression) – that are shared and jointly mobilised by the actors in order to find local solutions to practical problems (Mondada 2001; Pekarek Doehler 2005). The resources can be seen as a kind of bricoleur’s toolbox (Lévy Strauss 1962); the speakers display creativity, and the boundaries between the languages vanish, as demonstrated by the following transcription of a conversation which took place at the ticket counter of a Swiss railway station (Lüdi, Barth, Höchle & Yanaprasart 2009): 9. molto grazio (SB_VEN_SS_070725) Employee guete tag good day Customer pardon Employee pardon ? Oui oui ? pardon ? yes yes ? Customer je parle português I speak Portuguese Employee oh je parle pas português ((final s pronounced))  oh I don’t speak Portuguese Customer Brasilia Employee okey. italien ou français oui oui ?= ok Italian or French yes yes ? Customer =. Two tickets to Freiburg german Employee Freiburg Deutschland jä okey. (22) voilà. si vous Freiburg Germany yeah ok (22) here could you   faire la carte à la machine? oui. (3) va bene. (5) put the credit card into the machine? yes (3) good (5)  c’est sans une code. vous fais ((sic)) la signature it is without code. you sign après. (2) non non il va revenir. Afterwards. (2) no no it will come back ((client holds credit card instead of letting it go))  Si vous fais votre signature pour cinquante huit ? can you sign for fifty eight? Customer ((signs)) (13) ((….)) Employee  voilà. il prossimo treno (.) binario cinco hm? That’s good. the next train (.) track five yes?  Dodici diciotto. at eighteen past twelve

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart Customer Employee Customer Employee Employee



(3) merci. [obrigado]. (3) Thank you ((in French)) thank you ((in Portuguese)) [bitteschön]. Service you’re welcome ((German)) you’re welcome ((French))  obrigado (h) thank you ((in Portuguese)) molto grazio thank you ((in Italian))

((to the researcher)) es goht mit händ und füess aber es goht

it works with hands and feet but it works

In an extreme exolingual situation (where there is no common variety), the buyer and the seller negotiate the choice of language at the beginning of the interaction by laying out the possible resources (Portuguese, Italian, French, German), but with no choice being made. The success of the interaction is clearly due, at least in part, to mutual knowledge of a simple and recurrent script (mention of the destination, payment by credit card), but also to the optimal employment of a package of verbal and non-verbal means (objects pointed to in the interaction) that the agents have at their disposal. The mention of a given language does not lead to its exclusive usage, but serves as a contextualisation cue to check its availability and flag its pertinence. In fact, the mutually accepted solution is the multilingual mode. Furthermore, as the seller mobilises his resources, he does so according to a subjacent representation that Romance languages are intercomprehensible; at the same time, he glosses over the boundaries between the languages; and he is aware of the “rough-and-ready” nature of the interaction: “it works with hands and feet, but it works.” In the follow-up to this kind of analysis, one might start to question the notions of “language” and “language boundaries”. On the one hand, “hybrid words” (words still belonging to one language and already belonging to another) (e.g. Greco et al., ­Chapter  2 in this book, Croft 2000; Cook & Wei eds. 2011) emerge as production strategies at the position of language boundaries; on the other hand, one might argue that the traditional view of “language” which is based on the ideology of “standard languages” as it was developed in Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries c­ annot account for these forms. The speakers do not resort to pre-existing varieties, but move creatively around in an open and variable space of linguistic resources, and take risks, e.g. in speaking a kind of Pan-Romance. In an extrapolation of the notion languaging, Makoni & Makoni (2010) have forged the term multilanguaging for referring to ­phenomena of the kind we earlier called multilingual speech.10 Multilingual speech is often dismissed as “bad usage”. We agree with Jessner (2008a, 2008b) that multilingual settings are not characterised by the absence of

.  The aim of the “multilanguaging approach” is to «  capture the dynamic and evolving ­relationship between English, other indigenous African languages and multiple open semiotic systems, from the point of view of the language users themselves » (Makoni & Makoni 2010: 258).



Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

norms, but by proper “multilingual norms”. Hence, multilingual practices are not unshaped but are the locus of “emergent multilingual grammars” comprising techniques of interaction such as code-switching (see Myers Scotton 21997 for a “grammar of code-switching”), spontaneous translations or ways of using lingue franche. Adapting a statement of Larsen-Freeman (2003), one could speak of “the fixing or sedimentation of forms that are understood to constitute grammar”. Of course, “grammar” has to be taken here in a broad sense including discourse strategies like the use of code-switching as a resource for organising interaction (Mondada 2007) or interpreting by peers (Merlino/Mondada forthcoming).

3.2.4.3  A multilanguaging philosophy The contrast between the two conceptions of multilingualism helps to explain some of the contradictions observed at different levels. In all our terrains, actors and observers insist on the importance of English. It is perceived as a must not only by international companies but also by national and regional ones operating in cross-border markets. At the same time, daily reality is experienced as highly multilingual. Is that really a contradiction? One could formulate the hypothesis that this apparent contradiction results from the transfer of the monolingual, nation-state ideology in the sense of the first conception of multilingualism in the world of business. A fine-grained analysis of the ways in which the lingua franca is used suggests, as indicated above, that many uses of English as a lingua franca are, by nature, another form of multilanguaging (Böhringer et al. 2009; Hülmbauer & Seidlhofer, Chapter 18 in this book). In other words, this concept is not just a “fashion word” or part of a new theory of ­multilingualism. Rather it espouses closely the observed practices. In this sense, the use of a lingua franca resulting from mixing resources of different kinds could be an asset as well as a multilingual speech in its more classical form, but only if the dynamics resulting from the underlying clash of cultures and value systems are not negated but exploited, thus negating the following opinion: 10. part of this richness disappears (AA_PER_MM_100416) Multilingualism doesn’t only mean several languages, but also different images, comparisons, cultures, everything. Our problem is that we have to translate everything into English; and with that the main part of this richness disappears. (Global Head of Learning, 〈Agro A〉)

3.3  Multilingualism and multiculturalism as an asset for companies One of the leading questions of Dylan was: Under what conditions can multilingualism be an asset for companies? Based on our analyses, some tentative answers emerge.

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart

The contrast between two different conceptions, mainly between institutional and additive individual multilingualism on the one hand and a “multilanguaging philosophy” on the other, helps to explain some of the conflicts observed at different levels (practices versus stated policies, divergent practices at the individual and institutional level, etc.). What some people condemn as a “lack of mastery in any language” is praised by others as a down-to-earth solution in practical situations. We would dare to argue that part of the multilingual asset is linked to the multilanguaging philosophy. Thus, the analysis, involving a deconstruction of, and challenge to, some of the “folk theories” emerging from decision-makers’ (and linguists’) discourses, could be a key condition for fully exploiting the so-called multilingual asset. This in no way means that companies should abandon the idea, and the use of, the lingua franca. They must acknowledge, however, that this includes a range of more or less perfect and mixed uses of English and other resources, and that there are many settings where the recourse to a range of other languages, including multilanguaging in its strongest forms, is at the same time both fairer and more efficient. From the perspective of the multilingual asset, a possible response to this observation could be a new partnership between the use of a lingua franca and multilingual interaction. In fact, an initial series of arguments in favour of multilingualism does emerge in the dominant discourse of companies that might be said to correspond to the “additive” model, each language being used by a specific group of speakers or with a specific target audience respectively:11 –– ––

–– ––

the argument for marketing in the external communication, in order to meet the needs of customers, patients and other stakeholders; the argument for inclusion of a multilingual workforce in the internal communication in order to enable individuals and groups to contribute to their fullest potential; the argument for more precise formulations and argumentations in the native language; the argument that a multilingual philosophy fits better with some of the basic values of the company like equality of opportunity, equality of chance, fairness, etc.

But there are other arguments which presuppose that people from different languages and cultures collaborate and interact directly in small, variable groups:12

.  All these arguments are highly recurrent in our interviews. .  “An organization is a rationally arranged human group to achieve a specific goal in ­collective efforts. However, the members of organization perform their assigned jobs usually by means of informal groups or work teams in the division of labor. (…) While the



–– –– –– ––

Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

the argument for broader resources; the argument for creativity and efficiency, diversity being correlated with innovation and effectiveness; the argument for the transmission and common construction of knowledge in mixed teams; the argument for interculturality.

Once again this means that in their daily practice companies do not have to make a choice between a philosophy of institutional multilingualism and one of multilanguaging. In fact, the same institutions that promote parallel communication in several languages often allow, or even encourage, multilingual micro-contexts and language mixture. Furthermore, managers use very similar arguments when relating to both managerial measures. Finally, new, shared conceptual spaces can emerge in mixed teams – and enhance the creative and commercial potential of the company – if, and only if, potential ­conflicts between different worldviews and value systems are surmounted. M ­ ulticulturalism is an asset under the condition that members in a mixed group have learned to collaborate in intercultural settings in a climate of mutual respect. This work is part of the many challenges of multilingualism in the context of shared, situated cognition and in that of the co-construction of knowledge. In summary, multilingualism and multiculturalism are not two different assets but rather two that are tightly knit. Multiculturalism seems to constitute a necessary condition for exploiting the benefits of multilingualism. At the same time, multilingual practices – their acceptance and preferential treatment by companies and their members – represent a key strategy, in a polyglossic society, for facilitating the emergence of interculturality. In this sense, shared multilingual resources could assume two strategic functions, the first one at a relational level facilitating an open, tolerant, linguistically convenient, socially acceptable and personally comfortable communication across cultural borders, and the second one at an instrumental level making exolingual communication more equitable, dynamic, participative and conceptually creative (Yanaprasart 2012). Annexe: Transcription symbols For the transcription of the interviews, normal orthography has been maintained. Parts of the interview being omitted are marked as ((…)).

­ rganizational system is characterized by the formality relying on rules and regulations, the o groups are largely shaped by leadership and both communication and interaction patterns among group members.” (Kim 2007, 162–163)

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart

For Example 9, the following symbols have been used: 1

2

3

Phenomenon

Conventions

1 Sequentiality 1a Overlapping

[]

1b Latching

=

2 2a

Silences, pauses Short pause

(.)

2a′

long pause

(..)

2b

pause of one second and more

(1), (2), (3)

3

Suprasegmental marks

3a

Rising intonation

?

3b

Falling intonation

.

3c Slowing-down 4 5

〈slowlier〉

4 Aspiration-expiration 4a Laughter

(h)

5 Comments

+concerned segment+ ((comments))

References Apfelbaum, Birgit, and Bernd Meyer (eds). 2010. Multilingualism at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bakhtin, Mikhaïl. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and trans. by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Michigan Press. Bertaux, Daniel. 1997. L’ enquête et ses méthodes. Paris: Edition Armand Colin. Berthoud, Anne-Claude, and Georges Lüdi. 2010. “Language Policy and Planning.” In The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. by R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, and P. Kerswill, 479–495. ­London et  al.: SAGE Publications Ltd. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge. Bialystok, Ellen. 2005. “Consequences of Bilingualism for Cognitive Development.” In Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches, ed. by J. Kroll, and A. De Groot, 417–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bialystok, Ellen. 2009. “Bilingualism. The Good, the Bad, and the Indifferent.” Bilingualism: ­Language and Cognition 12 (1): 3–11. Boden, Margaret A. 1996. “What is Creativity?” In Dimensions of Creativity, ed. by M.A. Boden, 75–117. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Böhringer, Heike, Cornelia Hülmbauer, and Barbara Seidlhofer. 2009. DYLAN Working Paper 4 on ‘Creativity and Innovation’, RT 4.2.



Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

Bothorel-Witz, Arlette. 2008. “Le plurilinguisme en Alsace: les représentations sociales comme ressources ou outils de la description sociolinguistique.” Les Cahiers de l’Acedle 5 (1): 41–62. Bruhn, Manfred. 32003. Integrierte Unternehmens- und Markenkommunikation. Strategische Planung und operative Umsetzung. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag. CECR. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cigada, Sara, Marinette Matthey, and Silvia Gilardoni (eds). 2001. Communicare in ambiente professinoale plurilingue. Lugano: USI. Compendium. 2009. Study on the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity. Compendium Part One: Multilingualism and Creativity: Towards an Evidence-Base. Brussels: European Commission [http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/studies/documents/study_on_the_contribution_of_ multi–lingualism_to_creativity/compendium_part_1_en.pdf]. Cook, Vivian. 2008. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold. Cook, Vivian, and Wei Li (eds). 2011. Contemporary Applied Linguistics. London, New York: ­Continuum International Publishing Group. Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: an Evolutionary Approach. Longman: Harlow. Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Editions de Minuit. Förster, Hans-Peter. 2009. Corporate Wording. Komplette aktualisierte Auflage. Frankfurt am Main, Verlag Frankfurter Allgemeine. Frei, Silvia. 2010. La compatibilité de l’anglais comme ‘Corporate Language’ avec le ‘Diversity Management.’ La gestion des langues dans une entreprise pharmaceutique internationale ayant son siège social à Bâle. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Bâle, Institut d’études francophones. Furlong, Aine. 2009. “The Relation of Plurilingualism/Culturalism to Creativity: A Matter of Perception.” International Journal of Multilingualism 6 (4): 343–368. Gajo, Laurent. 2003. “Approche comparative des données suisses et valdôtaines.” In Langues, bilinguisme et représentations sociales au Val d’Aoste, ed. by M. Cavalli, D. Coletta, L. Gajo, ­M. Matthey, and C. Serra, 518–558. Aoste: IRRE-VDA. Gal, Susan. 1986. “Linguistic repertoire.” In Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, ed. by Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. ­Mattheier, and Peter Trudgill, 286–292. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. García, Ofelia. 2008. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 1991. Language Selection and Switching in Strasbourg. Oxford: ­Clarendon Press. Grosjean, François. 2001. “The Bilingual’s Language Modes.” In Language Processing in the Bilingual, ed. by J.L. Nicol, 1–25. Oxford: Blackwell. Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Häcki-Buhofer, Annelies. 1985. Schriftlichkeit im Alltag. Theoretische und empirische Aspekte – am Beispiel eines Schweizer Industriebetriebs. Bern etc.: Peter Lang. Hakuta, Kenji. 1985. Mirror of Language: The Debates on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Hakuta, Kenji, and Rafael M. Diaz. 1984. “The Relationship between Bilingualism on ­Science Problem-Solving Abilities.” In Current Issues in Bilingual Education, ed. by J.E. Alatis. ­Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Hall, Stuart, and Paul Du Gay. 1996. Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage Publications. Haugen, Einar. 1983. “The Implementation of Corpus Planning: Theory and Practice.” In Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives, ed. by J. Fishman, and J. Covarrubias, 269–89. Berlin: Mouton.

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart Höchle, Katharina. 2010. “Les stages professionnels comme élément de la diversité dans les entreprises.” In Le plurilinguisme au travail entre la philosophie de l’entreprise, les représentations des acteurs et les pratiques quotidiennes [Acta Romanica Basiliensia 22], ed. by Georges Lüdi, 53–85. Basel: Institut für Französische Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Höchle, Katharina. forthcoming. Construction discursive des représentations de stages professionnels dans des entreprises de la région du Rhin supérieur. Tübingen und Basel: A. Francke Verlag. Hopper, Paul. 1998. “Emergent Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language, ed. by M. Tomasello, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jessner, Ulrike. 2008a. “Teaching Third Languages: Findings, Trends and Challenges. State-ofthe-Art Article.” Language Teaching 41 (1): 15–56. Jessner, Ulrike. 2008b. “Multicompetence Approaches to Language Proficiency Development in Multilingual Education.” In Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, ed. by J. Cummins, and N.H. Hornberger, 91–103. New York: Springer. Jodelet, Denise. 1989. “Représentations sociales: un domaine en expansion.” In Les Représentations Sociales, ed. by D. Jodelet, 31–61. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Jørgensen, J. Norman (ed.). 2011. A Toolkit for Transnational Communication in Europe. ­Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Kameyama, Shinichi, and Bernd Meyer (eds). 2007. Mehrsprachigkeit am Arbeitsplatz. Frankfurt a.M et al.: Peter Lang). Kim, Son-Ung. 2007. “The Effects of Three Socio-cultural Factors on the Organizations in Korea.” In La competence culturelle. S’ équiper pour les défis du management international, ed. by Yih-teen Lee, Vincent Calvez, and Alain-Max Guénette, 159–179. Paris: L’Harmattan. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 32003. Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Boston: Thomson and Heinle. Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Lynne Cameron. 2008. Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1962. La pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon. Lüdi, Georges. 1995. “Parler bilingue et traitements cognitifs.” Intellectica 20: 139–159. Lüdi, Georges. 2006. “Multilingual Repertoires and the Consequences for Linguistic Theory.” In Beyond Misunderstanding. Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication, ed. by Kristin Bührig, and Jan D. ten Thije, 11–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lüdi, Georges. 2011. “Vers de nouvelles approches théoriques du langage et du plurilinguisme.” In De la sociolinguistique dans les sciences du langage aux sciences du langage en sociolinguistique. Questions de transdisciplinarité, ed. by Cécile Petitjean. Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique 53: 47–64. Lüdi, Georges. 2012. “The Analysis of the Linguistic Landscape as a Tool for Comprehension of Companies' Language Management and Practices.” In Linguistic Landscapes, Multilingualism and Social Change, ed. by Christine Hélot, Monica Barni, Rudi Janssens, and Carla Bagna, 87–105. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. Lüdi, Georges (ed.). 2010. Le plurilinguisme au travail entre la philosophie de l’ entreprise, les représentations des acteurs et les pratiques quotidiennes. [Acta Romanica Basiliensia 22]. Basel: Institut für Französische Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Lüdi, Georges, Lukas A. Barth, Katharina Höchle, and Patchareerat Yanaprasart. 2009. “La ­gestion du plurilinguisme au travail entre la ‘philosophie’ de l’ entreprise et les pratiques spontanées.” Sociolinguistica 23: 32–52.



Chapter 3.  Multilingualism and diversity management in companies 

Lüdi, Georges, Katharina Höchle, and Patchareerat Yanaprasart. 2010. “Patterns of Language in Polyglossic Urban Areas and Multilingual Regions and Institutions: A Swiss Case Study.” ­International Journal of the Sociology of Language 205: 55–78. Lüdi, Georges, Katharina Höchle, Fee Steinbach, and Patchareerat Yanaprasart. 2012. “­Stratégies d’inclusion et formes d’exclusion dans des interactions exolingues au travail.” In Interactions cosmopolites: l’organisation de la participation plurilingu, ed. by L. Mondada, and L. Nussbaum, 29–62, Limoges: Lambert Lucas. Lüdi, Georges, and Bernard Py. 2009. “To Be or Not to Be … a Plurilingual Speaker.” International Journal of Multilingualism 6 (2): 154–167. Makoni, Sinfree, and Busi Makoni. 2010. “Multilingual Discourse on Wheels and Public English in Africa: A Case for ‘Vague Linguistcs.” In The Routledge Companion to English Language Studies, ed. by J. Maybin, and J. Swamnn, 258–270. London: Routledge. Malinowski, David. 2008. “Authorship in the Linguistic Landscape: A Multimodal-Performative View.” In Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery, ed. by E. Shohamy, and D. Gorter, 107–125. New York: Routledge. Martin, Robert. 1987. Langage et Croyance. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga. Mauranen, Anna, and Elina Ranta (eds). 2009. English as a Lingua Franca. Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Merlino, Sara, and Lorenza Mondada. forthcoming. “Identités fluides dans le travail interactionnel du traducteur improvisé.” In Les identités en interaction, ed. by Luca Greco, Lorenza Mondada, and Patrick Renaud. Paris: Bibliothèque des Faits de Langue. Moliner, Pascal, and Maria Gutermann. 2004. “Dynamique des représentations et des ­explications dans une représentation sociale.” Papers on Social Representations 13: 2.1–2.12. Mondada, Lorenza. 2001. “Pour une linguistique interactionnelle.” Marges Linguistiques 1: 142–162. Mondada, Lorenza. 2004. “Ways of ‘Doing Being Plurilingual’ In International Work ­Meetings.” In Second Language Conversations, ed. by R. Gardner, and J. Wagner, 27–60. London: Continuum. Mondada, Lorenza. 2007. “Le code-switching pour l’organisation de la parole-en-interaction.” Journal of Language Contact (http: www.jlc-journal.org). Mondada, Lorenza. 2012. “L’organisation émergente des ressources multimodales dans l’interaction en lingua franca : entre progressivité et intersubjectivité.” In Représentations, gestion et pratiques de la diversité linguistique dans des entreprises européennes, ed. by G. Lüdi. Bulletin Vals-Asla 95: 97–121. Mondada, Lorenza, and Luci Nussbaum (eds). 2012. Interactions Cosmopolites: L’organisation de la Participation Plurilingue. Limoges: Lambert Lucas. Moore, Danièle, and Véronique Castellotti (eds). 2008. La Compétence Plurilingue: Regards Francophones. Berne et al.: Peter Lang. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 21997. Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Code-switching. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nisbett, Richard E. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and Why. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Otsuji, Emi, and Alastair Pennycook. 2010. “Metrolingualism: Fixity, Fluidity and Language in Flux.” International Journal of Multilingualism 7: 240–254. Page, Scott E. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle & Patchareerat Yanaprasart Paulmann, Robert. 2005. Double Loop – Basiswissen Corporate Identity. Mainz: Hermann Schmidt Verlag. Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2005. “De la nature située des compétences en langue.” In Repenser l’ enseignement des langues: comment identifier et exploiter les compétences? ed. by Jean-Paul Bronckart, Ecaterina Bulea, and Michèle Puoliot, 41–68. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion. Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Language as a Social Practice. New York: Routledge. Phipps, Alison. 2006. Learning the Arts of Linguistic Survival (Tourism and Cultural Change). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Poplack, Shana. 1980. “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en español.” Linguistics 18: 581–618. Py, Bernard. 2004. “Pour une approche linguistique des représentations sociales.” Langages 154: 6–19. Reins, Armin. 2006. Corporate Language. Wie Sprache über Erfolg oder Misserfolg von Marken und Unternehmen entscheidet. Mainz: Verlag Hermann Schmidt. Schewe, Theo. 2001. “Multilingual Communication in the Global Network Economy.” In Über Grenzen gehen – Kommunikation zwischen Kulturen und Unternehmen, ed. by Jutta ­Eschenbach, and Theo Schewe, 195–209. Halden: Hogskolen I Ostfold. Slobin, Dan. 1991. “Learning to Think for Speaking; Native Language, Cognition, and Rhetorical Style.” Pragmatics 1 (1): 7–25. Stalder, Pia. 2010. Pratiques imaginées et images des pratiques plurilingues. Stratégies de communication dans les réunions en milieu professionnel international. Bern et al.: Peter Lang. Thije, Jan ten (ed.). 2007. Receptive Multilingualism: Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Thorne, Steven L. and James P. Lantolf. 2007. “A Linguistics of Communicative Activity.” In ­Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, ed. by S. Makoni, and A. Pennycook, 170–195. ­Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Truchot, Claude (ed.). 2009. Sprachwahl in europäischen Unternehmen/Choix linguistiques dans les entreprises en Europe/Language choices in European companies, Sociolinguistica 23. Vollstedt, Marina. 2002. Sprachenplanung in der internen Kommunikation internationaler Unternehmen: Studien zur Umstellung der Unternehmenssprache auf das Englische. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. Wheeler, Alina. 2013. Designing Brand Identity: An Essential Guide for the Whole Branding, 4th edn. Hoboken, New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wicker, Hans-Rudolf. 1997. “From Complex Culture to Cultural Complexity.” In Debating Cultural Hybridity. Multi-Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism, ed. by P. Werbner, and T. Modood, 29−45. London: Zed Books. Winkin, Yves (ed.). 1981. La Nouvelle Communication. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Yanaprasart, Patchareerat. 2012. “Chapitre 19: Plurilinguisme institutionnel comme mesure de gestion de la diversité linguistique. Quel atout interculturel du plurilinguisme individuel?” In De la diversité linguistique aux pratiques interculturelles, ed. by Eliane Costa-Fermandez, et Odette Lescarret, 229–241. Paris: L’Harrmattan.

chapter 4

Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity in companies Intertwining of collective monophony and polyphony in individual enunciators Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger Université de Strasbourg

Thematic interviews with some twenty executives working in five multinational companies located in the French region of Alsace have allowed us to reveal their representations and perceptions of their linguistic practices at work, of their multilingual skills and, finally, of the actions or measures that the companies (implicitly or explicitly) advocate on language management. Discourse analysis has highlighted certain widely-shared representations, both within a company or among different companies, which indicate support for or submission to a dominant ideology that underlies group identity. However, during interactions, this collective monophony contrasts with more personal positions (individual representations) which alter the interviewees’ attitudes to established representations (support, detachment or rejection). We therefore focus on these differences or tensions, in order to identify more accurately the problematic aspects of multilingualism and of linguistic and cultural diversity management in companies.

4.1  Introduction There is a broad consensus among contact linguists/sociolinguists that, in cases of complex multilingualism (Billiez & Millet 2000; Blanchet 2003; Calvet 1999; ­Francard 1994; Matthey 1997; Singy 1996 and others), sociolinguistic representations (SRs) have an impact on practices and repertoires (Blanchet 2003, p. 301). Considering companies as spaces where multilingual speech situations arise, we were led in the course of

 Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger

the DYLAN project1 to examine management of multilingualism and the underlying ideologies in the light of what some twenty interviewees (directors and managers)2 did or did not say about their practices (when choosing linguistic resources in a given context), their skills and, finally, language management or treatment3 as explicitly or implicitly advocated by decision-makers. Epistemologically, this research task is based on an all-embracing paradigm and a qualitative approach, the main source of information being the discourses and the traces left by SRs. A decision to identify and understand practices, attitudes to languages and their hierarchical organisation through the interviewees’ representations and perceptions always raises doubts, for instance regarding the ambiguity of the notion of representation, which is used in most of the social sciences, in various theoretical and methodological settings. Yet, as Castellotti has indicated (2009, p. 139), it may be wondered whether its heuristic value does not, paradoxically, derive from this very ambiguity. In this article we will therefore examine the links between (shared) social representations and individual ones. In doing so, we will assess the relevance of the distinction made in social psychology between a relatively stable ‘central core’ and more unstable ‘peripheral elements’ (Abric 1994). At the same time, we will attempt to show how the adopted epistemological framework (the way in which representations are analysed) sheds light on the stability and also the fluidity and shifting of representations of multilingualism in companies. This possible intertwining, not to say tension, between collective monophony (features of the dominant ideology that are reappropriated by the interviewees) and the polyphony of representations attributed to individual enunciators (Mondada 2004) strikes us as especially important in that the DYLAN project ultimately sets out to identify assessment resources which, through language policy measures, can encourage the development of (individual and social) multilingual repertoires in companies.

.  See http://www.dylan-project.org .  Thematic interviews (lasting an average of 90 minutes) were held in five Alsace-based companies: two French SMEs (SO and NAP), two French subsidiaries of an American concern (WR) and a German concern (WU), and the headquarters of a multinational (AGR). What the approximately twenty interviewees had in common was that they were all born in Alsace and had a passive or active knowledge of the Alsatian dialects of German that are spoken in most of the region, alongside French). For more on the terrain, the interviewees and the collection of data, see Bothorel-Witz & Choremi 2009, pp. 106–108). .  The concept of ‘language policy’ has been abandoned here in favour of the notion of ‘­language treatment’, which takes more flexible account of every action relating to languages. Depending on their actual or supposed needs, companies are led – in explicit or implicit, planned or unplanned ways – to act (deliberately or otherwise) on the use of language resources that provide information on (a) the companies’ social repertoires and (b) the variable resources of individual repertoires (Truchot & Huck 2009, pp. 1–2).



Chapter 4.  Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity 

4.2  Collective monophony or shared representations 4.2.1  Terminological and theoretical definitions What we mean here by ‘collective monophony’ is the set of representational elements shared within or by a group or society. Understandably, it is these shared, relatively stable parts of the representations of various social objects (varieties/practices, multilingual skills, language treatment, etc.) that are emphasised in most sociolinguistic works. This research (whose principles we adopted in the initial phase of the project) is based on the concept of SRs, which is borrowed from social psychology (Jodelet 1989; Moscovici 1961). It will be recalled that, in social psychology,4 SRs are cognitive elaborations constructed from pre-existing information. In their discourses, depending on the contingencies of the moment and the context, the interviewees are therefore led to make a selection and to reappropriate an earlier way of speaking or discourses that ‘require no work other than the act of enunciating them’ (Py 2004, p. 8). Through thematisation, this common-sense knowledge is turned into discourse objects that can be identified in the interviews (Gajo 2003, p. 527).

4.2.2  How is collective monophony reflected in the discourse? The answer to this question is connected, in the final phase of the DYLAN project, to contrasts between the companies and the interpretative summary of the data. The ­latter reveal stable, shared representational features that ‘define a space of meaning which is common’ (Moliner & Guterman 2004, 2.2) to all the interviewees (­irrespective of company, post, field of activity etc.). Beyond this initial observation, however, more detailed analysis makes clear that collective monophony may assume other forms and that, as we will attempt to show below, it displays gradations (relative proportions of what is said and how it is said, use of the same discursive strategies and so on).

4.2.2.1  M  onophony is reflected in a consensus that emerges from the content and wording of the SRs This twofold dimension of collective monophony (the highest degree) – reflected in shared features, both in what is said and in how it is said – concerns only a number of representational objects and their components. That is why this shared sociolinguistic ideology is particularly evident in representations of the position and (actual

.  Like other sociolinguists (Blanchet 2003, p. 293), we have transferred to our disciplinary field ‘the cultural-anthropology type of qualitative value’ that Moscovici attached to the concept.

 Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger

or imagined) efficiency of English, which functions as a strong indicator of group membership. In discourse, the assessments by the various interviewees are reflected in somewhat stereotyped qualifications that emphasise the exceptional status of ­English: ‘THE international language’, ‘THE universal language’, ‘THE world language’, ‘THE number one language’, ‘THE common language’ and so on. It may also be noted, among the most readily identifiable linguistic indicators, that English repeatedly ­displays the highest degree of the qualities that are attributed to it: [1] Deputy personnel manager, French subsidiary of a German concern (WU) WU4 because it’s the most widely spoken language in the world [2] Executive assistant, French SME (SO) SO3 ‘cause, I mean, like I was saying\ it’s REALly the language that’s used the most/ I can see that here and yes it’s the one *people agree on/

In addition, we may note the striking frequency of totalising markers (‘all’, ‘always’, ‘every’ and so on): [3] Executive assistant, French SME (SO) KZ Some languages may be more important than others SO3 always English/ of course/ **it’s a language that’s REALly taught everywhere/ at all levels/ in every country/ [4] Purchasing manager, French subsidiary of a German concern (WU) WU5 that’s why you always come back to English because they [foreign partners] all speak English\ and THAT *THAT’s the common language\ [5] Logistics manager, French SME (SO) SO5 and um English will ALways/ help you to: I mean to:*to communicate\ yes, it does, in any case/ [6] Commercial assistant, French SME (NAP) NAP4 yes\ because everyone speaks it *even the German customers sometimes I realise when um um they call the factory and they don’t know they’ll get through to me they ask would you sooner speak German or English/ they ask the question so that implies that effectively nearly all our customers speak English so it’s true it really does play a big part: there really are a lot of people who speak English\

These discourse excerpts – which display the highest degree of collective monophony – thus reveal the two social layers of the representations, reflected not only in what is said



Chapter 4.  Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity 

but also in how it is said. As Py has also suggested (2000, p. 16), SRs may also be worded in preferred, recurrent forms that in turn lead the researcher to detect representations in them. However, it will be noted that this form of agreement typically appears in representations of a single social object, namely English, which a group of people (taken as a whole) identify with, deliberately or under constraint, and which they do not think they could manage without.

4.2.2.2  Collective monophony is reflected in the content of SRs (what is said) The consensual representational elements are usually reflected in the content and the declarative aspects of the SRs. What is said thus reveals that practices in the various companies, irrespective of how they (explicitly or implicitly) treat languages, have two focal points: the national language (French) and the international or global language (English). In this competitive setting there is little room for German, let alone other languages such as Spanish. When it comes to internal practices, all the interviewees emphasise the functionality of French. Such insistence seems linked to a fear of the position that English could assume in the short or medium term, as well as the perception that many staff members, including managers (especially older ones), supposedly have an inadequate command of English. This inadequacy is perceived by most of the interviewees as a typical feature of French companies which have been late in adapting linguistically to globalisation: [7] Marketing manager, French multinational (AGR) AGR2 Today it’s still French tomorrow it may be English \ ((laughter)) it depends how the market develops but even so today it’s it’s it’s French\

What is also striking is that French functions as a symbol for companies that want to highlight their national identity. Undoubtedly influenced by the national linguistic ideology prevailing in France, the interviewees emphasise the link between the French language and their company’s image (whether or not it is a subsidiary of a foreign concern): [8] CEO, French subsidiary of an American concern (WR) AB you say French is still used a lot here\ WR6 well er: YES *ye:s we’re in FRANCE *I: thi:nk tha:t the the first language the IMage we need to proJECT is*is *speaking French\ [9] Personnel manager, French subsidiary of a German concern (WU) KZ what’s the language that’s used most in your company/ WU4 it’s French *definitely it’s FRENCH\ yes we’re part of a German concern BUT remember we’re a subsidiary operating

 Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger on the French market *so our concern is the French market *FULL STOP\ aPART from a few TOP PEOPLE here who are regularly in touch with the parent company *er: the REST is French\ so we’re *we’re part of a German concern but *we’re still a French company\ [10] CEO, French SME (NAP) NAP1 and the reason we chose the name XXX is that there’s an acute accent on the e which is TYPically French *so our very name our logo reminds people we’re French because we’ve got this acute accent\

4.2.2.3  Collective monophony is reflected in the use of shared discursive strategies Another, less readily identifiable kind of collective monophony may be reflected in the use of discursive strategies that are shared by the interviewees. This recurrent phenomenon is particularly illustrated by attitudes to the status of French in the international arena. To avoid acknowledging the decline in the communicative and commercial value of French – which experience has undoubtedly shown – the interviewees consistently adopt an avoidance strategy by shifting the argument in two ways. First, they emphasise the image of France as a country, rather than the French language; second, instead of reasoning in international terms, they confine their assessments of the functionality of French to Europe, countries where French is spoken or Romance-language countries such as Spain and Italy. Strikingly, this strategy is at odds with the recurrent references to globalisation that are found throughout the discourse: [11] Regional sales manager, French subsidiary of a German concern (WU) WU2 France still has influence, if only in Europe *but at international *global level, I can’t say [12] CEO, French SME (SO) SO1 You you have to make a distinction between the image the image of France\ and French\ the image image of France is still still an extremely extremely positive one\ but it isn’t necessarily based on on on French\ [13] Purchasing manager, French subsidiary of a German concern (WU) WUE French \ in France everyone speaks French/ then perhaps there’s North Africa \ I mean, French is still spoken a lot around the world take Quebec *and no I mean French is SPOken a LOT so there you ARE and then you’ve got quite a few ITALians for instance who learn French *SPANiards who learn French



Chapter 4.  Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity 

4.2.2.4  C  ollective monophony is reflected in the shared dialectical interplay ­between positive and negative assessment processes (enhanced and ­reduced status) A specific kind of monophony is inherent in the assessment of SRs5 (Moliner & Guterman 2004, 2.3). Analysis of representations of (a) the various languages and practices (French, English, German, Alsatian dialects) and (b) representational features of the same language shows that all the discourses reveal a dialectical interplay of valuation6 processes that are more or less positive or negative (BothorelWitz & Tsamadou-Jacoberger 2009). The two processes are interdependent and complementary. Explicitly or implicitly enhancing the status of one variety or practice means reducing the status of another, and vice versa (in the globalising context, the status of German is thus being reduced in favour of English). However, the process may be more complex: although the enhanced status of English in the dominant discourse means that the status of French is reduced at international level, this in turn leads to the status of French being enhanced as an internal functional language and an emblem of companies that wish to highlight their French identity (especially the subsidiaries of the German and American concerns). Just as one variety cannot be seen in isolation from other varieties, the relevant features that make up a particular variety cannot be dissociated from one another. One of these features (functionality, economic, social or identity values, etc.) may be positively valued at the expense of another. Thus the status of English, which is enhanced because of the distinction and benefits that may accrue to people with a good command of it, is at the same time reduced because it operates as a power instrument, a tool for discrimination between younger and older managers, between the top and the bottom of the hierarchy. Ultimately, English is a source of linguistic security or insecurity. Although these positive and negative valuation processes, repeated again and again in the discourse, are part of a shared practice, they are different from the kinds of monophony mentioned earlier, for they reveal a kind of shift in shared SRs, as well as the balance and dynamic tensions between two focal points that are opposite (reduced and enhanced status) and yet complementary (Blanchet 2005, p. 34).

.  Other features are more descriptive, more explanatory. .  We have borrowed this term from Blanchet (2005, p. 34) to avoid the connotation associated with ‘evaluation’.

 Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger

4.3  R  epresentations of the intermediate space (between monophony and polyphony) Beyond the shared perceptions and positions that form the basis for group identity, a more subtle contrastive approach to companies and interviewees reveals differences in perception at different levels of analysis. These differences are seen between interviewees in different companies (macro level) and within the same company (meso level), or even between the positions adopted by the same interviewee (micro level). This shift towards assessments that are only partly shared, and hence towards a kind of polyphony (distinct from those of individual enunciators, see below), shows the inadequacy of a binary classification and the need to situate these representational elements in an intermediate space (between collective monophony and polyphony in individual enunciators).

4.3.1  S Rs that are partly shared between companies (points of difference between companies) This kind of polyphony – revealed by contrasting the five companies – is quite clearly reflected in representations of individual bilingualism and multilingualism. Abstract definition of bilingual and, more rarely, multilingual7 individuals gives rise to very different assessments, depending on the companies and the language treatment ­ ­strategies they adopt. In the SMEs (SO and NAP) and the French subsidiary of an American concern (WR), where multilingual practices are not very diversified (French/English), the interviewees take a highly Bloomfieldian view of multilingual skills (the sum total of two or more monolingual skills on a par with those of a native speaker). This representation – which at least partly reflects an authoritarian standard inherent in the French mindset – creates a more or less marked sense of linguistic insecurity. Because of a widespread linguistic inferiority complex, most of the interviewees envy the multilingual skills of their colleagues in the Netherlands and above all Scandinavia, whom in this respect they consider as reference models. In contrast to these trends, analysis of the discourses of interviewees employed by the French multinational (AGR) reveals an entirely different representation (see above). Instead of viewing individual multilingualism from a monolingual or equilingual perspective, the interviewees take a pragmatic position and a functional view that does not imply equal skills in several languages. This more realistic, more reassuring

.  Analysis shows that the ‘multilingual individual’ object does not normally give rise to thematisation, much less representation. It seems that most interviewees cannot rely on the shared network of ‘social availabilities’ that pre-exist the discourse (see also Gajo 2003, p. 527).



Chapter 4.  Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity 

conception (unbalanced multilingualism) appears to be a side effect of a company philosophy that seeks to promote linguistic, cultural and cognitive diversity in addition to English in order to adapt to local markets and link up the local and global perspectives.

4.3.2  D  ifferences between representations by interviewees within the same company Another kind of inter-group polyphony may be reflected in SRs that are partly shared by interviewees within the same company (meso level). Although these may be illustrated in various ways, these differences can be seen especially clearly in the discrepancy between decision-makers’ discourses on ­language treatment and the interviewees’ positions (and hence perceptions) that they are supposed to apply to. This discrepancy is very evident in the two French SMEs, where it seems that (a) the CEOs’ skills or indeed personal preferences and (b) their personal assessments of the internationalisation of their companies provide a basis for language treatment and the dominant position of English in their respective discourses. Although all the interviewees have absorbed the decision-makers’ discourses (excerpt 14), which seek to enhance the status of English, some staff members (excerpt 15) reject them in the light of their own practices and personal experiences: [14] CEO, French SME (NAP) NAP1 Um, when I’M running the meeting I try to speak the foreign language, so usually I’M the one that says we’ve got to speak English because I want to: u:m ((he switches from French to English)) Everything has to be done in English. [15] Commercial assistant, French SME (NAP) SC OK\ and is the:re a language the company particularly identifies with? NAP4 yes I think it’s English, yeah\ SC it’s English\ NAP4 yes\ but since I basically also work in Europe a lot um with Germans and Austrians and Swiss um in my case I guess I have more occasion to speak German\ because I’m more likely to answer the phone um in German but as for English because of the time difference I’m more likely to write it\ but personally as far as I’m concerned i:t’s German\

In the other French SME (SO), whose CEO functions as a reference model that the various interviewees want or attempt to match, differences in assessment, especially regarding the use of English, are not uncommon. In the following excerpt, the restriction of its use to people in certain posts contrasts with the CEO’s discourse, which

 Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger

treats English skills as a prerequisite for recruiting managers, irrespective of their position in the hierarchy and their field of activity: [16] National customer manager, French SME (SOL) AK Ahm/ all right/ a:nd does this growing importance of English in your company *affect er all the- every category of staff here/ SO6 *NO/ it *no no no of course it’s only those directly in touch with our partners\ (…) there it’s mainly English that’s used/ so *there you are/ I think it’s only that level of staff that are affected\

4.3.3  Different positions adopted by the same interviewee (micro level) The organisation of SRs into socio-cognitive systems gradually led us to compare ­separate parts of the discourse that reveal inter-discursive fluctuations, often considered as internal contradictions (Canut 2000, p. 93). Seen in inter-discursive terms, all the interviewees (this is a shared tendency) make paradoxical assessments of the same representational object that are determined by the identity-related, ideological, political, economic or other points of view they adopt, as well as the contingency of the moment. This kind of difference is very apparent in representations of links between Alsatian dialects and German which, depending on the perspective adopted, lead to highly contrasting and yet shared positions. When the interviewees consider the real or symbolic benefits of knowing languages, they emphasise the head start that knowledge of the dialects gives them when learning German, and even English. The refunctionalisation of the dialects in this context thus conflicts with their representation as non-languages and their reduced status in the interviewees’ respective social practices.

4.4  Polyphony in individual enunciators In the sociolinguistic perspective adopted at the outset, we mainly emphasised the objectivation of SRs in discourse. In doing so, for heuristic reasons, we briefly ­overlooked the fact that every representation is also configured by and for the d ­ iscourse (Gajo 2003, p. 520) by individual enunciators. In thus emphasising the discursive elaboration of representations by i­ndividuals (enunciators, speakers), one is led, from a methodological and theoretical point of view, to move beyond the psychosociological framework and take a more linguistic or discursive approach to SRs (Py 2000, 2004; Cavalli et al. 2003). In the adopted



Chapter 4.  Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity 

f­ ramework, the analysis aims to identify more clearly the more unstable, more dynamic parts of representations – those linked to the actual interaction and the enunciators’ inevitably shifting experiences – as well as the interviewees’ opportunities (depending on the context) to mark their group membership or, on the contrary, construct their own identities. In other words, we will endeavour to show (a) how the adjustments made by the interviewees in the interaction qualify or even correct their positions, and (b) how the form is not just ‘a more less direct link with a pre-existing content, but above all a way of giving meaning, with and for (or against)’ the dominant ideology, to a single experience (Gajo 1997). Depending on the epistemological choices that are made and the goals that are set, we must look more closely at how the collective and the individual are intertwined.

4.4.1  Polyphony is reflected in the interviewee’s adjustments In focusing on the process whereby the discourse is elaborated, it appears that (except in stereotyped formulas) the interviewees seldom merely transpose social availabilities that are complete before being put into words (Bardin 1977). Inevitably, the construction of representations in the interaction reveals a degree of instability and shifting that enables us to more fully understand the complex process of construction of ­representations in discourse: [17] Commercial assistant, French SME (NAP) SC*is there one language that matters more than the rest/ NAP4 that predominates/ well yes it’s French\ SC it’s French\ NAP4 well yes as far as I’m concerned it’s still French\ SC all right\ so there are customers you speak French to here/ NAP4 *well I also work with French customers and um German customers or Swiss the German ones I only speak German on the other hand but the Swiss themselves often make an effort to speak French8 because well they want to keep it up, stay in practice and partly because of other customers later on you know\

In this excerpt the interviewee adjusts his initial position that French is in undisputed, general use at his work. He gradually qualifies and renegotiates the statement ‘well yes

.  German-speaking Swiss often have a fair to good command of French and prefer to use it for business purposes in Alsace.

 Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger

it’s French, well yes as far as I’m concerned it’s still French’, admitting that he also uses German (with German customers). Finally, the remainder of the statement ‘on the other hand but the Swiss themselves often make an effort to speak French because well they want to keep it up, stay in practice and partly because of other customers later on you know’ suggests that the use of French is not as systematic or self-evident as the initial statement suggests. At the same time as these renegotiations, inconsistencies are inherent in the ­process of elaborating representations in the interaction. These are illustrated in almost textbook fashion in the attitude to German displayed by the same company’s CEO and the conclusions he draws: [18] CEO, French SME (NAP) NAP1 I read foreign journals I: FAshion and Design Management, postgraduate program ((he reads a headline in the journal on the desk in front of him)) look you’ve got the whole lot *the:re’s well it depends there’s all kinds of stuff\ SC mainly in English/ o:r NAP1 ONLY in English\ SC not in German/ NAP1 um yes but I can’t read German\ I don’t like GerI think it’s a difficult language \ I’m more at EASE in English than in German\ but I’m comPLETEly trilingual\

Finally, these two excerpts show the value of taking account of the kinds of polyphony that are reflected in adjustments, renegotiations inherent in the discourse or even inconsistencies on the part of the interviewee; they help us to grasp shifts in representations. However, the dynamics that are revealed only acquire real meaning if they are linked to the dominant discourse which, in this company, tends to reduce the status of German in favour of French (middle management) or English (CEO, senior management). It thus appears that more individual positions cannot be seen in isolation from the dominant discourse.

4.4.2  I nterviewees distancing themselves from a dominant or shared representation From another angle, the possibility of referring to a (previously revealed) form of ­collective monophony enables us to identify individual enunciators’ modulations in relation to shared representations.9 Depending on the interviewees, as well as the objects of representations, these modulations – which reveal tensions – are part of a

.  See also Bothorel-Witz and Tsamadou-Jacoberger 2009.



Chapter 4.  Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity 

continuum ranging from (more or less marked) acceptance to rejection of the prevailing discourse by the enunciators. The following excerpt shows how an interviewee in one of the French SMEs adopts a position in relation to an official discourse that tends to enhance the status of English: [19] Marketing manager, French SME (NAP) SC what do you think/ is this position as important as people say it is/ NAP2***We:ll, it’s like I was saying a moment ago\ I mean I really do feel that **perhaps then it’s because our company isn’t you might say sufficiently well developed in markets e:r where there isn’t so much call for English *but I’m afraid I must say English er is indeed becoming crucial for many of our communication needs whether *whatever kind of country we’re dealing with

In this excerpt the interviewee attempts to take a position by distancing herself from the shared representation of the dominance of English, using markers such as ‘I mean’, ‘perhaps’, ‘then’, plus the assertive phrase ‘I really do feel’; eventually, with some regret, and even a degree of apprehension, she finally acknowledges the increasingly widespread use of English (‘but I’m afraid I must say English er is indeed becoming crucial for many of our communication needs whether *whatever kind of country we’re dealing with’). Although this excerpt reveals the interviewee’s personal assessment, she is taking a position in relation to a dominant representation that she has, of necessity, absorbed. These examples thus not only illustrate the interviewee’s individual polyphony, but also show how the collective and the individual are intertwined in the discourse. It will likewise be noted that the difficulty of clearly distinguishing between the individual and the collective may sometimes become apparent in the way the representations are worded. When interviewees are led to modulate their attitudes to ­established representations, they sometimes opt for linguistic indicators and ­discursive strategies that may be shared. Thus, in distancing themselves from representations that enhance the status of English, some interviewees, as in the following excerpts, resort to markers (underlined in the text) that express regret: [20] National customer manager, French SME (SOL) SO6 if there was only one language that you simply had to learn\ unfortunately today *it would be English\ [21] CEO, French subsidiary of an American concern (WR) WRF yes\ e:r *I’ve REALly inSISted e:r that my children learn *speak English properly\ I mean it’s a fact it’s a fact of life that ENGlish is nowadays the most widely spoken language \ and e:r *I’m aFRAID will probably e:r swallow up the REST\

 Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger

4.5  Conclusion In attempting, by studying representations, to identify assessment resources that could form a basis for language policy measures concerning multilingualism in companies, we are to some extent compelled not only to provide details of a consensual (and inevitably simplified) discourse, but also to display the complexity of the representations, focusing on their dynamics, shifts and hence instability. Given our psychosociological approach (one of the epistemological options we adopted),10 we first attempted to identify traces of a consensual discourse (shared representations) by showing that the reproduction and reappropriation of a dominant ideology may assume various forms and display gradations. Thus, irrespective of the companies and individuals involved, the most marked degree of consensus (in what is said and how it is said) is found in representations of the functionality and the commercial, communicative and symbolic values of English. This kind of agreement between discourses that enhance the status of English (which are now prevailing over discourses calling for openness to linguistic and cultural diversity) operates as a cohesive factor in a group whose activities tend to take place in globalised economies. Since practices in companies are determined not only by economic and political issues but also by symbolic and national ones, representations of the position and role of French give rise to a highly consensual discourse (in what is said) that reveals the emblematic value of French (linked to a specific territory) as well as a concern to maintain, in response to the growing domination of English, the position French is still entitled to for internal communication purposes. At the same time, the shared representation of practices which – except in the case of AGR – have just two focal points (an international language and a national language) means that there is little room for other languages (especially German) in a competitive setting dominated by economic and national/identity issues. By moving beyond purely representational elements which at first sight appear very widely shared, and by comparing all the assessments that the various interviewees make (in a given interactive context) of one language or practice in relation to another, or indeed of a component (commercial, symbolic, social or other value) of a given representational object in relation to another, the analysis can reveal a different kind of collective monophony. This is reflected in a dialectical interplay between (non-disjunctive) processes of more or less positive or negative valuations that reveal the dynamic balance of representations between two antagonistic focal points. As regards multilingualism in companies, this tension between two opposing and yet

.  For more on the study of social representations, see also Chapter 5 in this book.



Chapter 4.  Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity 

indissociable processes allows representations of English to be qualified. Its status as the world language (with the associated functionality and values) has a negative corollary, namely its domination. Although English provides access to power and status, it is also perceived as a tool of social discrimination, ‘a strategic instrument designed to legitimise or de-legitimise speakers’ (Canut & Duchêne 2011, p. 5) who are thereby pushed out to the margins of the sphere of reference. The emphasis, in the second part, on the differences revealed by partly shared representations allows us to identify a first set of polyphonic features. Among other things, these inter-group differences in assessment are linked to structural features, company philosophies and language treatment, be it implicit (SO, NAP, WR) or, more rarely, explicit (AGR). If we focus on the most notable findings, it appears that in the case of implicit language treatment (as in most of the companies studied), multilingual practices (which are above all determined by the new ­globalised economies) basically have two focal points: French (for internal purposes) and English (for external purposes). The corollary of this limited social repertoire is highly normative representations of language skills (balanced multilingualism) which, because of the associated cognitive constraints, make most interviewees feel insecure and, within a given company (especially the SMEs), create a sense of social and professional inequality. In contrast, strategic and symbolic choices concerning economic expansion (Duchêne 2011, p. 84) that lead to a policy of openness to linguistic and cultural diversity, with the avowed aim of adapting to customers (farmers) and specific market conditions, help to make the interviewees feel more secure and give them a more realistic, pragmatic view of multilingual skills (unbalanced bilingualism). Finally, the more linguistic approach to the polyphony attributed to individual enunciators allows a clearer identification of the shifts and tensions revealed by representations of multilingualism in the various companies. This additional – and in our view essential – analysis shows that the interviewees seldom merely transpose social availabilities that pre-exist the discourse. This observation by no means detracts from the need to identify the features of collective monophony in advance. The very fact that the interviewees are aware of the dominant ideology enables them, depending on the context, to reappropriate the prevailing discourses or, on the contrary, to distance themselves from them. In so doing, they express a need to identify with a group or to mark their individual identities. Finally, the epistemological options adopted in our study reveal that multilingualism and the management of diversity in companies give rise to representations whose collective and individual dimensions are closely intertwined. This complexity – reflected in the fact that clear boundaries cannot be drawn between the two – is something that decision-makers need to be aware of.

 Arlette Bothorel-Witz & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger

Transcription conventions Overlapping sequences

[…]

Truncation

-

Non-standard elision

`

Lengthened vowel

:

Reactions such as laughter, sneezing, coughing

((laughter))

Rising intonation

/

Falling intonation

\

Emphasis (the emphasised syllable is in capitals)

CAP

short pause medium pause long pause

* ** ***

References Abric, Jean-Claude. 1994. Pratiques sociales et représentations. Paris: PUF. Bardin, Laurence. 1977. L'analyse de contenu. Paris: PUF. Berthoud, Anne-Claude. 1996. Paroles à propos: approche énonciative et interactive du topic. Paris: Ophrys. Berthoud, Anne-Claude. 2000. “Des “formes émergentes” pour l’interaction.” In Modèles du discours en confrontation, ed. by A.-C. Berthoud, and L. Mondada, 205–218. Berne: Peter Lang. Billiez, Jacqueline and Agnès Millet. 2000. “Représentations sociales: trajets théoriques et méthodologiques.” In Les représentations des langues et de leur apprentissage: références, modèles, données et méthodes, ed. by D. Moore, 31–49. Paris: Didier. Blanchet, Philippe. 2003. “Contacts, continuum, hétérogénéité, polynomie, organisation “chaotique”, pratiques sociales, interventions… Quels modèles pour une sociolinguistique de la complexité?” In Langues, contacts, complexité: perspectives théoriques en sociolinguistique, ed. by P. Blanchet, and D. de Robillard, 279–308. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Blanchet, Philippe. 2005. “Minorations, minorisations, minorités: essai de théorisation d’un processus complexe.” Cahiers de sociolinguistique 10: 17–47. Bothorel-Witz, Arlette, and Thiresia Choremi. 2009. “Le plurilinguisme dans les entreprises à vocation internationale: comment saisir ce phénomène pluridimensionnel à travers le discours des acteurs?” Sociolinguistica 23: 104–130. Bothorel-Witz, Arlette, and Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger. 2009. “Les processus de minoration et de ­majoration dans le discours sur les langues et les pratiques dans des entreprises à vocation internationale (implantées en Alsace).” In Contextes régionaux plurilingues et activités économiques: études de cas en Alsace, en Bretagne et en Provence, ed. by D. Huck, and R. Kahn, 43–91. Paris: L’Harmattan. Calvet, Louis-Jean. 1999. Pour une écologie des langues du monde. Paris: Plon. Canut, Cécile. 2000. “Subjectivité, imaginaires et fantasmes des langues: la mise en discours épilinguistique.” Langage et société 93: 72–97. Canut, Cécile, and Alexandre Duchêne. 2011. “Instrumentalisations politiques et économiques des langues: le plurilinguisme en question.” Langage et société 136: 5–12.



Chapter 4.  Representations of multilingualism and management of linguistic diversity 

Castellotti, Véronique. 2009. “Réflexivité et pluralité/diversité/hétérogénéité: soi-même comme DES autreS?” Cahiers de sociolinguistique 14: 129–144. Cavalli, Marisa, Daniela Coletta, Laurent Gajo, Marinette Matthey, and Cecilia Serra (eds). 2003. Langues, bilinguisme et représentations sociales au Val d’Aoste. Aosta: IRRE. Culioli, Antoine. 1990. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, vols. I–III. Paris: Ophrys. Duchêne, Alexandre. 2011. “Néolibéralisme, inégalités sociales et plurilinguisme: l’exploitation des ­ressources langagières et des locuteurs.” Langage et société 136: 81–108. Francard, Michel (with Geneviève Geron, and Régine Wilmet eds). 1994. “L’insécurité linguistique dans les communautés francophones périphériques.” Vol. II, Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 20 (1–2): 145. Gajo, Laurent. 1997. “Représentations du contexte ou représentations en contexte? Élèves et ­enseignants face à l’apprentissage de la langue.” In Contacts de langues et représentations, ed. by M. Matthey, 9–27. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel. Gajo, Laurent. 2003. “Approche comparative des données suisses et valdôtaines.” In Langues, bilinguisme et représentations sociales au Val d’Aoste, ed. by M. Cavalli, D. Coletta, L. Gajo, M. Matthey, and C. Serra, 518–558. Aosta: IRRE. Guimelli, Christian (ed.). 1994. Structures et transformations des représentations sociales. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé. Heller, Monica, and Josiane Boutet. 2006. “Vers de nouvelles formes de pouvoir langagier? Langue(s) et identité dans la nouvelle économie.” Langage et société 118: 5–16. Huck, Dominique, and Philippe Blanchet (eds). 2005. Minorations, minorisations, minorités. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Jodelet, Denise (ed.). 1989. Les représentations sociales. Paris: PUF. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2002. L’énonciation. Paris: Armand Colin. Matthey, Marinette (ed.). 1997. Contacts de langues et représentations. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel. Moliner, Pascal, and Maria Guterman. 2004. “Dynamique des descriptions et des explications dans une représentation sociale.” Papers on Social Representations, Textes sur les représentations sociales, 13, 2.1–2.12. Available online at http://www.psr.jku.at/ Mondada, Lorenza. 2004. “Représentations, stéréotypes, catégorisations: de nouvelles voies pour la sociolinguistique et la linguistique de l’acquisition?” In Un parcours au contact des langues: textes de Bernard Py commentés, ed. by L. Gajo, M. Matthey, D. Moore, and C. Serra, 257–260. Paris: Didier. Moscovici, Serge. 1961. La psychanalyse, son image, son public. Paris: PUF. Moscovici, Serge, and Georges Vignaux. 1994. “Le concept de Thêmata.” In Structures et transformations des représentations sociales, ed. by C. Guimelli, 25–72. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé. Py, Bernard. 2000. “Représentations sociales et discours: questions épistémologiques et méthodo­logiques.” TRANEL 32: 5–20. Py, Bernard. 2004. “Pour une approche linguistique des représentations sociales.” Langages 154: 6–19. Singy, Pascal. 1996. L’image du français en Suisse romande: une enquête sociolinguistique en Pays de Vaud. Paris: L’Harmattan. Truchot, Claude. 2008. Europe: l’enjeu linguistique. Paris: La documentation française. Truchot, Claude, and Dominique Huck. 2009. “Le traitement des langues dans les entreprises.” Sociolinguistica 23: 1–31.

chapter 5

A social representational perspective on languages and their management in the Danish corporate sector Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen Syddansk Universitet

The chapter reports the main results from an investigation into the social representations of multilingualism in the Danish corporate sector. Within the framework of social representation theory, which seeks to understand the nature of social knowledge and thinking, interview data from 12 Danish companies have been analysed with a view to exploring the representations of (a) German, French, Spanish, Chinese and (b) foreign language learning. In addition, the nature of corporate approaches to language are investigated, including the use of English as a corporate language, the use of native speakers, in-service language training, and the language requirements and assessment measures applied when recruiting. The analyses reveal that specific languages are represented differently but using the same categories of aesthetics, complexity, utility and status. Language learning is anchored in characteristics of the learner and the learning process. There is evidence that people see language learning as a special skill and that informal learning is evaluated more positively than formal, classroom learning. Tension surrounds understandings of language competence, which fluctuate between ideals of perfection and the pragmatics of actual use. With regard to language management, companies generally do not have any systematic strategy. Even when companies have adopted English as a corporate language, there is no explicit formulation about what this entails and individuals may represent the actual concept differently. In relation to languages other than English, there is a tendency for the multinational company to outsource its multilingual needs from the Danish head office to native-speaking employees in affiliates or agents based in foreign markets.

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

5.1  Introduction This chapter deals with the social representations of actors in the corporate sector in Denmark with respect to multilingualism and examines the relationship between these representations and corporate language management. As such, it is concerned with social knowledge about languages and their management, aiming to bring a social psychological dimension to the investigation of multilingualism in the business context. The focus is on two main research questions: a. How do actors in the corporate context represent specific languages and processes of language learning? b. What forms of corporate language management are in evidence and how do these relate to social representations of languages and language learning? Given that multilingualism in many instances involves some form of second or ­foreign language acquisition, it is important to ascertain what people think about not only specific languages, but also general processes of language learning. This is of particular significance in Denmark where a long history of reliance on other languages for international functions is undergoing change in that foreign language learning (with the exception of English) is seriously on the wane, an issue of concern to both educationalists and the Confederation of Danish Industry (Mondahl et al. 2011). The overall ethos of the Dylan project is to promote multilingualism by showing that it is an asset, or has the potential of being an asset, for knowledge-based societies. Hence, one of the Dylan objectives is “to identify the conditions that need to be met in order for the development and use of multilingual repertoires….to be prioritized so that they may contribute to the development of a knowledge-based society”. Clearly, both the development and use of such repertoires require support from relevant actors in the context in question, in our case private sector companies. It is, thus, vital to understand how employees and managers in business view the whole issue of languages, given that this knowledge may inform linguistic decision-making at both individual and corporate levels. As noted by Spolsky (2009: 4), perceptions and beliefs are a significant component of language policy, the most important beliefs being “the values or statuses assigned to named languages, varieties, and features”. Indeed, by bringing social representational perspectives to bear, the research should contribute to the development of a theory of language management, as urged by Spolsky (ibid.), which in turn will feed into research on language matters undertaken from the viewpoints of organisational communication (e.g. Feely & Harzing 2003; Lauring & Selmer 2011) and the sociolinguistics of globalisation (e.g. Blommaert 2010; Heller 2003, 2007; James 2009). Moreover, given the focus on the business context, the research will add a corporate



Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management 

­ imension to existing research on perceptions of multilingual norms and practices d (e.g. ­Aronin & Hufeisen 2009; Cruz-Ferreira 2010), and beliefs about languages and language learning (e.g. Breen 2001; Kalaja & Barcelos 2003).

5.2  Analytical framework The analytical framework is that of Social Representation Theory (henceforth ­abbreviated as SRT), which can be viewed as a social constructionist theory of social thinking, dealing particularly with everyday or common sense knowledge (­Jovchelovitch 2007; Kalampalikis & Haas 2008). SRT is not a homogeneous theory, but houses varying approaches. Quenza (2005: 79), for instance, refers to four frequent analytical perspectives: those which focus on meaning construction, and sensemaking of objects and events (e.g. Jodelet 1989; Moscovici 1961); those dealing with inter-group relations (e.g. Doise 1979); those with a discourse analytic focus (e.g. ­Billig 1988) and those which are more cognitive and structural in nature (e.g. the French structural approach of Abric 1984; Flament 1994a; Moliner & Gutermann 1994; see also Bothorel-Witz et al. this volume). The approach adopted in our research is oriented towards sense-making from a discursive perspective. It is interesting to note that qualitative discursive approaches within SRT have been acquiring increasing ­attention (see Marková 2000, 2003; Marková et al. 2007; Wagner & Hayes 2005).

5.2.1  Theoretical concepts Duveen and Lloyd (1990: 2) observe that the concept of social representation can be understood in two ways, as process (i.e. social representing) and as structure. In the latter meaning, a social representation may be viewed as a content, with some form of internal organisation, and typically characterised by sharedness within a group (see Bothorel-Witz et al. and Lüdi et al. this volume). The issue of consensuality is, however, highly debated within the theory (Molinari & Emiliani 1996; Raudsepp 2005; Staerklé et al. 2011) and, since representations are conceptualised as contextualised, dynamic, negotiated constructs (Wagner et al. 1999), reliant on the dialogical nature of human thinking (Bakhtin 1981; Billig 1993; Marková 2003), matters of dissent and conflict are seen as fundamental. Taking a perspective from Foucault (1988), social objects, events etc. need to be problematised, to become a source of questioning, analysis and intervention. In order to accommodate consensus and contestation, we have adopted the structural notion of the representational field, as suggested by Rose et al. (1995: 4), which allows for argument and debate to occur against a backdrop of “consensual reality which forms the common ground of historically shared meanings within which people

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

discuss and negotiate”. Social representations are characterised by a dualism or “­double orientation” (Marková 2000: 455): consensual and contested, stable and changing, made and ‘in the making’. Always co-constructed in the sense that representations are a t­ riadic relation between subject-other-object (Bauer & ­Gaskell 1999), once created they can acquire an autonomy (Moscovici 1988), what Gajo (2003: 520) captures in his labelling “préconstruction”, where such representations are in the discourse (“dans le discours”), as opposed to representations created through and for the discourse (“pour et par le ­discours”) (cf. Bothorel-Witz and Tsamadou-Jacoberger, Chapter 4 in this book). The process of social representation is usually discussed in terms of two interrelated notions: anchoring and objectification. Anchoring concerns naming and categorisation and is the means by which unfamiliar knowledge is compared and possibly integrated into existing knowledge, while objectification is the process by which the unfamiliar is made concrete or material, through, for instance the use of images or metaphor (Augoustinos et al. 2006). Marková (2000) views the two processes as complementary, even interdependent in that she sees anchoring as always involving objectification. While both play a part in stabilising and changing representations, she argues that anchoring tends towards the maintenance of existing knowledge. It should be noted, however, that it can be very difficult to distinguish between the two processes from an empirical perspective, as testified by blended terms such as metaphorical anchoring (Wagner 2007). Flick (1995) introduced the notion of retrospective anchoring to deal with the fact that it is difficult to capture anchoring live so to speak; however, anchoring processes can be accessed through retrospective accounts of objects and events, and the circumstances of their appearance. It is retrospective anchoring that is dealt with in this chapter.

5.2.2  Research methodology The research design encompasses a central data collection consisting of 37 individual interviews gathered from 12 companies, and alternative data collections, which were intended as contextualisation; for instance, an online questionnaire survey was carried out with 160 informants in 19 companies to ascertain the use of, competences in, and need for foreign languages (see Millar et al. 2012). These contextualisation data were used to inform the design of the main research instrument – the episodic interview (Flick, von Kardorff et al. 2000; Flick 2006), which combines personal and situated narrative, an experiential mode and more structured questioning that asks for theorizing and argumentation on the part of the interviewees. An interview guide was devised and piloted with managers from the central administration of the University of Southern Denmark. The interviews for the main study were carried out with managers and other white-collar employees in a range of companies (anonymised through the use of



Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management 

colour terms). Access to interviewees was gained partly through the questionnaire survey and partly through networking, but in most cases access was controlled by management in terms of the types and numbers of staff that could be involved. Interviews were conducted and recorded (audio only) in the companies and typically lasted 45 minutes.1 All companies in the database are international and, with the exception of a translation business (Pink), all are industrial and involved in the manufacture and/ or ­distribution of products. One company (Beige) is an affiliate of a German multinational. In terms of size, two companies can be categorised as medium, according to the European Commission’s definition of SME’s; the others are large enterprises. (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition/ index_en.htm). The interview data were transcribed orthographically, punctuation being used purely to ease the reading process. (It should be noted that in the extracts given here, a series of dots in brackets signals that material has been omitted). The interviews were then subjected to a content or thematic analysis, using ATLAS.ti software, a program developed specifically for qualitative analysis of different types of data. The content analysis permitted the development of a ­taxonomy of the themes that appear in the discourses of the interviewees, a procedure suggested by Buschini and ­Kalampalikis (2002) when studying social objects that are not “new”, such as languages, but constructed within an established knowledge system. These themes then formed the basis for further analysis in terms of, for example, anchoring and the representational field. The focus in this chapter will be on these thematic analyses of the qualitative interviews.

5.3  Results and discussion 5.3.1  Social representations of languages This analysis focused on the social representations of German, French, Spanish and ­Chinese, which were the languages (apart from English and the other Nordic l­ anguages) mentioned most frequently in the questionnaire responses regarding ­competences and needs. Narratives and theorising about languages were provoked by various questions, e.g. personal language biographies (where interviewees referred both to educational and workplace contexts), a trigger question about which language(s) one would like to learn if this could be achieved by clicking one’s fingers, and why. The analysis revealed

.  Interviews were carried out by Sylvie Cifuentes, Sharon Millar and Mikkel Flyverbom.

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

a number of recurring themes, namely aesthetics, complexity,2 status and utility of languages. It is worth noting that social thinking about languages appeals to perceived ontological characteristics (e.g. the inherent beauty or difficulty of a language) that traditionally have been given little place in expert thinking (see, for instance, S­ ampson 2009 on complexity of languages). The social representation of each language is anchored variably due to the differing distribution of the themes in terms of how often they are mentioned, the nature of their evaluation (positive or negative) and the degree of consensus across interviewees. For instance, the representational fields of Spanish and Chinese are highly consensual whereas those for German and French exhibit more tension. This variation has been captured quantitatively in order to illustrate the levels of consensus across themes; frequency, however, has no necessary relation to salience (Flament 1994b). By way of example, we will take the cases of German and Spanish (Tables 1 and 2). Table 1.  Representational field of German Interviewees mentioning German (N = 36) 70%

Positive

60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

Negative

Positive Negative

Negative

Negative Positive

10% Positive

0%

Utility

Status

Aesthetic

Complexity

.  Complexity is used as a superordinate term here and reflects the discursive constructions of interviewees, who refer to the ease or difficulty of learning a language, which they typically relate to linguistic structure (usually grammar and occasionally phonetics). For interviewees, the distinction is binary – easy or difficult – where the former is seen as positive and the latter negative. From an expert research perspective, complexity as a notion is considerably more challenging and problematic, but it nonetheless deals with similar issues (linguistic structure, language acquisition) (Miestamo et al. 2008; Sampson et al. 2009). Questions concerning the relationship between types of society and linguistic complexity (see Trudgill 2009) are not touched upon by interviewees.



Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management 

German is negatively anchored in terms of aesthetic characteristics (typically expressed as “ugly” or “hard”) and complexity (typically expressed as “difficult”), but positively anchored in terms of utility (mostly expressed in terms of its usefulness for business). There is less agreement in relation to the status of the language; equal numbers perceive German as having a high and low status (in terms of, for example, its demographic importance). For instance, both utility and status are addressed by a sales manager from Green company when he observes the corporate usefulness, albeit diminishing, of German as a lingua franca in eastern Europe: (1)  det er jo en meget stor hjælp specielt på den lidt ældre generation i østlandene sådan nogen som mange i Polen taler jo tysk og lidt i Slovakiet og i Tjekkiet og så videre der taler tysk og i Ungarn og så videre. Der er der faktisk nogen gange nogen der taler, i hvert fald den ældre generation taler mere tysk end de taler engelsk så derfor er det da fint at vi kunne tale det, men vi kan se på de nye der kommer nu, de taler engelsk it is a big help especially with the little older generation in the Eastern ­countries, like many people in Poland speak German and a little in Slovakia and in the Czech Republic and so on, who speak German and in Hungary and so on. Actually there are some who sometimes speak, at any rate the older generation speak more German than they speak English, so that’s why it is fine that we can speak it, but we can see that the new people who come now, they speak English Table 2.  Representational field of Spanish Interviewees mentioning Spanish (N = 36) 40%

Positive

35% 30%

Positive

25%

Positive

20%

Positive

15% 10% Negative

5% 0%

Negative

Utility

Negative

Status

Negative

Aesthetic

Complexity

In contrast to German, there is a general positive anchoring of Spanish as, for example, a “beautiful”, “easy” or “important” language. The most frequent theme  is  ­utility,

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

which is associated with both business and private (e.g. holidays) domains. A perceived need for the language is linked to the difficulties in using English in Spanish-­speaking contexts, as is also the case for French. This discursive construction is particularly ­apparent in responses to the trigger question about learning a language through a click of the fingers. In the following extracts, interviewees from three different companies refer to difficulties experienced in the work context due to lack of linguistic ability: (2)  hvor har jeg virkelig haft et problem, det skulle nok være spansk faktisk, men sådan mest på grund af det jeg laver nu ikke, og det ville åbne nogle døre i Sydamerika og det ville også gøre lidt i USA på nogle punkter where I have really had a problem, it should probably be Spanish actually, but mostly because of what I do now, you know, and it would open some doors in South America and it would also work a bit in the USA on some points (Sales Manager, Purple company) (3)  det skulle være spansk fordi det er så stort område og det beskæftiger vi os ikke så meget med pga. sprogbarrierer, så rent fagligt igen så skulle det være spansk it should be Spanish because it is a big area and we don’t deal with it so much because of language barriers so professionally it should be Spanish (Managing Director, Carmine company) (4)  jeg vil sige allerede nu ville det faktisk hjælpe mig hvis jeg kunne noget mere [fransk] fordi engang imellem har vi svært ved at kommunikere med vores franske kolleger selv om de burde kunne godt engelsk så er realiteten altså desværre en anden og det samme gør sig gældende for spansk. Det ville også være en stor hjælp hvis jeg kunne bare lidt spansk I would say already now it would actually help me if I knew more [French] because now and again we have trouble communicating with our French colleagues even though they ought to be able to speak English so the r­ eality is unfortunately different and the same applies to Spanish. It would be a big help if I just had a little Spanish (Support Coordinator, Red ­company) What is explicit in the final extract is the social representation of English as the ­language that one ought to be able to speak. We will return to this issue below.

5.3.2  Social representations of language learning Language learning is anchored in two major groups of themes: the characteristics of the learner, which include ability, interest, effort, age and memory, and the characteristics of the process, which include types of learning (informal and formal) and types of competence. There is a greater consensus surrounding the characteristics of the language learner than the learning process. For present purposes, we will focus on the notion of the language learner’s ability, which is often associated with interest.



Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management 

Ability is characterised mainly in terms of a talent for languages, frequently objectified through the familiar metaphor ear for languages (sprogøre), which may be constructed in binary terms – one has or has not that talent – and may be seen in opposition to a flair for mathematics and science. These forms of discursive constructions are exemplified in the following extracts: (5)  Det har jeg forholdsvis let ved. Det er nok noget meget personligt om man har let ved det eller ikke har let ved det, men der vil jeg mene at jeg har sprogøre That’s [learning languages] relatively easy for me. It’s probably very personal whether it’s easy or not easy, but in that respect I think I have an ear for languages (Project and Administrative Director, Yellow company) (6)  Jeg har aldrig været sådan en haj til sprog. Altså i skolen var de tekniske ting matematik fysik kemi min stærke side. Sprog har jeg egentlig altid været ­dårligst til I’ve never been like a genius at languages. I mean in school the technical things, mathematics, physics, chemistry, were my strong side. Language I’ve actually always been the worst at (Development Director, Green company) These either/or categorisations of linguistic talent are somewhat different from the thinking underlying the notion of double competence (i.e. professional competence in two fields, e.g. engineering and Spanish), which has been a topic of discussion at various conferences co-organised by the Confederation of Danish Industry in recent years. Interestingly, it has been suggested by researchers that there may be a link between brain structure and language aptitudes (Golestani et al. 2007). As for aspects of the learning process, competence is related to quality (e.g. good/ bad), types of skill (e.g. speaking, understanding etc.) and types of activity (e.g. ordering a meal, negotiating etc.). It is here that we see evidence of languages being fragmented into parts on the basis of use. Quality is constructed within a framework of ideal perfection or nativeness, but there are tensions in the representational field, where content, i.e. getting the message across, takes precedence over perfection of form. This tension is exemplified in the following extract by the managing director from Carmine company, where both the ideal of perfection and the pragmatics of actual use are in evidence: (7)  der klarer jeg mig på tysk, egentlig også okay. Det er ikke perfekt, altså jeg kan ikke gå for at være tysker. Der er ikke nogen tvivl om jeg ikke kan, men altså jeg kan godt gøre mig forståelig på en fornuftig måde there I manage in German actually okay. It’s not perfect, I mean I couldn’t pass for a German. There is no doubt that I couldn’t, but I mean I can make myself understood in a sensible fashion The exploitation of partial competence (e.g. receptive skills but not productive) is reported as a successful means of reaching understanding, and as such is a co-­constructed ­communicative resource. This form of multilingual practice (also noted by Lüdi et al.,

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

Chapter 3 in this book and Markaki et al., Chapter 1 in this book) is apparent in the narration below from a design coordinator from Red company: (8)  hvis jeg sidder i en samtale med en person ikke så siger jeg ‘prøv at sige det på tysk og så finder vi lige ud af det i stedet for ikke’ og så svarer jeg som regel på engelsk fordi det er det der med at udtrykke sig. Der er det svære også for tyskerne ikke? if I’m having a conversation with someone so I say ‘try to say it in G ­ erman and then we’ll work it out instead, right’ and then I as a rule answer in ­English because it’s the thing about expressing oneself. That’s what’s difficult, for the Germans as well, isn’t it? However, ideas of competence are context-bound, dependent on the nature of the communicative activity; for instance, certain written genres (those with legal or health and safety repercussions or those intended for marketing purposes) demand correctness and may often be composed by language professionals or be proof-read by native speakers within the company (see, for example, Section 3.1.3). Two types of learning processes are thematised: learning by doing and learning in formal contexts (e.g. the classroom). The effectiveness of these two types is perceived differently; learning by doing is accepted as efficient, but formal learning, be this in a school or a work context (i.e. in-service language training) is problematised. In the school context, issues include a lack of interest, a lack of relevance and an exaggerated focus on grammar. In the work context, issues include the lack of opportunity to use the language, the lack of time for language learning given the pressures of work and the relevance of teaching materials (e.g. too general and not specific enough for actual needs). For instance, in the following extract, the Commercial Director from Blue company, referring to some language training given to an employee, emphasises the overriding importance of regularly using a language: (9)  får han sådan en 20 timers brush up på det men det flytter jo ikke rigtigt ­noget. Altså det når man ikke arbejder med det til hverdag så er det jo nærmest håbløst at lære folk et sprog he got a sort of 20-hour brush-up but that doesn’t make much difference. I mean when you don’t work with it everyday it’s almost hopeless to teach people a language

5.3.3  Corporate language strategies The language strategies that will be considered here are the use of a corporate l­ anguage, language requirements and testing used when recruiting, in-service language training, and the use of native speakers.



Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management 

5.3.3.1  English as a corporate language That seven companies in our sample should use English as a corporate language is an unremarkable finding given that the strategy of using a common language platform to deal with linguistic diversity in corporate communications is well-established in Denmark as it is elsewhere in the world (Truchot & Huck 2009). The Confederation of Danish Industries, for instance, report that one in four Danish companies has opted for this particular solution (CDI 2007). While useful, such survey statistics reveal little about how English as a corporate language is understood, the assumption being that everyone knows what a corporate language means and that this knowledge is the same within or across companies. Our data suggests that this assumption is misguided, at least in relation to our sample, where no company seems to have formulated explicitly what a corporate language involves (we will discuss later why this might be the case). Rather, the concept of English as a corporate language is primarily anchored at employee level. The representational field for English as a corporate language includes a binary opposition: language exclusiveness and language inclusiveness. Language exclusivity is absolute and not sensitive to context, meaning there is no space for languages other than that chosen as the corporate linguistic platform. This monolingual anchoring manifests itself in various ways. In companies that have English as a corporate language, interviewees may question the extent to which the company can be said to have a corporate language since Danish is widely used: (10)  Jeg vil ikke sige det altid virker optimalt men det er i teorien i hvert fald engelsk. Der er forholdsvis mange danskere i ledende poster rundt omkring og det gør at der bliver talt meget dansk I wouldn’t say it always works optimally but in theory at any rate English. There are relatively many Danes in leading positions round and about and that means a lot of Danish is spoken. (Knowledge Management Specialist, Red company) Or, interviewees may use the existence of a corporate language to argue against the use of other languages within the company or note that they allow themselves to use other languages even though the corporate language is English: (11) selvom vores koncernsprog er engelsk så tillader vi os at bruge det tyske although our corporate language is English, we allow ourselves to use ­German (Managerial Secretary, Brown company) In companies that do not have a corporate language a similar reasoning, but from the opposite perspective, is apparent; other languages, e.g. Danish, German, are used because English is not the corporate language. The contrasting idea to language exclusiveness, language inclusiveness, is context-sensitive and compatible with the use of

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

other languages. It can be seen as a bi/multilingual anchoring that takes account of differing communicative functions and tasks within the organisation. This anchoring is rarer and manifests itself in managerial accounts of how the corporate language is operationalised, for example, English for software systems, data storage, reports and other forms of overarching corporate communications, and local languages elsewhere. It is also apparent in reactions to practices within or outside the company. The founder and former managing director of Green company, when discussing relations between English and Danish in Denmark, heavily criticises other Danish companies for their exclusive use of English, i.e. he is challenging the idea of language exclusiveness as part of the corporate language concept: (12)  specielt hvis man gør det at vi brugte her engelsk som koncernsprog og så kun talte engelsk til hinanden her (….) Så hvis de ­virksomheder der har engelsk som koncernsprog (….) der er de med til at ­undergrave sproget (….) Det er ikke umiddelbart aktuelt her altså så som sådan fordi vi kører det er at vi bruger det engelske til at arkivere efter og til at køre alle de her ting efter så altså det er internationalt ligegyldigt om det er Polen eller England eller hvem det er der kommunikerer ind, men de enkelte steder bruger man sådan set sit eget sprog Particularly if you do it where we used English as a corporate language and so only spoke English to each other here (….) So if the companies that have English as a corporate language (….) they are helping to undermine the language [Danish] (….) This isn’t the case here you know as such because we run it so that we use English for filing and for running all these things so I mean it’s international regardless of whether it’s Poland or England or whoever is communicating, but the individual places use more or less their own language It is worth noting that Green company has a strong tradition of multilingualism and hence the corporate culture is likely to encourage a bi/multilingual anchoring of the corporate language. Indeed, it is this multilingual culture that leads some of the employees to maintain that the company does not have a corporate language and has no plans to introduce one; these employees clearly have a monolingual anchoring of the notion. Since the corporate language concept tends to be associated with a specific ­language, English, the representation of this language is likely to form a significant backdrop to the corporate language strategy. The themes mentioned most frequently in relation to English are its utility and status as a global language; aesthetics was only referred to once (a nice language) and complexity was introduced on three occasions, where English was categorised as an easy language. The utility of English is expressed in familiar terms regarding its prevalence of use, the need for the language and its function as a common language (i.e. lingua franca). This function is due not only to



Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management 

the efficiency of the language as a means of communication and knowledge transfer (cf. Bothorel-Witz et al. Lüdi et al. this volume), but also its fairness, in the sense of inclusiveness, i.e. a way of connecting people to the group, and equality, i.e. everyone is speaking a foreign language. The latter view is expressed by an HR consultant from Orange company when explaining why English was introduced as a corporate language (the company has no native English-speaking affiliates): (13)  det har i hvert fald været argumentet efterfølgende at vi ikke ville tage tysk som koncernsprog fordi så har, hvad skal man sige, på et eller andet plan har tyskerne så en urimelig fordel. Når vi taler engelsk så er der ikke nogen af os der har det som modersmål It was argued subsequently that we wouldn’t have German as a corporate language because, how should one put it, at some level the Germans have an unreasonable advantage. When we speak English so there is none of us that has it as a native language Again we are reminded of how important local contexts and power relations are for interpretations of phenomena such as fairness (for instance, Bothorel-Witz and ­Tsamadou-Jacoberger, Chapter 4 in this book, note rather different ideas of linguistic fairness in Alsace). Of interest too is how English is constructed as a foreign language; native and non-native is still an important categorisation in social knowledge about English in its lingua franca function, although the expert literature prefers to move away from such notions (­Seidlhofer 2011). Although the representational field of ­English is highly consensual, there is some tension regarding the extent to which English is in fact common to all. This questioning of utility is often the result of experience, where the social representation of English has been challenged by the poor competence in English of specific groups: older age-groups, certain job functions (e.g. blue collar workers) and certain nationalities (e.g. the French, the Spanish and Latin-­ Americans, the Germans). For instance, the head of training from Sienna ­company notes that inadequate skills in English among employees from lower levels in the organisational hierarchy mean that they are unable to train these people at head office: (14)  indenfor mit fag hvor vi kører uddannelse og træning for folk, der er visse niveauer i organisationen hvor vi må sige dem kan vi ikke træne her fra fordi der skal vi kunne det lokale sprog in my area where we deal with education and training for people, there are certain levels in the organisation where we have to say we can’t train them here because we would need to know the local language Since in SRT, action is also seen as an expression of a social representation, we would argue that these corporate practices indicate tensions in the representational field of English with regard to its utility as a common linguistic platform.

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

5.3.3.2  Language requirements and assessment at recruitment level Companies typically require that new recruits have some competency in English, but none have any type of formalised procedures for checking competence levels. Four companies do carry out some form of testing for specific job functions, in particular sales. Such checks may be in the form of a translation test or a dialogue during the actual interview. The translation company Pink, for example, tests the abilities of their freelance translators, and new permanent employees may be tested by being asked to comment on a text. For the most part, however, companies rely on what is written in the job application about language abilities, be these in English or other languages: (15)  det kan selvfølgelig være naivt, men jeg formoder selvfølgelig hvis de fortæller mig at de taler flydende tysk, så regner jeg bestemt med det It can of course be naive but I assume of course if they tell me that they speak fluent German, so I absolutely trust that (Sales Manager, Purple ­company) (16)  det tjekker vi egentlig ikke og vi sørger egentlig ikke for. Altså det jo igen den der learning by doing, altså vi sir’, ej men det kan de nok, men det jo også fordi vi har en eller anden forventning om at hvis du ansætter en dansker, de fleste de kan altså. De har jo lært det i skolen We actually don’t check and we don’t provide for it. I mean it’s again this learning by doing. I mean we say, of course they probably can but it’s also because we have some sort of expectation that if you employ a Dane, most can I mean. They’ve learnt it [English] you know in school (Managing ­Director, Carmine company) There is evidence of two social representations in the explanation given by this managing director. One is the social representation of language learning, where a pragmatic approach was observed in relation to competence and where efficiency was claimed for informal learning. The other is the social representation of Danes as a national group. There is mostly agreement in the data that Danes are generally good at English, especially when compared with other nationalities (Millar & Jensen 2009), and selfevaluation of abilities in English tend to be very positive (a finding also confirmed by the questionnaire survey). In short, the linguistic skills of Danes in English are not seen as a problem and, thus, they do not require any form of solution.

5.3.3.3  In-service language training All the companies except Pink provide in-service language training, although this is rarely done strategically. Generally, it is a bottom-up process where employees take the initiative and request language courses. Languages mentioned in the data include ­English, German, Spanish, French and Italian. From a social representational ­perspective, we can observe elements of the social representation of language learning



Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management 

in corporate practice: learner interest, for example, is heavily relied on and learning as teaching, i.e. formal learning, predominates. In some cases, companies have, or have had, a semi-strategic approach, often related to the introduction of English as a corporate language. For instance, Red company has offered English courses for new recruits in Denmark and their French affiliate insists that employees take English courses. Orange company offered intensive English courses when they introduced English as a corporate language, especially in their German affiliate. In Yellow company, English courses are offered in their Vietnam affiliate, but were stopped in Denmark due to lack of interest. That English courses are offered testifies to the tensions mentioned above in the social representation of English. That courses are offered to, or requested by, Danes would also indicate that the representational field surrounding the social representation of Danes as good at English is not entirely consensual.

5.3.3.4  Use of native speakers A common practice in the larger companies in the sample is to exploit their multinational status by using native speaking employees in their affiliates or local agents to carry out language-related tasks, such as translation or contacts with customers and suppliers, in languages other than English. For instance, in Green company, which has about 40 agents in total around the world, translation work is part of their contracts. This outsourcing of linguistic needs from the head office often requires the use of ­English as a facilitating medium between the local employees/agents and the head office in Denmark. However, in cases where employees at the Danish head office are familiar with the language concerned, or where the agent is not so skilled in E ­ nglish, communication may take place in that language. When commented on, the communication is generally reported to be successful despite some perceived language ­difficulties. A managerial secretary from Brown company, for example, relates her past experience with an agent in Spain who had no English: (17)  vores gamle agent dernede der ikke hvor det er sønnen nu der han kunne faktisk ikke noget engelsk det var jo altid på spansk dengang (….) Jeg var da rystet når han ringede fordi jeg var da bange for at jeg ikke kunne forstå hvad han sagde men han var så tålmodig og blev ved (….) så det endte alligevel meget godt. Han var meget meget pædagogisk og talte meget langsomt og gentog det indtil jeg havde fattet det our old agent down there, you know, where it’s the son now he actually didn’t know English. It was always in Spanish at that time (….) I was so shaken when he rang because I was so scared that I couldn’t understand what he said but he was so patient and persisted (….) so it ended up well anyway. He was very, very pedagogical and spoke very slowly and repeated it until I had got it

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

The use of local employees and agents serves practical functions, allowing companies to cope with a wide range of differing languages and markets. However, it is a practice that may also be evidence of the social representation of language competence as native. For example, agents may be used to proof-read external marketing communication by virtue of their status as native speakers, as explained by the senior vice director from Green company: (18)  ja, ofte gør vi så det til slut når vi er færdige med den så sender vi det så ud til agenten og så går agenten den igennem i på sit modersmål og så det gør vi det. Det er næsten dem alle sammen som gør det. De får lov at læse korrektur Yeah, often at the end when we are done with it we send it out to the agent and the agent goes through it in his mother tongue and so we do that. It’s almost all of them who do this. They are allowed to proof-read

5.4  Discussion and implications The core Dylan question revolves around the idea of multilingualism as an asset rather than a problem and how this asset might be developed. In answering the question, a distinction has to be made between individual and corporate levels. From both an individual and a corporate perspective, abilities in English are unequivocally a resource or perhaps more accurately a commodity, understood in Heller’s (2010: 102) sense of technical skill. There is a consensual social representation of English as the language of the ultimate status and utility, skills in which are seen as obligatory in international business and legitimized to such an extent that they are simply natural. The tensions in the representational field, which concern the commonness of skills in English, seem to relate to perceptions of who can or cannot be expected, or demanded, to be part of the corporate community of English speakers (national group, age group and job category) (cf. Bothorel-Witz and Tsamadou-Jacoberger, Chapter 4 in this book, in relation to age dimensions). At issue here are power relations, not just in terms of the legitimisation of English, but the enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of members of corporate organisations (Bothorel-Witz & Choremi 2009; Frederiksson et al. 2006). The social representation of English impacts on the social representations of other languages in that their utility is in part viewed in terms of the lack of English competences of certain national groups (e.g. French, Spanish, Latin Americans). In this sense, the value of foreign languages other than English has become dependent on English, a relation which is subject to globalisation trends given the increased learning of English as a foreign and second language (Graddol 2006). But multilingualism, understood as involving languages other than English, cannot be reduced entirely to a relationship of absence. At a corporate level, these languages are seen as a resource for both external and internal communications. Although not always systematically m ­ anaged,



Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management 

multilingual resources may be organised in-house through selective recruitment or outsourcing from the Danish head office to relevant affiliates and agents. The latter practice relies on native-speaking skills combined with abilities in English as a mediating language and obviates the need for multilingual skills among individual employees at the head office. Language outsourcing can be seen as commodifying language in terms of authenticity (Heller 2003) given that the native language is often linked to authentic identities (Myhill 2003). The companies who use language outsourcing assign positive value to (and assume the positive value of) the authentic linguistic skills of native-speaking employees. As for foreign language skills (other than in English), their value within a company depends on perceived needs, and in-service language training similarly rests on need, typically as perceived by the individual employee. Language training is a matter of request in most of the companies and is rarely an issue of corporate strategy. What is clear is that from both an individual and corporate perspective, opportunities to use the language in the workplace are vital in relation to the desirability of in-service language training. Similarly, learning by doing requires that there are occasions when foreign language skills can be put into action. The shrinking of contexts for using foreign languages other than English (e.g. language outsourcing, use of corporate language) is, consequently, a potential danger to the development of multilingual skills and repertoires. Of some interest is the tension observable in the social representation of language learning concerning competence. The representational field contains two seemingly opposing elements: the ideal of perfection and pragmatism of use. This opposition can disappear, however, when the specifics of the communicative situation and function of the communication are taken into account. There are clear signs in the representation of a functional multilingualism (cf. Lüdi et al., Chapter 3 in this book) that is acceptable for certain types of communication, e.g. spoken interaction, informal emails, where the main purpose is to get the message across and ultimately to get the job in hand done (cf. Millar & Jensen 2009). As the very label suggests, functional multilingualism is driven by an instrumental notion of language; indeed instrumentality pervades a great deal of social representation about languages in the corporate sector (e.g the utility of specific languages, the relevance of and need for language learning, and perhaps the lack of strategic management regarding language in general, apart from the choice of corporate language). However, the quality aspects of competence (correctness, perfection, nativeness), historically well-established targets for foreign language learning, do apply to specific communicative genres and involve perceptions of corporate image. In particular, more formal and often technical written genres are seen through the lens of language quality; indeed, these forms of communication are subject to direct managerial control and may be the responsibility of language professionals. Perfection and pragmatism are, thus, often in a complementary relation to each other. That this should be the case is not surprising. Different types of linguistic

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen

activity will be assigned different values by different actors (e.g. corporations, individual employees) and will operate at different levels of normativity (Blommaert 2010). Finally, it should be remembered that the research reported here has focused on larger multinational companies and their white-collar Danish employees, the ­majority of whom are based in the head office. The findings thus relate to this group only. It would be fruitful to conduct social representational studies with those groups of ­employees specifically mentioned by the interviewees in our sample, particularly ­blue-collar ­workers and non-Danish colleagues in foreign affiliates. Giving a voice to their perspectives on language matters is likely to add other dimensions to issues of language needs, ­practices, management and commodification in multinational companies.

References Abric, Jean-Claude. 1994. (ed.). Practiques Sociales et Représentations. Paris: PUF. Aronin, Larissa, and Britta Hufeisen (eds). 2009. The Exploration of Multilingualism. Development of Research on L3, Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Augoustinos, Martha, Iain Walker, and Ngaire Donaghue. 2006. Social Cognition. An Integrated Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. ed. by Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin/London: University of Texas Press. Barcelos, Ana Maria Ferreira. 2003. “Researching Beliefs about SLA: A Critical Review.” In Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches, ed. by P. Kalaja, and A.M.F. Barcelos, 7–34. ­Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bauer, Martin, and George Gaskell. 1999. “Towards a Paradigm for Research on Social ­Representations.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 29 (2): 163–186. Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Billig, Michael. 1988. “Social Representation, Objectification and Anchoring: A Rhetorical Analysis.” Social Behaviour 3: 1–16. Billig, Michael. 1993. “Studying the Thinking Society: Social Representations, Rhetoric, and Attitudes.” In Empirical Approaches to Social Representations, ed. by G.M. Breakwell, and G.V. Canter, 39–62. Oxford: Clarendon. Bothorel-Witz, Arlette, and Thiresia Choremi. 2009. “Le plurilinguisme dans les entreprises à vocation internationale. Comment saisir ce phénomène pluridimensionnel à travers le ­discours des acteurs?” Sociolinguistica 23: 104–130. Breen, Michael (ed.). 2001. Learner Contributions to Language Learning.New Directions in Research. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Educational. Buschini, Fabrice, and Nikos Kalampalikis. 2002. “Synonymie, analogie et taxinomie: trois aspects de la thématisation pour l’étude des représentations sociales.” In Les Représentation Sociales. Balisage du Domaine d’Études, ed. by Catherine Garnier, and William Doise, 187–205. Montréal: Editions Nouvelles. Confederation of Danish Industry. 2007. “Danske virksomheder taler engelsk”. DI Business, No. 34. Cruz-Ferreira, Madalena. 2010. “Multilingualism, Language Norms and Multilingual Contexts.” In Multilingual Norms, ed. by Madalena Cruz-Ferreira, 1–18. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.



Chapter 5.  A social representational perspective on languages and their management 

Doise, William. 1979. Expériences entre Groupes. Paris: Mouton. Duveen, Gerald, and Barbara Lloyd. 1990. “Introduction”. In Social Representations and the Development of Knowledge, ed. by Gerald Duveen, and Barbara Lloyd, 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feely, Alan, and Anne-Wil Harzing. 2003. “Language Management in Multinational Companies.” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 10 (2): 37–52. Flament, Claude. 1994a. “Structure, dynamique et transformation des représentations sociales.” In Practiques Sociales et Représentations, ed. by Jean-Claude Abric, 37–58. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Flament, Claude. 1994b. “Consensus, salience and necessity in social representations – technical note”. Papers on Social Representations 3 (2): 97–105. Flick, Uwe. 1995. “Social Representations.” In Rethinking Psychology, ed. by J. Smith, R. Harré, and L. Langenbone, 70–96. London: Sage. Flick, Uwe. 2006. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications. Flick, Uwe, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke. 2000. Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Foucault, Michel. 1988. Politics, Philosophy, Culture. Interviews and Other Writings1977–1984. ed. by Lawrence Kritzman. London: Routledge. Frederiksson, Riikka, Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen, and Rebecca Piekkari. 2006. “The Multinational Corporation as a Multilingual Organization: The Notion of a Common Corporate ­Language.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal 11 (4): 406–423. Gajo, Laurent. 2003. “Approche comparative des données suisses et valdôtaines.” In Langues, Bilinguisme et Représentations sociales au Val D’Aoste, ed. by Marisa Cavalli, Daniela Coletta, L ­ aurent Gajo, Marinette Matthey, and Cecilia Serra, 518–558, Aoste: Irre-vda. Golestani, Narly, Nicolas Molko, Stanislas Dehaene, Denis Lebihan, and Christophe Pallier. 2007. “Brain Structure Predicts the Learning of Foreign Speech Sounds.” Cerebral Cortex 17 (3): 575–582. Graddol, David. 2006. English Next. London: British Council. Heller, Monica. 2003. “Globalization, the New Economy, and the Commodification of Language and Identity.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (4): 473–492. Heller, Monica. 2007. “Bilingualism as Ideology and Practice.” In Bilingualism: A Social Approach, ed. by M. Heller, 1–24. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Heller, Monica. 2010. “What is Meant by Commodification of Language? Why Worry about it Now?” Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 101–114. James, Allan. 2009. “Theorising English and Globalisation: Semiodiversity and Linguistic ­Structure in Global English, World Englishes and Lingua Franca English.” Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 3 (1): 79–92. Jodelet, Denise (ed.). 1989. Les Représentations Sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Jovchelovitch, Sandra. 2007. Knowledge in Context. Hove: Routledge. Kalampalikis, Nikos, and Valérie Haas. 2008. “More Than a Theory: A New Map of Social Thought.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 38 (4): 449–459. Lauring, Jakob, and Jan Selmer. 2011. “Multicultural Organisations: Common Language, ­Knowledge Sharing and Performance.” Personnel Review 40 (3): 324–343. Marková, Ivana. 2000. “Amédée or how to get rid of it: social representations from a dialogical perspective.” Culture & Psychology 6 (4): 419–460. Marková, Ivana. 2003. Dialogicality and Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge ­University Press.

 Sharon Millar, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen Marková, Ivana, Per Linell, and Michèle Grossen. 2007. Dialogue in Focus Groups: Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge. London: Equinox. Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson (eds). 2008. Language Complexity. ­Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Millar, Sharon, and Astrid Jensen. 2009. “Language Choice and Management in Danish ­Multinational Companies: The Role of Common Sense.” Sociolinguistica 23: 86–103. Millar, Sharon, Sylvie Cifuentes, and Astrid Jensen. 2012. “The Perception of Language Needs in Danish Companies: Representations and Repercussions.” Bulletin VALS/ASLA 95: 75–96. Molinari, Luisa, and Francesca Emiliani. 1996. “More on the Structure of Social Representations: Central Core and Social Dynamics.” Papers on Social Representations 5 (1): 41–49. Moliner, Pascal, and Maria Gutermann. 2004. “Dynamique des représentations et des ­explications dans une représentation sociale.” Papers on Social Representations 13: 2.1–2.12. Mondahl, Margrethe, Birgit Henriksen, Skovgaard Andersen, Rosenfeldt Mette, Skovborg Nanna, Mikkel Bülow, Alex Klinge, and Helle Birk. 2011. Sprogkernen: En Undersøgelse af Fremmedsprogsundervisning i det Almen Gymnasium. Frederiksberg: Institut for Internationale Sprogstudier og Vidensteknologi, Copenhagen Business School. Moscovici, Serge. 1976/1961. La Psychanalyse. Son Image et Son Public. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Moscovici, Serge. 1988. “Notes Towards a Description of Social Representations.” European ­Journal of Social Psychology 18: 211–250. Myhill, John. 2003. “The Native Speaker, Identity and the Authenticity Hierarchy.” Language ­Sciences 25 (1): 77–97. Quenza, Carlos José Parales. 2005. “On the Structural Approach to Social Representations.” ­Theory & Psychology 15 (1): 77–100. Raudsepp, Maaris. 2005. “Why is it so Difficult to Understand the Theory of Social Representations?” Culture & Psychology 11 (4): 455–468. Rose, Diana, Danielle Efraim, Marie-Claude Gervais, Helene Joffe, Sandra Jovchelovitch, and Nicola Morant. 1995. “Questioning Consensus in Social Representations Theory.” Papers on Social Representations 4 (2): 1–6. Sampson, Geoffrey. 2009. “A Linguistic Axiom Challenged.” In ed. by G. Sampson, D. Gil, and P. Trudgill, 1–18. Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill (eds). 2009. Language Complexity as an ­Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. “Conceptualising ‘English’ for a Multilingual Europe.” In English in Europe Today. Sociocultural and Educational Perspectives, ed. by Annick De Houwer, and Antje Wilton, 133–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Spolsky, Bernard. 2009. Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Staerklé, Christian, Alain Clémence, and Dario Spini. 2011. “Social Representations: A ­Normative and Dynamic Intergroup Approach.” Political Psychology 32 (5): 759–768. Truchot, Claude, and Dominique Huck. 2009. “Le traitement des langues dans les entreprises.” Sociolinguistica 23: 1–31. Trudgill, Peter. 2009. “Socioinguistic Typology and Complexification.” In ed. by G. Sampson, D. Gil, and P. Trudgill, 98–109. Wagner, Wolfgang. 2007. “Vernacular Science Knowledge: Its Role in Everyday Life Communication.” Public Understanding of Science 16 (1): 7–22. Wagner, Wolfgang, and Nicky Hayes. 2005. Everyday Discourse and Common Sense. ­Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

chapter 6

What can Gaelic teach us about effective policy through planning? Strategies in Gaelic language planning Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell Glasgow Caledonian University

This chapter presents focuses on the area of language policy in business. It discusses the relevance and effectiveness of strategies aiming toward bilingual Gaelic/English practices in workplace environments that address the need for capacity to work in two languages. The strategies under consideration are: translation services, as well as training & development. This chapter concludes with general recommendations for how the example of strategies used in Gaelic language policies can inform the development of policies in other areas.

6.1  Introduction This chapter concerns the content of language plans in Scotland that aim to see the increased use of Gaelic alongside English for work purposes. It will review and discuss two documents in depth, that were identified in our research as being of high relevance to companies adopting a bilingual policy. Terminology when discussing these and other language policy documents for Gaelic in Scotland can be problematic, as many public organisations throughout the nation are developing what are called “Gaelic Language Plans”. These highly formulaic plans are composed of individual strategies aimed toward increased use of Gaelic in public-facing workplace practice. For this reason, throughout this chapter, we will reserve the word “plan” to refer to documents in which the treatment of languages in workplace practices are discussed, and the word “strategy” to refer to any statements therein which clarify the who, what, where, when and how for achieving practice aimed toward bilingualism. The strategies that will be reviewed in this chapter are (a) the use of Translation Services to produce static (i.e. unchanging and non-interactive) bilingual content; and (b) the provision of Training and Development opportunities to help build internal capacity to operate

 Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell

bilingually. The costs and benefits of these strategies, as articulated to us in interview and survey, will be presented and we will use these two strategies to illustrate why it is that, when there is low internal capacity to operate bilingually, a plethora of strategies aimed at bilingual practice may make it more difficult and costly to enact an effective language policy.

6.1.1  Background In Scotland, it is increasingly the case that overt language plans are developed by organisations in an effort to clarify the situations in which Gaelic will be used alongside English. This is against the background of the passing of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, enacted by the Scottish Government in 2004. This aims to secure the status of the Gaelic language as an official language in Scotland, commanding equal respect with the English language. (Glasgow City Council 2008) These policy documents are, therefore effectively, guidelines that help the organisation to establish bilingualism in the work environment – an aim explicitly seen by the Scottish ­Government as progress towards the ‘normalisation’ of the language. This can be quite a difficult task due to the highly minoritised position of Gaelic in Scotland, both demographically and in terms of social perceptions. Gaelic is spoken by only 1.2% of the Scottish population (according to the 2001 census, GROS 2005), or 58,652 individuals. Demographic trends indicate that language shift is occurring for Gaelic, with there having been a loss of 7,326 speakers (approximately 9%) between 1991 and 2001 (ibid.). What this means in practical terms is that the number of people who are capable both of offering and receiving Gaelic service is low. Although there do not remain any Gaelic monolinguals in Scotland, everyone being able to converse in E ­ nglish by time of entry to Primary school, in some locations, particularly in the Islands of the North West, there remain areas where up to 60% of the population have Gaelic as their mother tongue and where it continues to be widely used within the family and to a lesser extent the community, (if not in the area of commerce or business). These demographic factors need also to be understood alongside social norms and language ideology that have influence over the domains in which Gaelic is used. It should be understood from the outset, that Gaelic is generally assigned lower instrumental value than English and this has ramifications on efforts to integrate the ­language into work practices. For example, an early study into speakers’ attitudes toward Gaelic, concluded that Gaelic was “perceived very realistically as lacking in status for job and career advancement despite its advances in the occupational sphere in recent years” (MacKinnon n.d.: n.p.). These attitudes seem to be reflective of or reflected in languaging practices, with the most recent Scottish nationwide survey on Gaelic concluding that “Gaelic language was thus the norm in the informal settings of home and with friends and a more limited occurrence in a more formal environment” (Scottish Government 2011). This is a conclusion that was also drawn in our



Chapter 6.  What can Gaelic teach us about effective policy through planning? 

own research, where a small business survey of 112 private companies affiliated with a Gaelic t­ ourism initiative found that only a small minority reported to use Gaelic for internal or external practices with any frequency. When ask to rate the frequency with which they used Gaelic on a Likert scale from 1–5 (never, rarely, sometimes, usually, always), 66 businesses indicated that they never used Gaelic the language either for internal or external practices. Frequency of Self-Reported language use: Internal Practices* Mean (SD)

External Practices**

Median

“Never use”

Mean (SD)

Median

“Never use”

Gaelic

1.9 (1.2)

1

66

1.7(1.0)

1

70

English

4.3(1.1)

5

9

4.4(1.0)

1

7

Scots

1.5(1.2)

1

94

1.5(1.1)

1

93

*number of valid cases 109 **number of valid cases 112

Whilst for many companies there still may be capacity issues that make it ­ ifficult to use Gaelic alongside English, there is evidence to suggest that the kinds of d ­negative attitudes toward Gaelic that used to be widespread in Scotland and becoming less and less prevalent. According to the preliminary findings of a 2011 study of representations of Gaelic in the print media (Chalmers, Irwin, Calvert forthcoming 2011), media representations of Gaelic seem generally to be positively slanted, with only one news outlet regularly taking a negative stance toward Gaelic, Gaelic users, and efforts to support the language. However, while attitudes may be changing and growing more positive toward Gaelic, there is certainly not a national consensus on the value of the language in terms of how much public expenditure should be committed to the language. There are many examples from the popular media of opponents critiquing the language and efforts to ensure its future use (e.g. Picken 2010; Roden 2010). Furthermore, a national study of 1,020 participants found that while attitudes toward Gaelic were generally more positive than negative, 28% agreed and 15% strongly agreed with a negatively worded statement, suggesting that Gaelic is not of value in contemporary society (MRUK 2003). In comparison, while the most recent survey on Gaelic conducted by Scottish Government found a small minority were antipathetic to Gaelic (9%), it also noted a large portion of the representative sample surveyed had no opinion toward the use of Gaelic “suggesting a lack of engagement with this issue amongst a sizeable segment of the population” (­Scottish Government 2011). Policies aiming toward the use of Gaelic in work practices must fight against a social norm concerning both the language’s utility and value in contemporary society, in addition to negotiating the practical challenges of working with a language that is not widely spoken.

 Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell

6.1.2  Purpose In addition to governmental action which has led to the installation of bilingual road signage on all major roads within the Gàidhealtachd (the traditional Gaelic speaking areas within Scotland) there is a growing number of organisations (both private and public enterprise) that are committing to a bilingual policy for Gaelic and English in Scotland. These policies can be translated into a formal plan, composed of strategies, that help to ensure the enactment of bilingualism. However, there is still relatively little knowledge about how these plans actually operate in practice. To date, only one review of Gaelic Language Plans has been written (Milligan, Danson, Chalmers 2011) and no close investigation into the effectiveness of specific strategies has been published. This chapter helps to address that gap in knowledge by focusing attention on translation and training and development as strategies. The proliferation of overt language policy in Scotland has a lot to do with the influence of Scotland’s Gaelic language planning body, Bòrd na Gàidhlig, and their ability to notify public organisations of the need to create written Gaelic Language Plans (an authority granted to the Bòrd in the Gaelic Language [Scotland] Act 2005). These Gaelic Language Plans are overt policy documents that detail the steps that will be taken by an organisation to increase the use of Gaelic; they are composed of many individual strategies that specify the ways in which Gaelic will be used. As of June 2011, 13 Gaelic Language Plans had been approved by the Bòrd and were being put into practice by the authoring organisations, and 21 public organisations in Scotland were in the process of developing a Gaelic Language Plan (Milligan et al. 2011). In addition to Gaelic Language Plans, there are other policies that concern the way in which Gaelic will be used for work purposes in Scotland, some overt and many more covert. In areas in which Gaelic is more commonly spoken, including many parts of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, the Highland Council, Argyll and Bute Council and urban areas like Glasgow and Edinburgh, businesses are sometimes choosing to adopt a covert policy in support of Gaelic and aim to use the language in their regular practices. The strategies these companies adopt to ensure the consistent use of Gaelic alongside English are as valid and informative as those that appear in Gaelic Language Plans. Strategies from both groups of policies (i.e. Gaelic Language Plans and private companies) will be taken into consideration in this chapter.

6.1.3  Research questions One of the main goals of our research was to provide useful suggestions as to what strategies would be beneficial to the creation of cost-effective language policies. Our overarching question was, “What is good policy?” and this question was used to help define smaller researchable questions that could be addressed within the lifespan of the Project.



Chapter 6.  What can Gaelic teach us about effective policy through planning? 

Being situated in the context of Scotland and focusing on the Gaelic language, we were most interested in ways that public organisations and private companies could introduce or increase the use of Gaelic in their work practices. A majority of the ­organisations and companies we worked with during the research project did not, in fact, find it ‘second nature’ to be using Gaelic alongside English and so the ­strategies they undertook as a part of language policy were effectively problem s­ olving. These strategies helped the organisations to clarify how they would go about using Gaelic alongside English and, in doing so, changing the language conventions of the workplace. In other chapters of this book, the active use of multiple languages in work ­contexts are discussed (e.g. Markak et al. this volume; Renaud, Taquechel, Grecco, this volume). This kind of multilingual activity, which involves the active and improvised use of multiple languages, relies on the linguistic repertoires of individuals within the workplace and can only happen when these players know many languages. What we will discuss in this chapter is slightly different to the work of many of our partners within the DYLAN Project, because we are giving attention to strategies for creating multilingual practices when the players may or may not know the languages being targeted. In other words, we are highlighting strategies that help organisations to achieve work practices that are bilingual in Gaelic and English, even in circumstances in which few, if any, of their staff know Gaelic. This study of strategies for creating bilingual work practices extends the existing body of research in the area, as relates to Gaelic in Scotland, with regard to Gaelic in the economy and overt language policies. The contribution that Gaelic makes to the economy of Scotland, particularly in the Arts and Culture sector, has been well ­demonstrated in contemporary research (Campbell et al. 2008; Chalmers & Danson 2009, 2006). This contribution to economy has been documented since the 1990s (Sproull 1996; Chalmers 2003) and, most recently, discussion has arisen about the role of Gaelic job creation and the media in encouraging a diaspora out of the traditional heartland of Gaelic, the Western Islands and Highlands, and into urban Glasgow (Chalmers & Danson 2009). Relatively less is known about the actual use of Gaelic within businesses, although some previous research does exist in this area (­Chalmers 2010; McEwan-Fujita 2008; MacLeod 2009). The work discussed in this chapter addresses the key issue of the use of Gaelic within the so-called Gaelic economy. With regard to previous research in the area of Gaelic language policy, research into the content of these kinds of policies has been undertaken by Walsh and McLeod (2008), Macleod (2008), and Milligan, O’Donnell and Chalmers (2009). Most recently, there has been a full assessment of the implementation of the inaugural Gaelic ­Language Plans approved by Bòrd na Gàidhlig (Milligan, Danson & Chalmers 2011). This assessment found that, whilst many of the recommended strategies for creating opportunities for the passive use of Gaelic in a work environment had been ­successfully

 Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell

implemented, more attention to capacity and attitudes building was needed, as this would increase the uptake of such opportunities for Gaelic language use. Some weaknesses have been identified with regard to the creation and implementation of language schemes/plans within the public sector, and that are highly relevant to Gaelic. For example, Walsh & McLeod have observed that some of the first language schemes created in Ireland, schemes which are comparable to Gaelic Language Plans, encouraged tokenistic use of Irish. They noted that it was dubious whether the public could conduct their business with the organisation in the minoritised language, and that written communication was targeted through language policies at the expense of oral communication (Walsh & McLeod 2008: 26). In addition to these and other concerns, Macleod has noted that there is a general failure for many language policies in the Scottish context to give adequate acknowledgment to the measures upon which they will evaluate their relative success/failure (Macleod 2008). These concerns should still be considered as timely and relevant, but our immediate concern in this chapter is to identify evidence-based recommendations for strategies that seem to be more ­effective for introducing a target language into work practices.

6.2  Analytical framework There are two components to the analytical framework that underpins this research. The first, concerns the theoretical concepts that have influenced not only the research but also the development of Language Planning endeavours in Scotland. The second, concerns the research methodology through which we have gathered data concerning this Language Planning activity.

6.2.1  Theoretical concepts Our analytical approach relies heavily on the theoretical approaches to language policy and language consumerism put forward by Grin (2003) and Strubell (1998), respectively. The first theory, Grin’s Policy-to-Outcome Path (P-TOP) model, provides a ­structure through which to understand the component parts of language policy and the way in which policy can operate to enable the use of a target language in domains from which it has previously been excluded. The second theory, Strubell’s Catherine Wheel, provides a structure through which to understand how it is that the provision of goods and services in a minoritised language can result in the increased consumption and demand for goods and services in a minoritised language. Both theories can be brought to any linguistic context, but are particularly suited to the context of Gaelic in Scotland where policy aims toward creating increased provision for Gaelic without there necessarily being an overwhelming demand or even capacity for the language’s use.



Chapter 6.  What can Gaelic teach us about effective policy through planning? 

In the Policy-to-Outcome Path (P-TOP) model (Grin 2003: 47), the necessity of achieving development targets in the areas of opportunity, capacity and attitudes is clarified. This model, a flow-chart, helps to visualise how it is that policies can target effects that (a) increase the capacity to use a language, (b) create opportunities for use, and/or (c) aim to foster attitudes that are conducive to language use, and suggests that when these are taken together the results can be a policy that is effective at increasing use and thereby the vitality of a minoritised language. For this reason, we have chosen to analyse policies in keeping with the P-TOP model, which specifies that for any ­policy to be translated into action there must be planning efforts in the areas of attitudes, capacity, and opportunity development. More specific to the business context, Strubell’s Catherine Wheel is a cyclical model, which illustrates a theory of language planning that is primarily interested in (a) the demand and creation of language products and services, and (b) how these factors encourage language learning. The Catherine Wheel affirms the likelihood of achieving language growth for a minoritised language by stimulating demand through the provision of Gaelic goods and services.

More learning of language

More demands for goods and services in the language

Greater motivation to learn and use the language

Greater perception of usefulness of the language

More supply of goods and services in the language

More consumption of goods and services in the language

Figure 1.  The Catherine Wheel model (Strubell 2005: n.p.)

The Catherine Wheel suggests that there is a direct correlation between the ­consumption of language products, the creation of new language learners/users, and

 Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell

the demand for more language products. The model relies on a kind of “logical” progression through which the reversing of language shift can be accomplished, as each of its stages facilitates the next (Strubell 2005: n.p.). In this way, the wheel indicates that uninterrupted progression from stage to stage should result in incremental growth in all areas: language demand, production, consumption, learning/use, and positive attitudes.

6.2.2  Research methodology There have been three research approaches in which the data for this chapter have been conducted and analysed: policy analysis, case studies, and business survey. In the first stage, policy analysis was conducted drawing on the P-TOP model and using a corpus of policies and guidance documents derived from the public sector which clarified the steps to be taken to increase the use of Gaelic for work purposes. In this stage of research, six policies specific to Gaelic in Scotland and three ­guidance documents from Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland were collected and ­studied. Policies were analysed using textual analysis with three researchers working to ensure the accurate coding of strategies within policies into categories of opportunity, capacity and attitudes. Subsequently, the three aforementioned guidance documents were uploaded into Atlas.ti and the component strategies coded into the following families: opportunity, attitudes, capacity, and miscellaneous, and with open categories in order to identify the various components within each family (e.g. communication: telephone, email, reception, etc.). In the second stage, case studies of businesses using Gaelic alongside English, with matched samples from the Welsh context, were studied more closely through observation and interviews with company representatives. In this stage of research, members of the research team conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from each company (at least 2 per company) to determine (a) the company policy toward bilingualism; (b) instances of ‘unplanned’ planning (as described by Baldauf 1994: 82–3), and (c) attitudes and beliefs toward language policies. The transcripts of these interviews were studied using content analysis. The third and final stage of research involved a survey of businesses registered with a Gaelic tourism initiative called Cearcall na Gàidhlig. 573 individual businesses were sent a short postal survey with postage paid which included self-reporting of l­ anguage use for internal and external practices as well as open categories for the ­elaboration on attitudes toward language use and perceived barriers to language use. There were 123 valued returns, of which 90 were from the private sector. Data was inputted and descriptively analysed using SPSS XVII. The surveys were constructed through the medium of the English language given the unknown level of bilingualism within the Gaelic companies surveyed and the lack



Chapter 6.  What can Gaelic teach us about effective policy through planning? 

of Welsh speaking ability within the research team. In the case of individual interviews with Gaelic speakers, interviewees were given the choice of using either language, although not all interviewees took up this offer. Welsh speakers were also offered the right to respond in Welsh (which the research team would have had translated), but in the event this did not transpire.

6.3  Results and discussion The results of our research will be presented in two sections. The first will review our main findings in terms of the way in which strategies in the areas of translation ­services, training and development, and static usage were presented by various ­organisations involved in our research. In parallel with these findings, we will provide a brief discussion of the effectiveness of these strategies, paying particular heed to cost-effectiveness and sustainability. Next, we will briefly discuss how our findings address the core question regarding the conditions under which Europe’s multilingualism can be an asset to knowledge and economy.

6.3.1  Main findings 6.3.1.1  Translation services for written text There are several ways in which translation services are an implied and necessary ­strategy used by organisations seeking to increase the use of Gaelic alongside English for work purposes. Rarely did an organisation formalise its intended use of translation services in policy documents and yet, through interviews and surveys, we were able to determine that in most cases translation services were a fundamental component in the planning area of Capacity in order for lower level language goals to be achieved. What this means in practice is that, if an organisation plans to respond to any written correspondence received in Gaelic with a Gaelic reply, they may need to involve the assistance of a translation service to do so. This is accountable to the limited internal capacity to provide Gaelic language service of many companies and public organisations. Until the workforce of capable Gaelic users increases, translation services are necessary in order to increase the number of companies and organisations providing Gaelic service. This involves the use of Gaelic in emblematic ways (e.g. logo, slogan and letterhead), as well as in more functional capacities (e.g. for forms to be used by the public, or annual reports). The Bòrd writes of this issue that there may be “certain one-off costs associated with capacity building” including “the production of bilingual websites and bilingual and Gaelic web pages, and facilities for translation and interpretation” (2007b: 11). They later recommend that “access [be] provided to translation and proofing services for staff involved in Gaelic issues when required” (ibid. 29).

 Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell

The necessity of relying on translation services, which should be considered as a strategy itself (i.e. the organisation will use translation when they have need to ­produce a bilingual text or Gaelic version, by hiring an external translator). This strategy was allowed for the following related targets to be achieved: to offer bilingual ­correspondence, to provide bilingual forms, to host public meetings bilingually, to advertise bilingually, to create a bilingual corporate identity through the use of both Gaelic and English (e.g. in logos and slogans), to ensure public exhibitions are made bilingual, to issue press notices bilingually, to ensure printed materials (e.g. annual reports) are provided bilingually, to advertise bilingually, to ensure signage is bilingual, and to ensure the organisation’s website is made to be bilingual. Placing the strategy of using translation services in the P-TOP model, the strategy is best understood as an aspect of Capacity Planning, because it allows the organisation to create an opportunity for Gaelic use. However, it is an interesting form of Capacity Planning because it does not build on the organisation’s internal capacity to produce bilingual material. Instead, it sets in place a formal mechanism through which the organisation can outsource translation, thereby addressing a fundamental lack of capacity to produce bilingual text through internal Human Resources. Whilst using translation services means that an organisation makes no strides toward building their own internal capacity to provide bilingual service, it does constitute a coping plan that can bypass the need for internal capacity indefinitely. However, it should be considered that there are numerous costs associated with using translation services, not all of which are financial, that can be seen as drawbacks of relying on this strategy as a long-term solution to limitations in the area of Capacity Planning. First, there is a monetary cost to using translation services – a cost that could ­easily be bypassed through the hiring or training of capable Gaelic users. The high cost of using outside translation services was discussed by many participants in interview, an example of which follows. This was spoken in interview by a Director of a small business with direct involvement in Gaelic development in Scotland: When I sent it to the board members and we went to the meeting we talked through the plan the business plan as absolutely fine, however there were type-os and other spelling mistakes and you know in in the Gaelic version… before I’d sent the business plans out [to] the board members I phoned up an agency… that will translate from English to Gaelic – business plans you know whatever, but that costs, it was going to cost 500 pounds. So instead of my finding [and] spending 500 of [our] money which I think can be spent [on] something more, I just said look I’ll just do the business plan and gave it [in with errors]…Well I was just saving the company 500 pounds. What would you want? Do you want a perfect plan but, you know, to be running out of money?

This is a particularly interesting example because it highlights the reliance on external translation services to ensure that static uses of Gaelic are of an equal quality to any



Chapter 6.  What can Gaelic teach us about effective policy through planning? 

English versions. The difficulty of creating grammatically correct text in Gaelic, even by fluent speakers of the language, was discussed by several individuals who participated in our research. Second, there is a time cost, whilst translation is accomplished – a cost that could be bypassed if the authors of documents were capable of writing English and Gaelic versions simultaneously. A final potential cost is that of the quality of bilingual and Gaelic-only materials. In other words, that the accuracy of text might be diminished in these versions or that the Gaelic versions may be substandard (in terms of grammar and spelling) as compared to English originals. Although good translation is available for Gaelic, just as it would be for any language, the high demand for Gaelic translation and limited number of highly-qualified translators means that translation is sometimes undertaken by semi-professional translators (e.g. language students, teachers, untrained native speakers). These individuals can, in some circumstances, provide good quality translations, but there is no control mechanism or validation body for Gaelic translation services, to date, that would ensure the quality of commissioned translation. This cost was well described by an interview participant who worked at a small museum and had been delegated the responsibility for introducing a bilingual service provision in Gaelic, despite the fact that she had never had an opportunity to learn the language. The respondent explains: …because we don’t have a Gaelic speaker on staff, everything has to go to translation. That is interesting. Um, the problem with translation is that… we have to trust that the person who translated it has translated it correctly and to our specifications and we don’t have editing control.

In this example, having to have faith that translations were being achieved to an equal quality and register of the English originals proved to be highly stressful and was regarded to be a cost of using translation services. One final and major concern that needs to be addressed with regard to the ­strategy of using translation services as an aspect of Capacity Planning, is that this strategy effectively bypasses the need for capacity and is, therefore, in contradiction of the ethos of a policy for bilingualism. This is a concern that was discussed in interview by an individual involved in the higher levels of national Language Planning for Gaelic: Translation. Yeah we need it, but I would say passing work out to external services is not really within the spirit of I think what the Gaelic Language Act was trying to achieve and hopefully within organisations we’ll see the language genuinely being used more by people who work for their organisation.

At present, it seems that a majority of organisations committing to Gaelic Language Plans are still relying on outsourcing to produce bilingual or Gaelic-only versions of documents and this reiterates the speaker’s concern.

 Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell

6.3.1.2  Training and Development In contrast to the use of translation services, which sidesteps the issue of internal capacity building, a strategy of providing Training and Development for a target language allows the organisation to increase internal capacity for bilingualism. In the case of up-skilling, this strategy can be very efficient and makes best use of the existing potential for bilingual service. Where Training and Development requires language learning, however, we find an altogether different scenario; one in which the strategy can reflect very highly on attitudes and morale toward bilingualism, but that simultaneously seems to be doubtful as a strategy to create the foundations for bilingual usage. In the case of language learning, Training and Development must been acknowledged as a strategy that is exceedingly cost-heavy – likely in terms of finance, but certainly in terms of time and effort. On the other hand, by providing Training and Development opportunities to members of staff, organisations are enriching their Human Resources skills base, and engaging their employees in a rich language experience with potentially long-lasting benefits. The Bòrd recommends that both training and learning opportunities be provided to staff in order to build the internal Human Resource skills base to operate bilingually with Gaelic. This involves: “training, support and resources available for staff involved in implementing… the Gaelic Language Plan (e.g. language skills, dictionaries, software),” as well as “language training to be provided to staff who are involved in the implementation of the authority’s Gaelic Language Plan and in Gaelic development activities” (Bòrd na Gàidhlig 2007b: 29). The costs incurred through the provision of Training and Development will, obviously, vary according to situation. However, an interesting example of an organisation considering the resource implications for enacting a strategy of Training and Development comes from our policy analysis of the Gaelic Language Plan for Comhairle nan Eilean Siar. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar is the council in which the highest proportion and density of Gaelic speakers live, and yet even in this context Training and Development were regarded to be a necessary strategy to ensure bilingual provision could be consistently made. The Comhairle draw a distinction between the language learning to be offered to bilingual and non-bilingual staff. For this council, bilingual staff are of particular concern, as it is understood that many with the capability to use Gaelic lack the confidence or comfort to do so. Accordingly, this council has commissioned a study into comfort and are hold a course at a local college aimed toward building confidence for language use. However, the resource implications of this initiative are that back-filling for employees becomes necessary, and the council makes clear note of this issue (Milligan et al. 2011: 15). For non-bilingual staff, encouragement and opportunity to learn were of paramount importance to the Comhairle. The council stated that at present provision is “sporadic, with little follow-up support” (Milligan et al. 2011: 16), and their intent was to create a more structured approach to language ­learning for employees who are not at all proficient in Gaelic. However, the council



Chapter 6.  What can Gaelic teach us about effective policy through planning? 

does not feel this is something they will accomplish internally and so the resource implications are high, including the need to outsource for learning programmes, and back-filling. The cost of training itself, the council specifies, should be taken from training budgets of departments and this means that language learning is considered to fulfil Career Professional Development criteria. Despite these costs, and often account of its potential long-term benefits in the area of Capacity, Training and Development was frequently a strategy mentioned overtly in the language policies we analysed as well as enacted by private companies. In the case of the latter, special consideration had to be given to the strength of any demands placed on employees to learn or develop Gaelic language skills, as was described in interview: …to ensure that it [a clause asking employees to learn Gaelic] wasn’t going to be discriminatory in any way it had to go through the employment consultants who actually did water it down. The clause now refers to making your best endeavours, best reasonable effort rather than basically saying ‘you will learn Gaelic.’

This was spoken by a financial manager of a medium-sized company with many branches (from agriculture, to education, and catering products). The manager raises a very important concern and one that should be a concern to all organisations creating a planning document for language use: consideration must be given to the stage at which promoting linguistic diversity impinges on the rights of monolinguals or those without the requisite knowledge in the target language.

6.3.2  Lessons and lingering questions The core questions of DYLAN concern the identification of the conditions under which Europe’s multilingualism can be an asset to knowledge and economy. One of the realities of this multilingualism is that it is not evenly spread. In some territories, as in Scotland, we find multiple languages being used but with low overall population and population densities of speakers for various minoritised languages. When seeking to support these languages, as is often aimed toward in accordance with documents like the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the planning area of Capacity (Grin 2003) needs to be realistically acknowledged as a potential (and potentially large) stumbling block. It would be a mistake to presume that introducing bilingual or multilingual practice is as easy as beginning to introduce new target languages into all the areas in which a majoritised language is used. As the P-TOP model reminds us, Capacity Planning needs to be addressed in order to facilitate the use of a target language in other areas. As has been discussed in this chapter, there are major cost implications for the habitual use of translation services and, as a strategy in the area of Capacity, this is clearly a means of bypassing the need for internal capacity to use a target language. In other words, the use of translation services by companies aiming

 Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell

toward bilingual practices is a means to an end that offers no long-term solutions and that will consistently incur costs. In contrast, the provision of training and development aimed and language learning and up-skilling is a direct effort to increase internal capacity to use the target language. Whilst initially resource intensive, this strategy sets in place long term solutions to limitations in the area of Capacity. However, because language learning is such an involved and time-consuming exercise, we have had to question the practicality of relying on training and development to address the needs of a company in terms of building the capacity to operate bilingually. Thus, whilst both strategies seem to have a specific function within the policies of companies aiming toward bilingual operation, neither is sufficient in isolation. The goodness of these, and other, strategies is in their thoughtful combination.

6.4  Conclusion Given the geolinguistic situation of the Gaelic language – the mother tongue of a small minority of the population of the overwhelmingly English speaking United Kingdom, the success or otherwise of strategies to increase the use of Gaelic in work practice may offer valuable lessons for minority languages facing the apparently hegemonic dominance of a global language. In an effort to increase the use of Gaelic in work practices, it seems most important that certain coping and capacity-building plans be introduced in the areas of Translation Services and Training and Development. Translation services acts as a coping strategy for organisations during the period in which Gaelic is being introduced into work practices whilst still lacking internal capacity to produce Gaelic materials in-house. Whilst this can be an effective intermediary stage for organisations, allowing for the introduction of Gaelic, it is also resource-heavy in terms of time and finance. For this reason, organisations must also seek to establish the capability to operate bilingually with Gaelic independent from translation. Planning to increase capacity without reliance on translation services can involve recruitment and hiring, as well training and development. It is the latter of these two planning areas that has been discussed in this chapter. In this chapter, and under each heading (i.e. Translation Services, Training and Development), numerous other strategies have been cited. These are strategies that appear both in the over policies of public orgnaisations with Gaelic Language Plans and in the recommendations for policy-creation that are made to public organisations by Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Specific strategies are encouraged to be written in order to overtly address the need to provide bilingual service, from letter correspondence to the organisation’s public website, etc. In instances in which the complying organisation does not already have high internal capacity to operate with Gaelic, this presents an immediate problem: commitments to use Gaelic cannot be made without first strategizing how to



Chapter 6.  What can Gaelic teach us about effective policy through planning? 

produce Gaelic. This is why the strategies presented in this article are so important for language policy. Translation Services is a strategy in the area of Capacity Planning that can bypass the need for internal bilingual capacity as a coping technique. While this is a cost-heavy solution to issues in the area of Capacity, it can be treated as a short-term coping strategy that provides the company time in which to create internal capacity through hiring, or through the strategy of Training and Development. Again, Training and Development must be seen as a resource intensive strategy to build internal capacity for bilingual operations. However, this is a strategy that also promised longterm benefits and that can alleviate dependence on Translation Services. Neither strategy discussed in this chapter is a problem-free solution to Capacity Planning needs as both have costs that far outweigh immediate benefits, and yet both are frequently undertaken by companies and organisations in Scotland seeking to establish bilingual practices. In this sense, whilst the strategies may not be examples of “good” strategies for language policy (as Glasgow Caledonian University initially set out to declare), they are examples of “good enough” strategies.

References Baldauf, Richard. 1994. “ ‘Unplanned’ Language Planning and Policy.” In Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Volume 14, ed. by William Grabe, 82–89. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Bòrd na Gàidhlig. 2007. Guidance on the Development of Gaelic Language Plans. Accessed 28 April 2011. www.bord-na-gaidhlig.org.uk/gaelic-language-plans.html. Campbell, Iain, Marsaili MacLeod, Douglas Chalmers, and Mike Danson. 2009. Measuring the Gaelic Labour Market: Current and Future Potential: Report for Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Inverness: Hecla Consulting. Chalmers, Douglas. 2003. “The Economic Impact of Gaelic Arts and Culture: A Response to François Grin.” In Towards Our Goals in Broadcasting, the Press, the Performing Arts and the Economy: Minority Languages in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland, ed. by John M. Kirk, and Dónall P. Ó Baoill, 245–249. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona. Chalmers, Douglas. 2010. “The Need to Integrate Policy and Good Practice – A Decade of Empirical Evidence.” Munro & Mac an Tàilleir 2010: 61–72. Chalmers, Douglas, and Mike Danson. 2006. “Language and Economic Development – ­Complementary or Antagonistic?.” McLeod 2006a: 239–256. Chalmers, Douglas, and Mike Danson. 2009. An Economic Impact Study of Gaelic Arts and Culture in Glasgow. Glasgow: Glasgow City Council. Chalmers, Douglas, Anthea Irwin, and Julian Calvert. 2011. Barail nam Meadhanan Sgrìobhaigh air a’ Ghàidhlig (Appraisal of Written Media Attitudes to Gaelic). Report to Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Inverness: Bòrd na Gàidhlig. General Register Office Scotland. 2005. Scotland’s Census 2001. Gaelic Report. Edinburgh: GRO(S). Glasgow City Council. 2008. Plana na Gàidhlig 2009. gu 2012-10-16. Grin, François. 2003. Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority ­Languages. Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan.

 Lindsay Milligan, Douglas Chalmers & Hugh O’Donnell MacKinnon, Kenneth. n.d. Identity, Attitudes and Support for Gaelic Policies: Gaelic in the ­Euromosaic Survey 1994–1995. Ferintosh: SCRÙD. Available online at: http://www.sgrud. org.uk/ MacLeod, Marsaili. 2009. “Gaelic Language Skills in the Workplace.” In Language and Economic Development: Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland, ed. by John M. Kirk, and Dónall Ó Baoill, 134–152. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona. Macleod, Michelle. 2008. “Measuring Gaelic Language Planning.” Scottish Language 26: 61–78. Market Research United Kingdom (MRUK). (2003, September). Attitudes to the Gaelic L ­ anguage: BBC. Presentation given to BBC and Bòrd na Gàidhlig Alba. McEwan-Fujita, Emily. 2008. “Working at “9 to 5” Gaelic: Speakers, Contexts, and Ideologies of an Emerging Minority Language Register.” In Sustaining Linguistic Diversity: ­Endangered and Minority Languages and Language Varieties, ed. by Kendall A. King et al., 81–93. ­Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Milligan, Lindsay, Hugh O’Donnell, and Douglas Chalmers. 2009. “Measuring Up? Non-profit and Commercial Language Policies in Gaelic-speaking Scotland.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19 (2): 199–203. Milligan, Lindsay, Mike Danson, and Douglas Chalmers. 2011. Assessment of Progress with Regards to Gaelic Plans that have been Approved by Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Report to Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Inverness: Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Picken, Andrew. 2010. Gaelic translates into a huge bill. Daily Mail [Scot Region]. August 20. London. Pp. 5. Roden, Alan. 2010. Anger over Gaelic ‘stunt’ at Holyrood: MSPs run up bill to have speeches translated. Daily Mail [Scot Region]. April 15. London. Pp. 4. Scottish Government. 2011. Attitudes toward the Gaelic Language. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ Publications/2011/08/04160631/0. Sproull, Alan. 1996. “Regional Economic Development and Minority Language Use: The Case of Gaelic Scotland.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121: 93–117. Strubell, Miquel. 1998. “Can Sociolinguistic Change be Planned?” Proceedings of the 1st ­European Conference “Private Foreign Language Education in Europe. Its Contribution to the Multilingual and Multicultural Aspect of the European Union. Thessaloniki, November 1997. (pp. 23–31). Thessaloniki: Palso. Strubell, Miquel. 2005. “Language Proficiency and Language Use: Interpersonal Linguistic Behaviour and ­Language Shift.” In Hizkunea. Accessed 03.07.2007 at: http://www.euskadi. net/r33-2288/en/contenidos/informacion/ar5tik3_1_strubell_05_10/en_10616/artik3_1_ strubell_05_10.html Walsh, John, and Wilson McLeod. 2008. “An Overcoat Wrapped around an Invisible Man? ­Language Legislation and Language Revitalisation in Ireland and Scotland.” Language Policy 7: 21–46.

chapter 7

Language diversity management on corporate websites Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander Universität Basel / Université de Strasbourg

The issues addressed in this contribution raise the question of language choices on companies’ websites and their implications for communication and access to information (fairness and equity) in the corporate sector. While the importance of the Internet as a means of communication and marketing for the corporate sector has been acknowledged, little attention has been paid to the linguistic dimension and the implications of this tool for business communication. This chapter examines the way in which companies cope with the linguistic diversity on their websites in order to identify possible models of language management as well as the eventual consequences of such choices for the structure and the content of a website. For the first stage, using a quantitative approach (statistical tools), we try to “map” the websites of fourteen surveyed companies in order to identify their degree of monolingualism/multilingualism, the sections that would be interesting to focus on with regard to understanding the policies of multilingual and multicultural content management, as well as a certain number of recurrent strategies. For the second stage, specific attention is given to conceptualizing the ways monolingual and multilingual resources have been mobilized in two website sections: job offers and the sale of products. On the one hand, job offers, being oriented towards future employees, are aimed at giving information about the company’s requirements. On the other hand, the products’ section is used as a market-oriented tool to accomplish the company’s main objective which is to “sell”.

7.1  Introduction In the third millennium, globalisation seems to have become a ubiquitous and dominant issue (Sandrini 2004), by liberalizing world trade and enabling the free exchange of goods and services and thereby creating a global market. These global effects are

 Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander

observable in the development of a global communication infrastructure, particularly the Internet, which has resulted in a platform of uniform and global information, and allows for the effortless exchange of any text and document. Despite the remarkably good conditions for the consolidation of a global ­communication tool, the Internet does, however, face a huge challenge: the plurality of world languages and the diversity of communities of cultural backgrounds. Thus, an important task for the companies using the Internet as a mean of communication and business is to ensure that their websites have an adequate linguistic and cultural location in the different countries in which they are economically active. In which language is each of the e-business (Guidère 2008) websites most accessible? In which language are they translated? To what extent are the websites localized or linguistically and culturally adapted to customers/clients of different origins? Who is the target ­public through these multilingual sites? Even if globalisation and the Internet constitute relatively new phenomena and, therefore, the study of the influence of globalisation on the management of websites is also a recent field of research, certain studies have already been carried out on the ­subject of website localisation (Sandrini 2002; Singh/Furrer/Ostinelli 2004; Nauert 2007) which, for example, illustrate how interest is growing in, this particular area and its current importance. This chapter seeks to bring a complementary approach to the study of ­multilingualism in companies by analysing the way in which they cope with the linguistic diversity on their web pages (Warschauer 2002), in order to identify the policies enforced by the ­companies for the management of multilingual and multicultural content, as well as the strategies that they have developed and put into practice (Tiessen 2004). The research questions are firstly focused on identifying the models of language management (Truchot/Huck 2009) on the web. Are there any regularities or irregularities in this area? Are some models more preferred or preferable than others? Secondly, what could the consequences be of certain choices about the structure and the content of a website? To what extent does the website reflect or express the philosophy of the company in the matter of diversity management? We opt for a comparative analysis focusing on two particular aspects: online job offering and online product selling. Methodologically, we create an MS Excel table as a statistical tool to measure the percentage of pages translated into each language: Is there symmetry or asymmetry in the number of pages and content where multiple languages are involved? Apart from quantitative issues, sociolinguistic qualitative elements related to language options and language requirement are observed in the job offers and in the job application process. A special emphasis will be placed on the geolinguistic dimension of localisation, which is understood both as a workplace and an adaptation of the product to a specific local market.



Chapter 7.  Language diversity management on corporate websites 

Our investigated terrains are composed of 14 companies:1 9 located in ­Switzerland (Basel) and 5 in France (Strasbourg). 6 are national and 8 international. 11 of them are large companies. Concerning their sectors of activity, there are 2 in the agro industry, 2 in the food sector, 2 in the pharmaceutical industry, 2 in the banking sector, 2 in the public sector, 1 in services, 1 in textiles, 1 in products and technical construction, and 1 in instruments of measuring. In the next part, we will introduce the terminology necessary for the ­website ­analysis: the commercial aspect of the Internet (7.2.1.), a link between marketing ­strategy and language policy (7.2.2.), multilingual communication on the web (7.2.3) and the website localisation (7.2.4).

7.2  Conceptual framework 7.2.1  E-commerce/E-business Besides the ever-growing importance of the role of the Internet as a principle source of information or a depository of knowledge, it also represents a means of communication and of doing business. As said by Cronin (1995: 27), the “metamorphosis of the Internet into an essential corporate resource” has succeeded. From the point of view of Guidère (2008), visibility on the Net has become a necessity in the world economic system. The Internet has become a tool of information, differentiation and communication. On the one hand, there are companies for which the website is just a shop window informing clients on the services and products provided by the company: the site is then a tool of differentiation, setting up a competitive market in order to enhance its image and demonstrating how it stands out from other companies, by offering an additional service on a different medium. On the other hand, there are companies for which the website is designed as a true marketing tool, being used not only to inform consumers about the services offered, but also to sell directly online: the site is then a communication tool that works as a leverage effect on sales of the company involving customers who are different from those usually targeted by the conventional network. For Guidère (2008), websites can be divided into three broad categories, depending on the scope of communication. Electronic government (e-government) concerns the institutional communication whose purpose it is to inform. Commercial

.  Terrains in Basel : Agro A, Bank A, Bank B, Fabric A, Magasin A, Pharma A, Public Service A and B. Terrains in Strasbourg: Agr, Nap, So, Wu and Wri.

 Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander

sites or electronic commerce (e-business), which concern particularly multinational ­companies, use the Internet not only as a commercial showcase but also as a multilingual media used at the same time for reporting practices, promoting the product and interacting with consumers. Their purpose is to ensure that services and products are bought. The last category regarding the social web focuses on a social communication, with a cultural or ideological orientation. Its aim is to attract adherence or commitment to a particular cause.

7.2.2  Marketing strategy and language choice On the applied level, “building a website implies a considerable effort with a clear-cut objective in mind. If we look at a company, the communicative intention of its websites is closely related to its marketing strategy” (Sandrini 2005: 3). According to the author, “an overall website publishing strategy has to respond to the following questions: Does the website serve publicity reasons? Does the company want to sell products on the web (e-commerce) and if so, what kind of products? Is the website meant for customer interaction and customer support?” (idem: 4). In the opinion of Schewe (2001), there is always a link between the marketing ­policy of a company and its website design. The latter should be constructed in such a way that it is a provider of solutions which helps the company to achieve its aims. For an international company, its international marketing goals can be related to the choice of languages used for the website. The author proposes a classification of ­website language design strategies with three general types of websites: monolingual, bilingual and multilingual websites. Within each type, the choice of languages reveals a certain type of marketing strategy that stretches from the domestic marketing strategy with a monolingual website in the native language to the global player strategy with a central website in English or the native language with independent local websites in other languages (in Sandrini 2005: 4).

7.2.3  Multilingual websites Following Guidère (2008), consumption on the web is essentially that of multilingual information. In the world of electronic commerce, communicating in the language of the customers is an absolute necessity if the company wants to succeed. Javalgi et al. (1994) point out that Internet users around the world have rightly come to expect that websites will be available in their own languages, meeting their own cultural norms, with full functionality, on the one hand to reach a wider audience and on the other to ensure that information will be accessible to a large public and will be received, if possible, in their mother tongue. As Pym (2010: 6) remarks, “all users in a particular country will need and want their information in the national language(s) of that country, despite the fact that the vast majority of language users in the world



Chapter 7.  Language diversity management on corporate websites 

are polyglot”. Following Sandrini (2005), the readers want to read the web page in their own language, and expect clear and understandable information and do not wish to be culturally offended by the language, images, colours, and so on. Enhancing the usability of a company’s website by providing multilingual versions is worthwhile not only for better performance and attitudes to the company (corporate image or branding), but also eventually for more sales. From Cronin’s point of view (1995), the need for a multilingual website arises from international activities, mostly of a commercial nature. Export-oriented companies and multinational enterprises, as well as international organisations, use their multilingual websites primarily as marketing tools, among other functions. Finally, a website is a medium through which customers, partners or people in general can be reached. In order to fit the requirements of targeted markets, companies are willing to offer a bilingual, trilingual or multilingual version of their website. The various versions implemented on the same site can thus be justified by the need to synchronize marketing and communication. It is thus clear that the language a­ rgument, which is essentially the ability to access the site in the local language, is becoming more prominent in communication strategies. The multilingual website, which Guidère (p.44) defines as the sum of the localised versions, is realised ​​from a single interface on the same topic. The expression of “multilingual communication” refers to the ­various formats of the same site, i.e. different foreign versions of the same message, regardless of the degree of adaptation on the written, audio or visual level which have thus become a reality (idem.).

7.2.4  Website localisation Creating a multilingual website has to confront some constraints that are socio-­cultural, political-juridical or geo-linguistic (Guidère 2008). These constraints require companies to have the messages translated and adapted under pressure from the public or under the compulsion of law. Consequently, to realize a multilingual website, a simple conversion in the target language is not really sufficient (Hardy 2004). The company needs to make several choices in order to optimize the process of ­communication. One of them is about the type of communication used on the website. Guidère (2008) points out three types of communication: an adapted communication (light linguistic and iconographic modification), a standardised communication (form, software, few culture-specific features) and a localised communication. ­Following the argument of Pym (2010), Sandrini (2005: 1–2) defines the term ­localisation as adapting a product to a particular locale and sees that localisation as being used in conjunction with the terms internationalisation, meaning preparation of a product to make it suitable for efficient localisation, and globalisation, signifying the global design of a product. In the definition of Yunker (2002: 17), website

 Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander

l­ocalisation is the process of modifying a website for a specific locale. Singh and Pereira (2005) recognize five degrees of localisation: “standardised” (one website for all countries), “semi-localized” (one site gives information on many countries), “localised” (a whole translated site for each country), “highly localised” (translation plus country-specific adaptations), and “culturally customised” (a new site ­completely immersed in the ­target culture). For Schewe (2001) there are clearly different degrees to which a website can be localised. He points out that the choice between language options depends on the ­language policy. Localisation is not, however, limited to language issues alone. Pym suggests that an English-language site may be localised for the different markets where English is used. The degree of localisation therefore concerns the cultural implications of marketing strategies on the one hand, and the existence of many languages on the other (2010: 5). Related to the “global player strategy” (Sandrini 2005), we can say that localisation is a function of the international marketing strategy to manage a global website. Lockwood (2000: 15) has identified three different approaches to organising a global website: the “monarchist” approach with central control over the content where content is translated but seldom adapted; the “anarchist” approach with multiple local sites without coordination; the “federalist” or “subsidiary” approach which is a ­compromise between the first two as it integrates global, regional and local content for use in ­different countries. These three business models of language are categorised not only in terms of the degree of content modifications, but also reflected directly in the structure and management of the site itself. Thus, a “mirror” website (Guidère 2008) based on the “monarchist” model requires a different structure from the “kaleidoscope” site (idem), in the “federalist” design.

7.3  Main findings In this section we will summarize our main findings concerning language choice (3.1), the offering of jobs (3.2), and the selling of products (3.3).

7.3.1  Web pages and language choice According to our results, even if all 14 companies studied have their(s) own website(s), their ways of designing web pages are very heterogeneous from the point of view of language choice. There is a wide variety of business models of multilingualism on the web pages, from monolingualism in the local language (Fabric A.ch, Agr.fr) to monolingualism in the international language (Pharma A.com, Wri.com) through varying degrees of multilingualism.



Chapter 7.  Language diversity management on corporate websites 

Globally speaking, the corporate websites are either monolingual in English or multilingual, while the national ones are produced in the local language(s). This study shows that this general observation gives rise to various combinations and versions of more or less monolingual or multilingual web pages. For instance, a multinational in the pharmaceutical sector has chosen a site in English only for its global site (〈Pharma A.com〉), while the Swiss site (〈Pharma A.ch〉) is bilingual in German and French. In contrast, another multinational with headquarters in Basel in the same sector opts for a bilingual English-German global site (〈Pharma B.com〉) and a trilingual English-German-French provision for the local one (〈Pharma B.ch〉). In the food industry, 〈Agro A〉, also headquartered in Basel with subsidiaries in over 90 countries worldwide, manifests a clear preference for bilingualism for both its global websites (English-German) and the Swiss site (German-French). 〈Bank A〉, a big Swiss bank at a worldwide level, offers its global site, (〈Bank A.com〉), in five languages (EnglishGerman-French-Italian-Spanish) and its local site, (〈Bank A.ch〉), in four languages (English-German-French-Italian). Although all these four companies have the same philosophy: “Our business language is English”, it is thus the multilingual model (here, of course, depending on the mode of “additive” institutional multilingualism (see Chapter 3)), going from bilingualism to quadrilingualism, that dominates. The French terrains seem to focus clearly on the adaptation of local websites in national languages, either with the extension.fr (〈Agr.fr〉, 〈Wu.fr〉) or with.com (〈So.com〉). A French multinational 〈Agr.com〉 in the agro industry, on the contrary, chooses a multilingual model (〈Agr.com〉 in German, French, Spanish and English) for its ­corporate website and adapts it locally with its national ramifications (national websites).

7.3.1.1  Statistical results (number of pages translated) To map these heterogeneous groups of websites, a statistical tool has been developed. Using MS Excel, we created a table as a comparative tool allowing us to get an “ID card of a multilingual website”, gathering all the useful information in one simple and (­relatively) clear display, but also as a “test”, for data and statistics about the ­internet coming from the literature, since the latter suffers from the quick and continuous ­evolution of the net, making even a two-year old publication statistically distorted. The following table summarizes the output of the quantitative work2 by analysing “corporate” websites. The study shows the very  high percentage of pages translated into each language and the minimal difference between each language’s number of pages (except for public service A). The last row at the bottom shows that work has been done at the “local” level of websites as well.

.  Quantitative analysis refers to October 2010 data.

es L (+ . w i /– th fro the m m th os ea tp L. v g ag (+ w i .) es /– th t fro he m le th ss e a pa Av vg g es pa g. .) ge of s ( tr a all n L. slat ) ed

pa g

of

.#

a

fl

#o

es

ag

u ng

Av g

O pe

ra

tin gl ev el

 Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander

MA.ch

Nat

3

194

F (+7)

D (–8)

94%

SA.ch

Nat

4

305

D (+37)

E (–71)

98%

SB.ch

Nat

4

273

I (+8)

E (–7)

83%

Nap.com

Nat

2

21

F/E (0)

–

99%

SO.com

Nat

1

21

E7F (0)

–

100%

PA.com

Int

1

68

E/D (0)

–

100%

PB.com

Int

2

44

E (0)

F (–1)

100%

AA.com

Int

2

160

D (+1)

E (–1)

100%

E/D (0)

S (+1)

100%

Agr.com

Int

4

9

Wri.com

Int

1

23

E (0)

–

100%

Wu.com

Int

2

27

D (+4)

E (–5)

100%

PA. fr, PA.ch … Wu.xy

Nat

3

194

F (+7)

D (–8)

94%

Figure 1.  Statistical results on the number of pages

7.3.1.2  Lockwood’s models of global websites These statistical data have therefore brought us some scope on the multinational companies. We are particularly interested in their national websites as well as their central websites, which conform to Lockwood’s “monarchist” system. What we find relevant is the galaxy of national websites spreading around each central multinational site. If we take, for example, the global bilingual website of 〈Pharma B.com〉 (English-French), it reflects perfectly the “monarchist” model of Lockwood: same content, same page number, same structure. This page, nevertheless, is only the starting point for other national websites designed by the company (〈Pharma B.fr,. it,. br…〉). The particular difference between the latter sites and the central one consists of their management which follows Lockwood’s “federalist” system. ­Consequently, they are not totally controlled by the company’s Headquarters. Aiming to reflect the way in which companies manage language diversity on their websites, our two domains of study concern the offering of jobs and the selling of products. Oriented to future employees, the section offering jobs provides ­information about the company’s needs in human resources (qualification and skills). Market-­ oriented, the products’ section reveals the company’s commercial strategies.



Chapter 7.  Language diversity management on corporate websites 

7.3.2  Offering jobs 7.3.2.1  Language options in the application process The number and choice of languages in the path of job advertisements reflects a large variety of multilingual communicative strategies. We distinguish three main steps in the application process which an applicant has to go through and these are: a. the access to the careers’ section, b. the platform of job search where one can find several job offers, and c. the application on-line which involves filling in a particular form with specific instructions. In order to systematize and bring to light the models of linguistic management (Figure 2) that have emerged from the application process, we focus our attention on the level of multilingualism appearing throughout this process. It is remarkable that this level is extremely variable from one company to another, as well as from one step of the application process to another in the same company. Two models can be identified (Yanaprasart 2011, 2012). The first model consists of a regular number of language options being proposed to users who navigate at different hierarchical levels, from the beginning to the end of the application process. This is the case on a national level, where companies opt for a simplified «regime» of languages for their local websites. It seems to be clear that for the majority of the French websites in our sample the companies are monolingual, whereas the only Swiss national website in this category is at a minimum bilingual French-German 〈BB.ch〉. The second model describes an irregular number of language options at ­different steps in the job’s application process. Whoever wants to work at the Basel campus of 〈Pharma A〉, for example, has two ways of accessing the section on job offers: making their way through the monolingual global or the bilingual local website of the company. In both cases, all the jobs offered have been published only in English, but the candidates have the choice to apply online in eleven languages. This is completely different from the 〈Bank A〉 which gives two choices to ­candidates: a pentalingual site on a global level and a Swiss quadrilingual w ­ ebsite, where the job descriptions are in many languages (for example in German for Zürich). At the end of the process of postulation, however, the candidate is invited to send his/her application file only in the official language of the company, namely English. An interesting case is observed when the company applies a global approach to job offers on line. One example comes from 〈Agr.com〉. On its quadrilingual corporate website, the careers’ section is available in four languages, but not all of the job descriptions are systematically translated. Their availability in the four languages seems ­random. Furthermore, the large majority of job offers covers positions at ­headquarters. The ones published on Agr.com in the English version are translated, while those found on the Spanish version are in French.

 Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander

–

–

–

Figure 2.  Models of multilingualism management on the companies’ websites and models of language management of job offers online: access language to job vacancy – language of job advertisement – language of application



Chapter 7.  Language diversity management on corporate websites 

MA

3 2

3

Welcome Career Online page page application

Welcome Career Online page page application Number of languages

Number of languages

Welcome Career Online page page application

2

AA

7 ? 4 Welcome Career Online page page application

3 1,2

1,2

Number of languages

3

3

FA

Welcome Career Online page page application PB

2,3

3+

3+

Welcome Career Online page page application

PA 11

1,2

1

Welcome Career Online page page application Number of languages

3

4

Number of languages

4

SA, AGR

Number of languages

SB

Number of languages

Number of languages

To summarize, the following diagram (Figure 3) illustrates the variation in the number of languages, in three steps from the welcome page to the end of the application process:

BA

4,5

2

1

Welcome Career Online page page application

Figure 3.  Number of languages in online application process

––

––

We note a change in the number of languages offered on the websites of 〈Public service A.ch〉 (SA), 〈Public service B.ch〉 (SB), 〈Bank A.ch/com〉 (BA), 〈Agr.com〉 (AGR) from more to less, and from less to more for those of 〈Agro A.ch/com〉 (AA), 〈Pharma B.ch/com〉 (PB) and 〈Wu.com〉.3 〈Magasin A.ch〉 (MA), 〈Fabric A.ch〉 (FA) and 〈Pharma A.ch/com〉 (PA) offer the company’s websites with the variation in the number of languages usually found at the second step.

Two ways of managing diversity have been found: on the one hand, some of these companies prefer compartmentalization by locating the workplace of the job offered and publishing the job description in the local language of the workplace. On the other hand, other companies opt for a worldwide approach by publishing all descriptions only in their official international language or, for the sake of fairness and equity, in several national languages. The choice of one or the other language in relation to the language of job advertisements may, however, have important implications for the inclusion of exclusion of future employees (Yanaprasart et al. 2010, 2011).

.  〈WU.com〉 redirects to the numerous local websites for job applications.

 Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander

7.3.2.2  Languages and Job offers: Different offers in different languages? These inclusion/exclusion implications drove us to focus on the variation of job offers according to languages. The systematic study of languages and job offers shows that the structuring criterion employed by the majority of the companies seems to be that the linguistic localisation corresponds to the geography of the workplace. Among the eight companies4 which published job offers in several languages, it was only at 〈Magasin A〉 and 〈Agr〉, where the number of job advertisements varied from one language to another. Indeed, on the corporate website of 〈Agr〉, the translation of job offers seems to be rather random. While the website is quadrilingual, the job offers are not available in all four languages: two job offers are in English (on the English version of the website), while thirty-one appear in the French version. In contrast, on the Spanish version we found only one job offer in French. No job advertisement was up on the German ­version (ref. 3/11/2010). This practice seems to show clearly the language philosophy of the company 〈Agr〉: even if the latter wants to attract people on an international level, whoever wants to apply for a position at its Alsatian headquarters is required to have some knowledge of French, the national language of the country and the official language of the company (Choremi/Bothorel 2011). At the same time, our study shows that the application process follows two kinds of logic, international and national: in order to have full access to job advertisements, one has to follow the central corporate website’s paths on the one hand and the national website’s paths on the other hand, as the language options available in which to read the job offers may imply differences depending on languages. 7.3.2.3  Language requirements Another aspect of the multilingualism in job offers concerns the language requirements formulated in job advertisements. For this, we focused on the French website of a German company (Wu.fr) which has the largest number of offers online, on a special platform aiming to facilitate a job search. Four variables interest us (Mekaoui 2009): “language requirement”, “level of constraint” (compulsory, advisable…), “skill indicators” (perfect command, knowledge, notions…), and finally the information which contextualizes the job offer (localisation, need to make business trips…). On 〈Wu.fr〉, the stated language requirements in job offers are very scarce: only 7  from 115 jobs offered in France indicate linguistic requirements. These seven ­positions are located at the French headquarters, in Alsace.

.  〈Agr〉, 〈Bank A〉, 〈Bank B〉, 〈Magasin A〉, 〈Fabrique A〉, 〈Public service A〉, 〈Public Service B〉, 〈Wu〉



Chapter 7.  Language diversity management on corporate websites 

As shown in the following table (Figure 4), the level of language skills, as well as the level of constraint applied to these requirements, seems to vary, depending on the hierarchy of the position. For instance, language requirements for senior executives (deputy director, manager of sales promotion) are obligatory in English and ­German, while it is compulsory that middle-ranking executives have at least one of these two languages. Concerning other positions, a language requirement is considered as an asset (store developer). In any case, language requirements are formulated by the company ­exclusively for the positions at the head office, where they guarantee, in the opinion of one of our interviewed employees, a possibility of promotion: « the ability to communicate in a foreign language is an important factor in order to progress in the company, outside the customer service, I mean, in order to evolve towards the marketing or the purchase service, towards a higher position » (WUh) (Bothorel/ Choremi 2009). Finally, it has to be noted that the Alsatian dialect has never been a part of language requirements, even if a large number of those interviewed give the dialect a function in the company. In fact, from May 2008, a specific law (Law of May, 27th 2008, Loi de lutte contre les discriminations) stipulates that the requirement of Alsatian constitutes a kind of employment discrimination (except for very specific job positions (Choremi 2011)). Position

Language

Skills

Level of constraint

Deputy director (B.Rhin)

G and E

Perfect command

Necessary

Statistic assistant (B.Rhin)

G and/or E

/

Requested

Marketing representative (B.Rhin)

G and/or E

Command

/

Store developer (B.Rhin)

G and E

/

Advisable

Trainer (B.Rhin)

G or E

Practice

An asset

Manager of store development and deputy director of branches and customer services (B.Rhin)

O and/or E

Command

/

G and/or E

Command

Imperatively

Manager of sales promotion (B.Rhin)

Figure 4.  Language requirements (〈Wu.fr〉)

7.3.3  Localisation of websites Pym (2005) defines localisation as the process of adapting a product to a specific “local” market. This could be achieved in different ways, for example by adding a local picture on the product package, using the local culture to create a new slogan, or

 Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander

s­ imply changing the name of the product with documentation and advertisements in the local language. This concept is also applied to the companies’ websites. Websites are not only “products”, they also represent one of the most important ways for companies to ‘advertise’ their image and ‘sell’ their products. This aspect constitutes the quintessential indicator for localisation policies. Furthermore, localising websites seems to be less complicated than localising a product itself. Studying the ‘localisation aspect’ means that only multinational companies could be the object of analysis. In this framework, six countries are analysed: three from Europe (France, Germany and Switzerland), one from North America (USA), one from South America (Brazil), and one from Asia (China). All of these countries have their local page on the website of the international companies which are part of our study. We use three indicators and these are the image (picture, graphic), text and content (translation), and structure (menu) of the website in order to analyse six local websites of each company (8 companies in total). For example, for the company 〈Agro A〉, we observe the product homepage of Agro A.ch, Agro A.fr, Agro A.de, Agro A.us, Agro A.br, and Agro A.cn in order to verify if each one of the three indicators is applied (on a scale from 0 to 3). Concretely, where there is a strong cultural localisation (culturally localised), a score of 3 will be credited. A score of 2 indicates a consistent level (highly localised), 1 a weak degree (localised), and 0 for a semi-localised model (cf. Singh & Pereira 2005). The following eight tables (Figure 5) show the analysis of each website. The overview of these tables (each one referring to the same nation and the same indicator) allows us to make the comparison possible. PA

1

PB

2

3

0

1

Wu

1

2

3

0

1

Wri

2

3

0

1

BA

AA

2

3

0

1

Structure

Figure 5.  Overall results per indicator

3

0 Image

1

3

2

3

FA

Agr

2

2

2 Content

3

0

1



Chapter 7.  Language diversity management on corporate websites 

The result shows that the localisation exists, but only in a very limited way. Five web pages get an average score below 1 and if there is an aspect which is significantly localised it relates to the content. But, its average score remains between 1 and 2 (between localised and highly localised). In other words, the content is totally translated (Figure 1) with a partly country-specific adaptation. One interpretation that we can give to this practice is that all of these international companies pay more attention to the international marketing strategy for their ‘global’ market by standardising the overall structure, limiting local components and internationalising the company’s identity. But everybody knows that selling a product in the language of the local ­market brings more benefits than if it were in a foreign language. This can explain why the localisation is mostly done in the content translation, much more so than in the visual or structural aspects (Figure 6). In short, if the structure of these websites reflects the “federalist” model, the localisation pattern is clearly based on the “­monarchist” one (Gander 2011). Overall average

0

1

2

3

Figure 6.  Overall average

7.4.  Conclusion There is no doubt about the supremacy of English in the virtual world. International companies have not, however, tried to ‘fight against English’ and even less to be ­convinced by the absolute power of this international language. On the contrary, they decided to increase their sites in other languages. This powerful tool, in the term of Calvet (1999) who compares the value of languages ​​with a linguistic “exchange rate”: language having an economic value on the labour market serves to facilitate trade, ­services and communications in a really multilingual global village. What is therefore the impact of this vision on the management of websites? Is the virtual world becoming as multilingual as the physical one? The study of Sandrini conducted in 2002 and involving ten multinational companies in Austria shows that 100% of them possessed bilingual or multilingual websites. The multilingualism is limited to the reproduction of identical content without ­taking into account cultural particularities and lacking any real local adaptation. Stocker (2011: 9) talks about “superficial multilingualism”.

 Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander

In our work, the majority of the surveyed companies are fairly unanimous about the future of the multilinguality of websites and opt for multilingualism, despite the high costs for the creation, maintenance, translation and localisation of multilingual websites. They do respect the role of linguistic diversity in accumulating the unilingual formats, however, that is to say by offering services and providing information in several languages, but separately, one language at a time (OLAT). Their sites are virtually designed as a multiple monolingual space, following the “additive” or “juxtaposed” model of multilingualism (Lüdi 2004, 2008) where each language has its own space, separated from that of the others. So, if the site is multilingual, the pages inside are not. Consequently, the visitors to the sites can choose to view them in the language that suits them. By contrast, “multilingual” mixed pages which a polyglot user can have the pleasure of visiting, passing from one language to another, are absent and do not appear to be a common practice in the management of linguistic diversity on ­commercial web pages. Visitors can still be forced, as in the case of job offers, to mobilize their “­plurilingual” competences to the extent that everything does not exist in any one language.

References Bothorel, Arlette, and Choremi Thiresia. 2009. “Le plurilinguisme dans les entreprises à vocation internationale. Comment aborder un phénomène polydimensionnel à travers le discours des acteurs?.” In Sociolinguistica 23. Language Choice in European ­Companies/Choix linguistiques dans les entreprises en Europe, ed. by C. Truchot, 104–130. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Calvet, Louis-Jean. 1999. Pour une écologie des langues du monde. Paris: Plon. Choremi, Thiresia, and Arlette Bothorel. 2011. “Les rapports aux normes et à la traduction dans les entreprises.” Scolia 25: 105–173. Choremi, Thiresia. 2011. “L’analyse des sites web d’entreprises: une approche complémentaire à l’analyse du discours des acteurs sur la gestion du plurilinguisme.” Séminaire printemps 2010/2011. Institut de français, Université de Bâle. Cronin, Mary. 1995. Doing Business on the Internet. How the Electronic Highway is ­Transforming American Companies. New York et al.: Van Nostrand Reinhold ITP. Gander, Filippo. 2011. “Les sites web plurilingues. Un tour dans la jungle tordue des sites web en plusieurs langues.” Séminaire printemps 2010/2011. Institut de français, Université de Bâle. Guidère, Mathieu. 2008. “Chapitre 3 La communication multilingue sur l’internet.” In La ­communication multilingue. Traduction commerciale et institutionelle, De boeck. Hardy, Jean-Marc. 2004. Multilinguisme: arme efficace mais lourde à manier. http://www.redaction.be/exemples/multilinguisme_fev_04.htm consulté le 30.5.2011. Javalgi, Rajshekhar, Mark Traylor, Andrew Gross, and Edward Lampman. 1994. “Awareness of Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Advertising 23 (4): 47–58. Lockwood, Rose. 2000. Have Brand, Will Travel. Language International. Volume 12, No. 2. April; and Mind the Gap. Language International. Volume 12, No. 1. February.



Chapter 7.  Language diversity management on corporate websites 

Lüdi, Georges. 2004. “Pour une linguistique de la compétence du locuteur plurilingue.” Revue française de linguistique appliquée 2004/2 – Vol. IX: 125–135. Lüdi, Georges. 2008. “Objectif: des compétences plurilingues mobilisables comme ressource pour gérer des situations de communication plurielles.” In La compétence plurilingue: regards francophones, ed. by D. Moore, and V. Castellotti, 207–219. Berne: Peter Lang. Transversales 23. Mekaoui, Frédérique. 2009. “Langues et emplois dans l’espace du Rhin supérieur. Approche quantitative et subjective.” In Langues régionales, cultures et développement: études de cas en Alsace, Bretagne et Provence, ed. by Huck Dominique, and Kahn René. Paris: L’Harmattan. Nauert, Sandra. 2007. Translating Websites, dans MuTra 2007. – LSP Translation Scenarios: Conference Proceedings. Ljubljana, 3–5 September 2007.http://www.euroconferences. info/proceedings/2007_Proceedings/2007_Nauert_Sandra.pdf Pym, Anthony. 2005. Localization: On its Nature, Virtues and Dangers. Retrieved 24 June 2009. from: http://www.tinet.org/apym/on-line/translation/translation.html Pym, Anthony. 2010. Website localization, The Oxford Companion to Translation Studies. Sandrini, Peter. 2002. Weblokalisierung im regionalen Raum. http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/ ~c61302/publik/weblokal.pdf Sandrini, Peter. 2004. Globalisierung und Mehrsprachigkeit: Translation im Wandel? http:// homepage.uibk.ac.at Sandrini, Peter. 2005. Website Localization and Translation, EU-High Level Scientific ­Conference Series, MuTra 2005. – Challenge of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings. Schewe, Theo. 2001. “Multilingual Communication in the Global Network Economy.” In Über Grenzen gehen – Kommunikation zwischen Kulturen und Unternehmen, ed. by J. Eschenbach, and Theo Schewe, 195–209. Halden: Hogskolen I Ostfold. Singh, Nitish, Olivier Furrer, and Massimiliano Ostinelli. 2004. “To Localize or to Standardize on the Web: Empirical Evidence from Italy, India, Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland.” Multinational Business Review 12 (1): 69–87. Sing, Nitish, and Arun Pereira. 2005. The Culturally Customized Web Site: Customizing Web Sites for the Global Marketplace. MA, USA: Elsevier Butterworth – Heinemann. Stocker, Nathalie. 2011. La localization – un domaine de recherche nouveau et actuel: une analyse de la localization du site web d’Esprit, Travail de séminaire: Langues et Internet: le multilinguisme sur le Web, Institut d’études françaises et francophones, Université de Bâle. Tiessen, James H. (2004). “Multinational Multilingualism on the Internet: The Use of ­Japanese on Corporate Web Sites.” In Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue ­Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j. 1936–4490.2004.tb00332.x/pdf. Truchot, Claude, and Dominique Huck. 2009. “« Le traitement des langues dans les ­entreprises ».” In Sprachwahl in europäischen Unternehmen/Choix linguistiques dans les entreprises en Europe/Language Choice in European Companies, Sociolinguistica, Vol. 23/2009, coord. by C. Truchot. Tübingen: Niemeyer Verlag. Warschauer, M. (2002). “Languages.com: The Internet and Linguistic Pluralism”, In Silicon Literacies: Communication, Innovation and Education in the Electronic Age, ed. by I. Snyder, 62–74. London: Routledge. http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/languages.html Yanaprasart, Patchareerat. 2011. Gestion de la diversité linguistique des sites multilingues des entreprises européennes. Acte de colloque «Congrès international de l’Association pour la

 Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Thiresia Choremi & Filippo Gander recherche interculturelle (ARIC), « Les diversités au cœur de la recherche interculturelle: harmonies et dissonances », Sherbrooke, Québec. Yanaprasart, Patchareerat. 2011. La nécessité du multilinguisme sur Internet, Séminaire ­printemps 2010/2011. Institut de français, Université de Bâle. Yanaprasart, Patchareerat. 2012. La gestion de la diversité linguistique sur les sites web plurilingues, entre localisation, standardisation et globalization, in Panel “Représentations, ­gestion et pratiques de la diversité linguistique dans des entreprises européennes”. ­Colloque VALS/ASLA «Le rôle des pratiques langagières dans la constitution des espaces sociaux pluriels d’aujourd’hui : un défi pour la linguistique appliquée», Université de ­Lausanne, 1-3.02.2012. Yanaprasart, Patchareerat, Thiresia Choremi, and Filippo Gander. 2010. Analysis of Company websites, Dylan Consortium Meeting, Univerza v Ljubljana. Yanaprasart, Patchareerat, Thiresia Choremi, and Filippo Gander. 2011. Les langues et les sites web, in Georges Lüdi, Katharina Höchle, Patchareerat Yanaprasart, Plurilinguisme et ­gestion de la diversité au sein d’entreprises dans le contexte du Rhin Supérieur, Working paper 6 Dylan, p. 12–15 ; 19–20. Yunker, John. 2002. Beyond Borders: Web Globalization Strategies. Indiana: New Riders.

part ii

European institutions

chapter 8

Language competence and language choice within EU institutions and their effects on national legislative authorities Jan Kruse & Ulrich Ammon Universität Duisburg-Essen

The topic of this article is multilingualism and language choice in EU institutions. An analysis of whether the choice of working monolingualism penetrates progressively into the entire community and affects other languages and language use and if so, how this occurs.It comprises different sub-topics and perspectives such as the attitudes of EU officials, external communication of EU institutions with civil society through website presentations, with journalists through press conferences and with the German Parliament by the submission of papers. Also, internal institutional aspects were considered by analysing language choice for contributions in plenary and committee meetings in the EU Parliament and the Commission as well as the commissioners’ language skills. Special attention was paid to the unofficial institutional procedural languages, namely English, French and German, which have emerged in this function. English has gained outstanding prominence in all of the domains analyzed, though this does not seem to be welcome according to the officials’ professed attitudes and EU language policy principles. This research shows, however, that the prominence of English is the political reality, despite the seemingly adverse political will and in spite of the reduction in the number of procedural languages, the extension of interpretation services and the promotion of officials’ foreign language skills. Parliamentarians fear the negative impacts of such a development on the EU’s democracy and legitimacy. In addition, growing monolinguality causes language conflicts with, and within, national parliaments as shown by this research in the case of the German Bundestag. Neither the members of the German Parliament, however, or the EU commissioners seem to consider this a burning issue of EU politics. Finally, this research reveals the potentially positive effects of working plurilingualism in EU institutions as well as the stark discrepancy between the EU’s language policy and its actual language politics. The article is based largely on research planning and guidance by Ulrich Ammon and also research carried out by Jan Kruse and, formerly, Verena Wimmers and Michael Schloßmacher.

 Jan Kruse & Ulrich Ammon

8.1  Introduction 8.1.1  Research questions The main research focus of this chapter concerns multilingualism in EU institutions:  Does the EU language policy reflect EU reality? More specifically, we ­investigated whether the choice of working monolingualism progressively penetrates into the entire community and effects other languages and language use and if it does, how this is achieved. We therefore analyzed how the working languages, namely English, German and French, are used for internal and external communication in the institutions and what the effects of the disproportional use of the ­English language are. The research emphasizes the implications of the internal practice of multilingualism for language use in external situations. Subsequently, the consequences for the political actors in the member states are explored in more depth. The term “working language” is of huge importance for our research. In ­principle, the official and working languages of the European Union shall be one (of the) official languages of the member states. This is stipulated in the founding documents of the Union and is one of its most important language policy ­principles (European ­ Economic Community 1958). In practice, however, the ­various ­institutions have evolved different working language rules (Ammon 2012). Our investigations show that these different internal rules are practically non-­ existent as agreements in writing. Also missing are recommendations or guidelines for the use of certain working languages. The agreements are oral, informal or nonpublic; the fact that they are not always as clear as commonly assumed was shown by the discussion about the language regime for the newly established European External Action Service (EEAS) in 2010. The first website of the EEAS and the first internal vacancies in the EU require a knowledge of only English and French and despite the continued opposition of the German Foreign Affairs Ministry, this has not changed. In most publications, however, the term “(internal) working languages” is used when, in fact, the term refers to those languages which are used for political communication within or between EU institutions (cf. Hilpold 2010). In most cases these languages are English, French, German, Spanish and Italian. For this research, it has therefore been assumed that “working languages” basically mean the procedural ­languages. These languages are meant to be used actively and not only as translation ­targets. A demonstrable commitment to certain procedural languages seems, however, to be neither possible nor desirable from the political side, since there is no such ­regulation for the institutions.



Chapter 8.  Language competence and language choice within EU institutions 

8.1.2  P  ositioning of research questions with respect to current scientific research The results of our research regarding the handling of certain working languages in the institutions and the attitudes of EU officials reveal the actual politics of language and the effects of the language policy of the EU. There are numerous articles and other publications from different scientific disciplines about the general question of how to establish a fair and efficient language regime for EU institutions (Ammon 2006a, b; 2007, 2009, 2010a, b; de Swaan 2007; Gazzola 2006; Ginsburgh & Weber 2005; van Els 2005; Wright 2004). Very scant empirical comparative work about the use of the three preeminent working languages, being English, German and French, between different EU institutions, has been presented so far, apart from some partial investigations (e.g. Gehnen 1991; Schloßmacher 1997; Wodak 2011). A report about the language choice of 25 German-speaking members of the EU parliament (Ollila & Partanen 2004) was published in 2004. According to these findings 18 MEPs have a command of two or more foreign languages. This research confirms that the foreign language knowledge among EU officials is comprehensive compared with the general population. Nonetheless, the diversity of language ­knowledge is greater than the diversity of the languages used. This research provides proof as to which languages are actually used in various situations. Furthermore, an outlook on the consequences for national legislative authorities is provided here. The practice of language choice is a result of the language policies, although this practice contradicts the principles of the policies. First and foremost because of this contradiction the results presented here are suitable for a better understanding of language policy implications and consequently this is research which can lead to policy enhancement. Future research can be based on these findings. Additionally, this research is a contribution to the tangible specification of an often vaguely ­discussed state of affairs.

8.2  Analytical framework 8.2.1  Theoretical concepts For this research, the terms fairness and efficiency are of huge importance (cf. Grin 2004; Grin & Vaillancourt 1997). What kind of multilingualism is wished for in the different organisations, and what does real multilingualism look like? How is the relationship between fairness and efficiency evaluated regarding future official and unofficial language regulations for internal and external communication? Previous models (cf. Ammon 2006a, 2007, 2009; de Swaan 2001, 2007; van Els 2005; Gazzola 2006)

 Jan Kruse & Ulrich Ammon

form the basis for discussion and are the benchmarks for the research and analysis contained in this paper/chapter. The data collected on oral language choice can be elucidated by using decision theory rules. Theories which can be used to explain language choices for collective decisions are general rules of politeness and efficiency as well as the “minimex rule” by van Parijs (2007) deduced from the field of economics: […] the core of the dynamics of language spread under present conditions can be understood as the mutually reinforcing interaction between on the one hand the impact of the probability of using a language on the speed with which it is learned, and on the other the systematic adoption, in communication between plurilinguals, of the language of minimum exclusion (or minimex), i.e. the language best known by the participant who knows it least. (van Parijs 2007: 39). This implies that the languages used will be chosen according to the highest freedom of expression level for each individual in a group, which is still in accord with the freedom of expression of the group as a whole. The language choice is such that the individual who is most unsatisfied – in this case the one with the lowest knowledge of English – is still better off than the one who would be most unsatisfied when choosing another language that he/she has no command of. Naturally, in the latter case, ­communication would not be possible. Even when the majority of a group is able to speak another language better than English, but the only foreign language known to one person is English, English will be chosen as the language of conversation. This language could be a language in which nobody is most proficient. Thus, it is not only the level of proficiency that is the decisive factor for language choice, but also the ­minimum requirement for mutual understanding. These rules of language choice are in practice more important than the policy of working language diversity. The respondents to the interviews carried out here often point out pragmatic reasons for language choice. Communication partners agree on a certain language, which is more and more often English. French is used less and less and others – among these German, one of the procedural languages of the ­institutions – are hardly ever used. Similar pragmatic principles of least effort and cost efficiency might apply for the choice of written language next to ideological reasons (cf. Ammon/Kruse c. 2012).

8.2.2  Research methodology Different methodological research approaches were applied according to the methods of social science described by Schnell/ Hill Esser (2005). The oral contributions of commissioners have been analyzed by means of quantitative content analysis. This type of analysis is used to evaluate large text and language corpora in which the material is seen as being part of its communication context (Mayring 2000). The evaluation



Chapter 8.  Language competence and language choice within EU institutions 

of the quantitative data which results from the questionnaires used is done by empirical descriptive data analysis. Previous investigations have been made via structured interviews, written analysis, observations in situ and an analysis of web archives. The contributions of commissioners in press conferences could be observed ­sufficiently via video streaming of the website “Audiovisual Services” of the EU ­commission (ec.europa.eu/avservices, checked 20.01.2011). The videos can be sorted by the name and the date of conference appearance. Although for all contributions the language used is indicated and there is a transcription available, the “Audiovisual Services” do not offer any statistical data about this issue. It is, therefore, not transparent which languages are generally used in this kind of conference. To analyse this ­phenomenon, all contributions had to be observed separately. The results have been sorted by the frequency with which certain languages were used and by the use of ­languages as mother tongue or foreign language. The effects on the work with EU submissions in the German Bundestag have been evaluated using a questionnaire. The answers could be given on ordered or interval scales. The form contained questions about the estimated amount and size of EU ­submissions in English as well as about awareness of the implications of the language used. The results have been evaluated using a descriptive analysis. Data concerning the language competence of Barroso II commissioners and ­language training prior to taking up their position was found in public CVs and ­gathered additionally using a questionnaire. This questionnaire had two q ­ uestions of which one was formulated according to the language competence question of E ­urobarometer studies (eg. European Commission 2005, question D48b-d). Although the CV data are publicly accessible, this comparison provides, in addition, background information which is interesting regarding the conditions of language choice in the analysed fields. These results have also been evaluated using descriptive analysis. A problematic issue for the latter two enquiries was the return rate of questionnaires. The subjects questioned said that they were confronted with questionnaire research very frequently, which was a reason for them to answer only very late or not at all. The reliability of the data collected differs widely. In particular, the measurement of attitudes in general is very context sensitive (Jaespert/Kroon 1998). Attitudes and the use of languages are often bound very closely to the research period. The use of languages in press conferences might thus be strongly influenced by the fact that Spain was then chairing the EU Commission. Preliminary investigations with members of the German Bundestag showed that the answers have all been given according to an earlier published statement from the parliament. Further investigations of language navigation on EU websites, language requirements in job postings and language ­versions of EU submissions to the Bundestag deliver precise information for the time in which they were investigated.

 Jan Kruse & Ulrich Ammon

Altogether, the reliability of all of the findings will be strengthened by possible parallel testing leading to similar results. The mutual relationship between languages used is similar in all fields of research. Even though the research circumstances differ, apart from possible unknown influences, the results of the investigations match for major points. Therefore, it may be assumed that the overall result of the research shows a very high level of reliability.

8.2.3  Research subject and observables 8.2.3.1  Internal communication Initial research concerned the attitudes of MEPs and EU officials to the use of working languages. 32 personal interviews were conducted with leading officials of EU ­language services and MEPs. Furthermore the EU parliament was chosen as a research subject regarding the use of working languages in EP plenary sessions and committee meetings, because the idea of a multilingual Europe has been implemented most extensively in the EP. The observations made here should provide information about how the use of working languages in internal communication affects language use for plenary contributions. Those speakers, who did not talk in their mother tongue (in so far as it is one of the official and working languages of the EU), despite the presence of comprehensively provided interpretation services, have been of particular interest to this research. 600 contributions in plenary sessions in the period 1/3/2009 – 30/5/2009 and committee meetings in the period 1/4/2009 – 30/4/2009 were analyzed. Another field of research has been the documents of inter-parliamentary delegations. Using such delegations, the European Parliament maintains relations with other countries and regions around the globe. During the period of this research, there have been 34 such delegations, which met twice a year with international partners. Their size varied from 12 to 40 delegates. The use of certain working languages within these meetings means international prestige for those languages. In the investigation of the document languages for these delegations, 18 of 34 delegations and altogether 568 documents were analyzed. For the analysis of the use of languages for EP contributions from commissioners in the period 1/9/2008 – 1/10/2009, all contributions from EU commissioners in the EP have been observed via video stream. They were analyzed specifically in relation to the use of languages by the commissioners. A total of 996 oral contributions by all 27 EU commissioners were evaluated. 8.2.3.2  External communication As part of the external communication, the websites of the Commission and of parliamentary groups were analyzed. These sites often do not fulfil the usual claim of a high level of multilingualism. Following a five step classification, over half of the sites must



Chapter 8.  Language competence and language choice within EU institutions 

be evaluated as “severely limited language diversity”. All websites were analyzed using different variables regarding multilingualism. The investigation of the consequences of such a language regime in practice has been analyzed using EU submissions to the German Bundestag. There are complaints within the Bundestag about the commission submitting important documents only in English, while simultaneously disseminating communications claiming more ­support for the member states facilitating education in foreign languages other than English (cf. Deutscher Bundestag 2008/1, 2008/2 and 2011). EU submissions from the commission are handed over to the German Parliament and are often not translated. For justification the EU refers to a communication about the translation regime (­Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 2006), which sets out that appendices and working documents do not have to be translated into EU official and working languages. This includes documents relevant for discussion (“beratungsrelevant”) and, according to information from the Bundestag, perpetually important content such as impact assessments and financial budgeting. Based on this information a survey for the members of the German Parliament was developed to explore whether the political legislative work in committees in Parliament can be based on a sufficient understanding of the relevant documents and, if it can, how? Next to the main survey there was also a pre-survey with 21 MPs, who reinforced the following dissatisfaction as written in official Bundestag printed material: Der Deutsche Bundestag fordert die Bundesregierung daher auf, […] im Rat darauf hinzuwirken, dass die KOM die Übersetzung sämtlicher Dokumente in die deutsche Sprache sicherstellt, die für die ungehinderte Erfüllung des Mindestauftrags der Deutschen Bundestages in EU-Angelegenheiten erforderlich sind. Dazu gehören auch Anhänge und Arbeitspapiere, die politisch bedeutsame Informationen enthalten […], Politikfolgeabschätzungen, Finanzberichte und Finanzbögen sowie ­sämtliche EU-Vorlagen, für die seitens des Deutschen Bundestages ein besonderer Beratungsbedarf angemeldet worden ist. Die Entscheidung über die Übersetzung soll nicht ­schematisch nach formalen Kriterien, sondern unter Berücksichtigung seiner ­politischen Bedeutung getroffen werden. (Deutscher Bundestag 2008/3: 3) The main issues concern the decision on the need for translations following only formal and no content-related criteria. The MPs said that in the 15th legislative period (status: April 2009) 65 submissions could not be discussed because they were not ­available in German. Hence they claim that appendices, which contain important information, must be translated to maintain an open and transparent collaboration with the commission. If the recent translation regime does not change, the MPs fear the consequence will be a democratic deficit due to missing translations and a lack of transparency. The precise amount of non-translated documents for the German ­Bundestag is, however, not known. The European Unit of the Bundestag (Europareferat) merely

 Jan Kruse & Ulrich Ammon

announced that according to an internal estimate of the German Parliament’s ­administration, the majority of pages of EU submissions to the Bundestag are not translated into German. Regarding the total amount of non-German pages of relevant documents submitted – this is just a fraction of all EU documents which go to the Bundestag – the total number which is not translated could be almost 18,000 pages per year (Europareferat des Bundestages, E-Mail 2010). The complaints about English language documents show that for MPs it is not part of their regular task to work with documents in English. Also, they feel their national political sovereignty is being interfered with, when receiving EU documents in English. The dominance of the English language as the main procedural language has a certain effect on the work in the German Bundestag. The corresponding consequences have been researched in detail by a survey addressed to all Members of Parliament, who work in one of the 20 chosen committees. The questionnaire consists of 10 questions about the estimated amount of non-German EU submissions, the handling of foreign language documents in the legislative process and also about the consequences for the awareness levels of parliamentarians. The questions have been developed in cooperation with the European Unit of the Bundestag and the Centre for Higher Education and Quality Development of the University Duisburg-Essen. We also observed press conferences in order to discover which languages are used for external communication. In contrast to the contributions in the European ­Parliament, these conferences address the public sphere directly (Ekström 2007). They are, to a high degree, representative and they show the level of importance inherent in the different languages in the EU. Comparing these two investigations it can be determined whether monolingual practice within institutions is visible externally. The commissioners represent the commission not only in relation to content, but also linguistically. Moreover, they act as representatives of their specific member states. In the period from January to June 2010, 140 contributions which were published on the commission’s website were evaluated. Via the site European Commission – Audiovisual Services, Videos (http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/video_search_en.cfm, checked May, 2010) it was possible to filter conferences involving certain commissioners in a certain period and determine and evaluate the use of languages. Basically, according to personal information from the Directorate-General for Translation and Conferences, the widest possible range of an interpretation service is made available for these conferences. Limitations are just due to the amount of available interpreting booths. Apart from these architectural limitations, shortages of qualified interpreters for certain languages can be a problem, especially for the “new” working languages. The cost of this standby service for all languages amounts to about 5 million Euro per year. It has therefore been agreed to implement a period of advance notice. For a typical conference period of a couple of days, and notice given up to a week in advance, there can be 14 to 16 languages covered. Regular conferences



Chapter 8.  Language competence and language choice within EU institutions 

can be covered fully. The actual procedural monolingualism in EU institutions was determined in the period of the Barroso I commission (2004–2009). Therefore, it was interesting to address the question as to what level of language proficiency the commissioners of the Barroso II commission (2010–2014) have and whether they prepared themselves linguistically prior to attaining their new positions. The commissioners usually indicate their language knowledge in their ­public CVs. A possible evaluation of this knowledge is easier if a statement is given ­regarding the language knowledge question from the Eurobarometer surveys. In this case, a comparison of the answers to public statements and the average language knowledge of ­European citizens is possible. Therefore, a survey was conducted for all 27 commissioners. In the Eurobarometer surveys the language proficiency question is: “Which ­languages do you speak well enough in order to be able to have a conversation excluding your mother tongue?” The questions to the commissioners have been adjusted accordingly: “Which languages did you speak well enough in order to be able to have a conversation excluding your mother tongue prior to taking up your appointment at the European Commission?” The position-related amendment led to a follow up question: “Did you participate in language training whilst preparing for your new role?”

8.3  Results and discussion 8.3.1  A  ttitudes of MEPs and EU officials towards the use of working languages The analysis of the data clearly shows the absolute dominance of the English language for all internal and external communication situations in EU institutions. In the interviews all 32 respondents said that they used English for 70–90% of their internal communication. In meetings without an interpretation service they even estimated that they used English 90% of the time as a procedural language. All parliamentarians observe an increasing use of English as the sole procedural language. This is mainly at the expense of French. German has never been used extensively. The reported frequent use of English is being justified on pragmatic grounds. Nevertheless the majority of the respondents interviewed are against a reduction of EU working languages and strongly oppose a monolingual regime. Obviously, they fear a cultural hegemony of that member state whose language would be the sole working language. There is consensus about the fact that there will be no change in the official working language regime and the use of procedural languages. This is already unlikely, because the member states would have to forgo the status of their own languages, which is not domestically enforceable anywhere.

 Jan Kruse & Ulrich Ammon

8.3.2  Th  e use of working languages in EP plenary sessions and committee meetings Even though all plenary sessions will be translated into all official languages, it is essential to the daily work of parliamentarians that they master one of the procedural languages of the EU. The three aspects that are critical to the use of languages in the parliament have been accurately described by Sue Wright: first, the need to safeguard the symbolic equality of member states within the Union; second, the need for ­members of the parliament to be effective; third, the need for all citizens to be able to unserstand what is being debated and decided in their name. (Wright 2007: 161). This explains why most MEPs in their parliamentary speeches use their official national language; In our case in 88.4% of all 600 contributions analyzed. However, there are members who choose not to use the interpretation service for their language. This was the case in 11.6% of all speeches. When not choosing their mother tongue, they decided to speak English. This was the language most frequently used by r­epresentatives from the new member states. One explanation could be that the languages of ​​ the new member states are translated most often via relay interpretation. MEPs from these language origins who speak English directly can be sure that their contribution is translated only once, and that important information will be more authentic. As also confirmed by interview (see Wright 2007) another reason is ­certainly that parliamentarians of eastern European member states most often find no interpretation service, apart from during plenary sessions. Therefore they are ­accustomed to speaking English and sometimes French.

8.3.3  Documents of interparliamentary delegations Of all 568 documents researched, a maximum of 97% are in English, and of these 53% are in English only. The remaining percentages of all language documents e­ xamined are: French 30%, German 23%, Spanish 8%, Italian 3%, all other languages                           #1 5 Φenforce#mentΦ=cioè della ΦeffettivitàΦ delle regole    enforcement=that is of the effectiveness of the rules



Φmoves joint hands forwardΦ Φ beats with joint handsΦ 

         #2

.  As mentioned above (§ 2), lectures are instances of institutional communication whereby interaction is not only ‘managed’ by a chairperson, but also participants’ knowledge is asymmetric and students are socialised to become ‘experts’ or ‘professionals’. In linguistically diverse classes asymmetry may also involve language competence, at least for some participants.

 D. Veronesi, L. Spreafico, C. Varcasia, A. Vietti & R. Franceschini





Figure 1: della:

6 7

LEC

Figure 2: enforcement

che presiedono, che disciplinano il   diritto which rule, which regulates the law dei mercati finanziari, of financial markets,

As can be observed, the lecturer (LEC) switches from Italian – the official language of the class – to English in that he mentions the term “enforcement” (line 5, in italics in the translation line), which is introduced for the first time in the lecture at this point. The English term is glossed into Italian (line 5 “effettività delle regole”), and this gloss is in turn followed by an expansion (lines 6–7) which specifies the kind of legislation being enforced. The term “enforcement” is prosodically marked: it is preceded by a pause (line 4) and uttered at a higher volume. The gesture the lecturer produces while uttering “enforcement” – moving his joint hands from the chest in a forward direction (line 5, Figure 2) – ­further demonstrates its salience to students, most of whom are visually oriented to the lecturer. This episode provides an example of how institutional multilingualism can be drawn upon by lecturers in the accomplishment of a specific task like that of introducing new terminology, by code-switching from one language to another (through “insertions”, cfr. Auer 1998). Furthermore, it shows how lecturers can manage the possible tension between official language regulations and the linguistic and ­cultural peculiarities of subject-matters. Indeed, in the above mentioned lecture held in ­Italian, English is on more than one occasion defined by the lecturer as the language of the ­discipline, and its use within a course in Italian is thus made “accountable” (see Hutchby & Woofitt 1998) by the lecturer via the subject-matter argumentation. This is evident in the following excerpt, where the lecturer comments on his usage of English terms (line 3) and locates the reason for such usage in lexical loan practices from the US legal system to the Italian legal system (“these are … words that we import from that legal system”, lines 4–5): (2) (ECO1, 00:57:18) 1 LEC 2

se noi assistiamo alla, (0.45) e::h (.) if we look into the (0.45) e::h    (.) al trend della: e:h enforcement della legge, the trend of the e:h enforcement of the law,

3 LEC 4 5 6 7

Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices  uso vedete tutti termini, e:h anche inglesi I’m using you see all terms, e:h English too perché son proprio parole che noi importiamo because these are really words that we import da quell’ordinamento (0.6) e::h from that legal system (0.6) e::h osserviamo la f::ortissima influenza we can see the very s::trong influence 0delle class action0 degli avvocati. of the class action(s) by lawyers.

In the same lecture, students also use English terms within their Italian ­contributions – questions, answers, comments, objections etc. -, but do not cross, so to speak, the ‘­ terminological transfer’ line by further switching between languages; similarly, ­students in the other, observed lectures orient to lecturers’ monolingual practices when interacting with them. What emerges from the analysis is the convergence of both lecturers and students on the ‘model’ proposed by the institution for language use in the classroom; the contextual availability of more languages (in terms of the FUB official languages and of the participants’ linguistic repertoires) is thus made relevant here in a limited way, as it is partially turned into a resource for possibly enhancing students’ active participation and jointly constructing knowledge. The practices of lecturers and students are in line with the institutional vision of lectures as contexts where learning a discipline in a specific language can also enhance the command of that language (see above), provided this is used consistently by all participants. Institutional multilingualism can be made fruitful by enhancing individual multilingual competences in a quite different way, though, as is shown in recent works on higher educational settings (see Müller, Gajo, Berthoud & Grobet 2012; Borràs, Moore, Nussbaum & Patiño 2012, as well as the contributions on educational settings in this volume), and will be explored in detail in the following section.

12.3.2  Academic seminars The seminar context constitutes a ‘unicum’ in academic interactions, since two opposite tendencies are combined and clash: institutional communication and communication between peers. Seminars are focused on the elaboration of new knowledge, are intended “to promote an exchange of views” and in a sense are a form of “intellectual exploration in a group” (Lynch & Anderson 1991; Basturkmen 1997). For these reasons seminars as found in a trilingual university lend themselves to the discussion of the conditions under which multilingualism is a resource for communication rather than an obstacle. This is especially the case if the official politics pertaining to language use in the classroom vary as they do at the FUB.

 D. Veronesi, L. Spreafico, C. Varcasia, A. Vietti & R. Franceschini

The seminars under scrutiny here were part of two BA courses held in 2007 at the Faculty of Design and Art and at the Faculty of Education respectively, and at that time had different guidelines regarding the languages used in teaching. As stated in the study manifesto of the Bachelor in Design, each so-called Interdisciplinary Project Works (IPW) – the object of our analysis – took place in one of the three official languages of the degree course. However, since IPWs resulted from the combination of three modules and supposed interaction among lectures and tutors with different scientific backgrounds, whenever possible the Faculty tried to combine scholars with different L1s in order to insure that each module was taught in a different language.12 As regards the Bachelor in Multilingual Communication (Faculty of Education), each seminar was usually offered in more than one language so that students had the right to choose among them.13 The comparison of the language guidelines for these BA courses highlighted the fact that two different conceptions of multilingualism might coexist: according to the first one, multilingualism resulted from the interaction of different languages even at the very same event; according to the second, multilingualism resulted from the combination of many monolingual events at the macro level. These different views were reflected in the communicative practices we considered. Seminars held at the Faculty of Design and Art showed a preference for multilingual practices, mostly in terms of intrasentential and intersentential code switchings (Auer 1999). Seminars offered by the Faculty of Education, however, instead displayed a preference for monolingual practices, especially in terms of extended monolingual turns. In this respect the most notable differences lay in the linguistic behavior of tutors, that is those who are asked to apply the official language policies. Relevant divergences in their attitude pertained both to the management of languages for the interaction, as well as to their actual usage. In what follows we will show to what extent the different conceptions of multilingualism were embodied by these tutors by referring to their practices in the Faculties of Design and Art (LEC1) and Education (TUT1) respectively. LEC1, a bilingual Italian/German speaker also fluent in English, had the tendency to switch among codes and, on the whole, during each seminar he held, he utilised all of the three languages available for the BA course. He exploited language alternation mostly in order to ensure that addressees as well as ratified hearers got the speaker’s message, as clearly emerges from the translation of extended turns. This was typical for managing the interaction, especially when he set up the work agenda (see also Veronesi & Spreafico 2009) or needed all hearers to understand how to work on assignments:

.  These guidelines are still in use. .  The vision has since then changed. In the academic year 2010/2011 courses were offered in Italian, German or English. Each class was taught in one language only.



Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices 

(3) (DES1, 00:24:20) 1 LEC questo secondo me non è un ottimo (.) non è un buon I think this is not the best, this is not a good 2 ehm metodi xxx di presentare un progetto. ehm way xxx to present a project 3 […] ((LEC speaks Italian for about 80 seconds)) 4 LEC ich mache‘s kurz auf deutsch was was ich im wirklich I’ll shortly translate briefly into German: what I do  really 5 ganz (.) ganz schlecht finde ist die (.) eh ist die really (.) really dislike is the (.) eh is the 6 art und weise eh wie du (.) wie du jetzt präsentiert the way eh (.) how you just presented your project

7 hast.

Language alternation also tended to be used by LEC1 in solicit-give exchanges (e.g. in the form of question-answer adjacency pairs), usually in order to promote the achievement of the main institutional goal of seminars, namely helping students to develop original ideas. Prospective initiating moves aimed at provoking students’ comments were often uttered in each of the three languages allowed in the seminar, to guarantee a higher chance of follow-up moves by students, as can be seen in the following example: (4) (DES1, 01:31:22) 1 LEC voi cosa pensate? what do you think? 2 (0.4) 3 LEC you what do you think? (.) was denkt ihr (d)rüber?                   what do you think about this?

For just the same reason students were basically left free to choose their preferred language: (5) (DES1, 00:33:29)

1 ST1 in Italian? 2 (0.6) 3 ST1 o:r¿ 4 (0.2) 5 LEC as you like. 6 ST1 ehm: (0.8) probably in German is not so good. 7 (0.8) 8 LEC can do this in xxx. 9 (1.30) 10 ST1 German! 11 (0.5)

 D. Veronesi, L. Spreafico, C. Varcasia, A. Vietti & R. Franceschini

12 LEC as you like [en]glish german italian. 13 ST1          [ja!] [yes!] 14 (0.57) 15 ST1 e:hm ich habe über (das) si:tzen nachgedacht I’ve thought of sitting

Language alternation at the micro level was mostly used to compensate for lexical shortcomings that might have hindered comprehension (Spreafico 2009). Interestingly enough it also affected what are usually disregarded parts of speech such as fillers. An acoustic analysis showed that filled pauses uttered by LEC1 displayed different formant values, that is, they were language specific and presented timbric variation that could be used to index language alternation (Spreafico 2011). As regards the tutor from the BA in Multilingual Communication, he displayed very different attitudes with respect to the management and use of languages in the seminars he led. TUT1, a native speaker of South-Tyrolean dialect (although fluent in German, Italian and English, that is, in each of the three official languages of the University) tended to adhere to the ruling guidelines of the study manifesto and to reserve German for leading the SECs he was in charge of. He used this language to steer the interaction and to discuss, to lecture and to introduce new concepts. This strict monolingualism was not challenged except for short lexical transfers (Haspelmath 2008) that were used preventively to reformulate and facilitate comprehension, probably because of a presumed asymmetry of linguistic competence between the tutor and some students (Spreafico 2009; Veronesi & Spreafico 2009): (6) (AC1, 01:21:19) 1 TUT1 und dann ein interscambio (.) ein austausch der and then an exchange (.) an exchange of 2 dozenten in diesen verschiedenen postgrados  the professors in these different postgraduate studies

As regards the pattern of language use for teacher-students interactions, therefore, the seminar constituted a monolingual event and thus adhered to the regulations defined by the BA course’s governing body. Nevertheless the South-Tyrolean dialect was often used for peer interactions among students, and was never discouraged or stigmatised by the tutor (see also Spreafico & Veronesi 2012). To summarise, the data collected for seminars show that two different ­patterns and degrees of multilingualism emerged. As for the BA in Multilingual Communication, multilingualism was built outside the seminar’s activities and resulted from the interaction of several courses taught in different languages. As for Design, m ­ ultilingualism was built into the activities of the seminar and resulted from the interaction among attendants speaking different languages both within a turn and across turns.



Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices 

This last strategy proved to be fruitful in increasing both the degree of interaction among the participants in the activities, as well as the elaboration and the comprehension of new concepts by those being tutored. In this sense multilingualism in the class proved to be a an aide to communication rather than an obstacle.

12.3.3  Service encounters The service encounters analysed were collected at two different information desks in the FUB, namely the Infopoint and the Library desk. These encounters represent a site for social interaction in which students, staff and external users communicate their needs for specific services. The study of this kind of encounter aimed at providing an overview of the deployment of multilingual practices in terms of the languages spoken overall, and specifically in the two offices observed, and the relative policies that govern those offices, which are providing a service. Firstly, these encounters are characterised by the use of one language at a time as shown by the example below, taking place at the Infopoint; only 10% (9.9%) display code-alternation (cfr. Varcasia 2010: 658). (7) (SE-orient-170908-1) 0grüß gott0 1 STU 0good morning0 2 SP2 grüß gott good morning 3 STU  ä:: ich hab eigentlich (.) ‘n paar ä:: i have (.) a couple of 4 den ich abgeben möchte ich weiß dass jetzt grad das that I’d like to hand over I know that the careers 5 praktikumsamt nicht geöffnet hat advisory is not open now 6 SP2 aha 7 STU das fängt eben genau in zwei wochen an it starts precisely in two weeks’ time 8 (.) 9 SP2 ja: ye:s 10 STU man soll ja den antrag zwei wochen vorher the application must be handed over two weeks before  11 abgeben. es ist alles unterschrieben und everything is signed and 12 SP2 ja geh [einfach zwei türen weiter nach rechts yes just go the next two doors on the right [...]

 D. Veronesi, L. Spreafico, C. Varcasia, A. Vietti & R. Franceschini

The service seeker (STU, a student) in the example starts speaking by greeting his interlocutor in German (line 1), therefore selecting this language for the interaction by taking for granted that his interlocutor understands. The service provider, on the other hand, accommodates such selection, that is converges (Auer 1984) on the interlocutor’s code choice (line 2) and the conversation goes on smoothly without any code-negotiation. How is such an accomodation to be explained? As can be seen in Example (7), the first turn-at-talk is produced by the student; the service provider, in other words, lets the interlocutor talk first. This is not an isolated case, but is well documented in the analysed corpus (around 60%, cf. Varcasia 2010: 660). Such a practice is also partly confirmed by previous studies on service encounters. Anderson (1988), in her study of bookshop service encounters in Britain and Italy, reports that 72% of the native speaker clients in the British bookshops open the encounter, and in 78% of the interactions with non-native speakers they do the same. Coupland (1983), on the other hand, found that 80% of the time travel agents in his corpus initiated the conversation. A further consideration must be taken into account here, however: both the Infopoint and the Library share the same informal and tacit policy that staff members – who, similarly to civil servants in South Tyrolean public administration (see above, § 1), are required to certify their knowledge of German and Italian – are supposed to accommodate their interlocutor’s language choice. Service providers in both settings thus show an orientation to such a tacit policy, letting their “customers” select their preferred language for interaction. The two settings, though, differ from one another as regards the languages chosen for interaction, as shown in Graph (1):

45

41%

40

34,8%

35

28,8%

30

24,2% 22,7%

25 20

Infopoint N = 66 Library N = 66

13,7%

15

12,1%

10,6%

10

4,5%

7,6%

5 0 Ita

Ger

Dia

Eng

CA

Graph 1.  Language choices in service encounters: Infopoint vs. Library



Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices 

Language choice is not equally balanced in the two offices, except for the use of German (Hochdeutsch). Italian is the most commonly used language for the exchanges in the Library, in 41% of the cases, whereas at the Infopoint it is spoken in only 13, 7% of cases. German and the local dialectal variety together represent roughly the other half of the encounters at the Library (24,2% and 22,7% respectively). Service encounters observed at the University of Barcelona, unlike Bolzano, display a negotiation of the code for communication between English and Spanish. Catalan is also spoken, but seems to be restricted to insertions linked to the institutional internal work or formulations of local categories (cfr. Moore & Patiño-Santos 2010; Nussbaum, Moore & Borràs, this volume), in contrast to the use of the South Tyrolean dialect in Bolzano which is selected equally among the other languages. The type of users that seem to patronise the Library are apparently people coming from the local community, both with L1 Italian and German, and users from Germany, who orient to Hochdeutsch rather than the local South Tyrolean dialect. The Infopoint is patronised by local people too, but to a lesser extent. Here English is the language most often chosen, at 34,8%. English is only ­spoken by i­nternational students, which represents their lingua franca (see Firth 1996; ­Meierkord 2000; Seidlhofer 2001; Knapp & ­Meierkord 2002; Seidlhofer 2005; ­Jenkins 2007; ­Prodromou 2007; ­Hülmbauer, Böhringer & ­S eidlhofer 2008; ­Mauranen & Ranta 2009; among others). From the results illustrated in Graph 1 therefore, ­international ­students mostly go to the Infopoint and they almost never ask for information at the Library Information Desk. In addition, at this location more German is spoken than the South Tyrolean variety (28,8% vs. 10,6% respectively). The code-choice is influenced here by the presence of one service provider from Germany, next to the other L1 German colleagues of South-Tyrolean origins. The influence on the use of German played by this person is supported by the instances of code-alternation between German and the South Tyrolean dialect in which this person is involved. To sum up, multilingualism in the working and service provider context of the FUB is shown as representing the possibility to choose which language to speak according to the different interlocutor one talks to, rather than code-switching or language alternation. This may be for two different reasons: the business nature of the encounters, according to which speaking one language in such brief interactions saves time on code negotiation; and the permeation of the wider local environment into the tacit linguistic policy of the two offices to accommodate the language preferred by service seekers. The provincial statute claims, in fact, equal rights for both Italian and German speakers to use their mother tongue (see § 1). In the context of the University, equal rights are therefore given to the three official languages of the University, as well as to the local dialectal variety.

 D. Veronesi, L. Spreafico, C. Varcasia, A. Vietti & R. Franceschini

12.3.4  Students’ social networks The study on social networks intends to investigate the influence of personal social networks’ on the patterns of language use among university students. The application of Milroy’s theory to our field of investigation leads to the following hypothesis: 1. Is there a link between code-selection and the structure of a social network? 2. Are speakers using only one language more likely to belong to a high density network? The aim is to sample a wide range of ties from each network, capturing not only the closest relationships but also the weak ties, which carry linguistic innovation in open networks (Granovetter 1973; Milroy & Milroy 1985). Therefore, on the basis of previous analysis of language diaries (Vietti 2009 and 2011) and the literature on social networks, a modified version of the language diary method14 has been developed (Romaine 1983; Lawson & Sachdev 2004) and tested on a sample of 19 subjects (­average age: 25; gender: 9M,12F; background: Poland, Germany, South Tyrol and 4 other regions of Italy). The subjects were asked to keep a record of their everyday communication in the diary and to fill in a brief sociolinguistic questionnaire (gender, age, birthplace, university programme, first language/s acquired). Table 1 reports an extract from a language diary. The sociolinguistic analysis was concerned with the key methodological issue of how to model language use within a quantitative social network approach (Scott 2002). Consequently, all research activity was structured along two lines: on the one hand, a number of network measures were tested in the data; on the other, methods of measuring multilingual language use were devised (s. Vietti 2011). The final outcomes of this quantitative analysis led to the conclusion that an effective and balanced use of the multilingual repertoire is linked to structurally differentiated social networks: speakers that interact in a more complex network – which normally consists of non-interconnected sub-networks – act as bridges and interconnecting points across distinct and divergent social and linguistic worlds. The university students who come from abroad belong prototypically to this category of balanced multilinguals, while local South Tyrolean students need to strive against the social pressures of the most intimate monolingual network cliques (family and friends), trying to open to new groups of relations and, most importantly, to keep them disconnected from the network core. In general, the study of the relationship between social networks and language use shows how multilingual repertoires are linked to the individual’s access to a wide

.  Also known as “contact diary methods” in social network research.



Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices 

Table 1.  An example of a language diary

range of differentiated social groups; in turn, this highlights the difficulties that might be encountered by individuals with strong, intimate monolingual networks in taking advantage of societal multilingualism as can be the case for local South Tyrolean students at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano.

12.4  Discussion The analysis of the multifaceted data on which we focused in the present chapter helps to answer our initial question on how linguistic diversity can be an asset rather than a drawback in higher education, and what are the conditions which make multilingualism both feasible and desirable. Participating in pedagogical events does provides students with such opportunities: interactions as those described for seminars at the Faculty of Design and Art testify to how language alternation might be used not only to enhance comprehension, but also to foster creativity, and the elaboration of original knowledge products which depend on mutual comprehension as well as on the resolution of terminological conflicts leading to novel interpretations of established concepts. Against the ­background

 D. Veronesi, L. Spreafico, C. Varcasia, A. Vietti & R. Franceschini

of students’ varying language skills, however, the potential of such multilingual interactions in terms of knowledge co-construction and participation turns out to be strongly dependent on lecturers’ and tutors’ linguistic repertoires and in the way they put institutional language policies into practice. In this sense, an alternative way – in fact the most common at the FUB – to teach and learn in a trilingual institution is reflected in the use of one language only in analysed lectures, viewed as possible contexts for L2 learning and practicing: two different conceptions and actual realisations of multilingualism and multilingual competence emerge, for which a bigger balance in the context of pedagogical activities seems advisable. Institutional interaction among different academic social actors outside the classroom – such as the one exemplified above in service encounters between ­students and administrative staff – is, however, clearly advantaged by the m ­ ultilingual repertoires of administrative staff and their ability to converge on their interlocutors’ displayed preferred language. By doing so, service-seekers are at ease in pursuing their goals by using the language they master or prefer, and both the efficiency and fairness of communication is thereby enhanced. The academic and administrative staff ’s language competence, institutional, differentiated views of multilingualism and sensitivity to contextual contingencies thus seem to provide the necessary conditions to make multilingualism not only a reachable goal, but also a way in which language diversity can be managed and made fruitful in academic settings.

12.5  Concluding remarks The present chapter discussed some examples of communicative events taking place at the trilingual Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, taken as a case study for the investigation of multilingualism in higher education. The analyses, which were carried out taking into account the linguistic and social context in which the university ‘microcosm’ is embedded as well as relating them to institutional and individual representations of multilingualism, offers a picture of the university in question and the conditions under which linguistic and cultural diversity can turn into a resource for knowledge construction, social cohesion and economic growth. They also hint at more general phenomena related to the future of the multilingual challenge that go well beyond the borders of a small region like South Tyrol. While the results have implications for language policies (see the volume introduction), they also suggest some directions for future research. A first issue which deserves detailed analysis is the way in which institutional language policies are discussed in governing bodies within departments and ­administrative services, which could help to achieve a better contextualisation of the



Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices 

interplay between an institution and the individual social actors. A second area of future investigation concerns language prestige and language ideologies, as well as their interplay with the linguistic features of subject matters, which have been only partially explored here, but which are crucial to understanding how multilingualism can be linked to issues of efficiency and fairness in higher education contexts. Finally, the insights provided by this study through investigating social actors’ networks and communicative practices outside the institution point to the importance of future analyses devoted to informal settings, both as sites where institutional and societal patterns of language use are confirmed, negotiated and modified in order to reach communicative goals, and as sites of interactions that can contribute to the construction of the multilingual repertories envisioned for contemporary Europe.

References Adelswärt, Viveka, Karin Aronsson, Linda Jönsson, and Per Linell. 1997. “The Unequal Distribution of Interactional Space: Dominance and Control in Courtroom Interaction.” Text 7 (4): 313–346. Anderson, Laurie. 1988. “Access Routines in Service Encounters.” In The PIXI Project, Negotiating Service, ed. by G. Aston, 99–134. Bologna: CLUEB. ASTAT. 2002. 2002. Astat Info, 17 Agosto 2002. Bolzano: Istituto provinciale di statistica. Auer Peter. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer Peter. 1998. “Bilingual Conversation Revisited.” In Code-Switching in Conversation, ed. by P. Auer, 1–24. London: Routledge. Auer Peter (ed.). 1998. Code-Switching in Conversation. Language, Interaction and Identity. ­London: Routledge. Auer, Peter. 1999. “From Codeswitching via Language Mixing to Fused Lects. Toward a Dynamic Typology of Bilingual Speech.” International Journal of Bilingualism 3 (4): 309–332. Bamford, Julia. 2005. “Interactivity in Academic Lectures: The Role of Questions and Answers.” In Dialogue within Discourse Communities: Metadiscursive Perspectives, ed. by J. Bamford, and M. Bondi, 123–145. Tuebingen: Niemeyer. Basturkmen, Helen L. 1997. The Discourse of Academic Seminars: Structures and Strategies of Interaction. University of Birmingham. Baur, Siegfried. 2000. Die Tücken der Nähe. Meran: Alpha & Beta. Borràs, Eulalia, Emilee Moore, Luci Nussbaum, and Adriana Patiño. 2012. “Variété des pratiques plurilingues dans des cours universitaires en L2.” In Interactions cosmpolites: l’organisation de la participation plurilingue, ed. by L. Mondada, and L. Nussbaum, 63–98. Limoges: Lambert Lucas. Chaudron, Craig, and Jack C. Richards. 1986. “The Effect of Discourse Markers on the Comprehension of Lectures.” Applied Linguistics 7 (2): 113–127. Ciliberti Anna, and Laurie Anderson (eds). 1999. Le forme della comunicazione accademica. Milano: Franco Angeli. Ciliberti, Anna (ed.). 2007. La costruzione interazionale di identità. Repertori linguistici e pratiche discursive degli italiani in Austrialia. Milano: Franco Angeli.

 D. Veronesi, L. Spreafico, C. Varcasia, A. Vietti & R. Franceschini Coupland, Nickolas. 1983. “Patterns of Encounter Management: Further Arguments for Discourse Variables.” Language in Society 12: 459–476. Dal Negro, Silvia, and Claudia Provenzano (eds). 2012. Un anno in Lingua 2/Zweitsprachjahr/N ann te L2 y L3. Strumenti e metodi per la ricerca. Azzano: Junior. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage (eds). 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunkel, Patricia A., and James N. Davis. 1994. “The Effect of Theorical Signaling Cues on the Recall of English Lecture Information by Speakers of English as a Native or Second Language.” In Academic Listening: Research Perspectives, ed. by J. Flowerdew, 55–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Egger, Kurt. 2001. L’Alto Adige-Südtirol e le sue lingue: una regione sulla strada del plurilinguismo. Merano: Alpha & Beta. Firth, Alan. 1996. “The Discursive Accomplishment of Normality: On ‘Lingua Franca’ English and Conversation. Analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 237–259. Flowerdew, John (ed.). (1994). Academic Listening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, John, and Steve Tauroza. 1995. “The Effect of Discourse Markers on Second Language ­Lecture Comprehension.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17: 435–458. Ford, Cecilia, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds). 2002. The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ford, Cecilia, and Johannes Wagner (eds). 1996. “Interaction-Based Studies of Language.” Special Issue of Pragmatics 6 (3): 277–456. Franceschini, Rita. 2009. “The Genesis and Development of Research in Multilingualism: ­Perspectives for Future Research.” In The Exploration of Multilingualism. Development of Research on L3, Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition, ed. by L. Aronin, and B. Hufeisen, 27–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Franceschini, Rita. 2011. “The Potentiality of Multilingualism: Four Scenarios for a Multilingual Country.” In New Theoretical Perspectives in Multilingualism Research, ed. by W. Wiater, and G. Videsott, 135–153. Frankfurt a. M: Peter Lang. Franceschini, Rita, and Daniel Veronesi. 2013. Multilingual Universities: Policies and Practices. In Teaching European Union Studies – Patterns in Traditional and Innovative Teaching Methods and Curricula, ed. by S. Baroncelli, I. Horga, S. Vanhoonacker, and R. Farneti, 55–72. New York: Springer. Gafaranga, Joseph. 2001. “Linguistic Identities in Talk-in-Interaction: Order in Bilingual Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1901–1925. Gafaranga, Joseph. 2007. Talk in Two Languages, Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan. Gajo, Laurent. 2001. Immersion, bilinguisme et interaction en classe. Paris: Didier. Gajo, Laurent. 2007. “Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: How Does Bilingualism Contribute to Subject Development?” International Journal on Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10 (5): 563–581. Gajo, Laurent, Anne Grobet, Cecilia Serra, Gabriela Steffen, Gabriele Müller, and Anne-Claude Berthoud. 2013. Plurilingualisms and Knowledge Construction in Higher Education (in this volume). Gal, Susan. 1979. Language Shift. Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York: Academica Press. Garcia, Ofelia, and Joshua A. Fishman (eds). 1997. The Multilingual Apple. Languages in New York City. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices 

Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 1991. Language Selection and Switching in Strasbourg. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gardner, Rod, and Johannes Wagner. 2004. “Introduction.” In Second Language Conversations, ed. by R. Gardner, and J. Wagner. London/New York: Continuum. Gardner, Rod, and Johannes Wagner (eds). 2004. Second Language Conversations. London/New York: Continuum. Goffmann, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational Organization. Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press. Goodwin, Charles. 2003. “The Body in Action.” In Discourse, the Body and Identity, ed. by J. Coupland, and R. Gwyn, 19–42. Houndsmill: Palgrave. Goodwin, Charles. 2007. “Interactive Footing.” In Reporting Talk: Reporting Speech in Interaction, ed. by E. Holt, and R. Clift, 108–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, Charles. 2012. “The Co-operative, Transformative Organization of Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics, special issue “Multimodal Interaction” ed. by Arnulf Deppermann. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin. 2004. “Participation.” In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by A. Duranti, 222–244. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Graiffenhagen, Christian. 2008. “Video Analysis on Mathematical Practice?” Forum Qualitative Social Research 9 (3). http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs-0803323. Granovetter Mark S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380. Grütz, Doris. 2002. “Kommunikative Muster in Vorlesungen. Linguistische Untersuchung einer fachsprachlichen Textsorte der Wissensvermittlung aus dem Handlungsbereich ­Hochschule und Wissenschaft.” Fachsprache 3–4: 120–139. Guerini, Federica. 2006. Language Alternation Strategies in Multilingual Settings. A Case Study: ­Ghanaian Immigrants in Northern Italy. Bern: Peter Lang. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. “Loanword Typology: Steps Toward a Systematic Cross-Linguistic Study of Lexical Borrowability.” In Aspects of Language Contact: New Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Findings with Special Focus on Romancisation Processes, ed. by T. Stolz, T. Bakker, and R. Salas Palomo, 43–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Heller, Monica (ed.). 1988. Codeswitching. Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: New York, De Gruyter. Heritage, John. 2005. “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk.” In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by K.L. Fitch, and R.E. Sanders, 103–147. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Herrlitz, Wolfgang, and Robert Maier (eds). 2005. Dialogues in and Around the Multicultural School. T ­ übingen: Niemeyer, 169–186. Hülmbauer, Cornelia, Heike Böhringer, and Barbara Seidlhofer. 2008. “Introducing English as Lingua Franca (ELF): Precursor and Partner in Intercultural Communication.” Synergies Europe 3: 25–36. Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Oxford: Polity Press. Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by G.H. Lerner, 13–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 D. Veronesi, L. Spreafico, C. Varcasia, A. Vietti & R. Franceschini Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jung, Euen Hyuk. 2006. “Misunderstanding of Academic Monologues by Nonnative Speakers of ­English.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1928–1942. Knapp, Karlfried, and Christiane Meierkord (eds). 2002. Lingua Franca Communication. Bern: Peter Lang. Koole, Tom. 2010. “Displays of Epistemic Access. Student Responses to Teacher Explanations.“ Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (2): 183–209. Lanthaler Franz. 2001. “Die Zwischenregister der Deutschen Sprache in Südtirol.” In Die deutsche Sprache in Südtirol. Einheitssprache und regionale Vielfalt, ed. by K. Egger, and F. Lanthaler, 137–152. Wien: Folio. Lawson Sarah, and Itesh Sachdev. 2004. “Identity, Language Use, and Attitudes: Some SylhetiBangladeshi Data from London, UK.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23 (1): 49–69. Lerner, Gene. 1995. “Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities.” Discourse Processes 19: 111–131. Linell, Per. 1990. “The Power of Dialogue Dynamics.” In The D ­ ynamics of Dialogue, ed. by I. Markova, and K. Foppa, 147-177. Harvester Wheatsheaf: Hemel Hempstead. Linell, Per, and Thomas Luckmann. 1991. “Asymmetries in Dialogue: Some Conceptual Preliminaries.“ In Asymmetries in Dialogue, ed. by I. Markova, and K. Foppa, 1–20. Harvester Wheatsheaf: Hemel Hempstead. Lynch, Tony, and Kenneth Anderson. 1991. “Do You Mind if I Come in Here? – A Comparison of EAP ­Seminar/Discussion Materials and the Characteristics of Real Academic Interaction.” In Socio-Cultural Issues in English for Specific Purposes, ed. by P. Adams, B. Heaton, and P. Howarth, 88–99. London, Modern English Publications. Lüdi, Georges, and Bernard Py. 2003. Etre bilingue, 3rd revised edn. Bern: Lang. Maggipinto, Antonello, Daniela Veronesi, and Patrizia Simone. 2003. Lingue veicolari e apprendimento. Azzano: Junior. Margutti, Piera. 2007. “Are you Human Beings? Order and Knowledge Construction through Questioning in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Linguistics and Education 17 (4): 313–346. Mauranen, Anna, and Elina Ranta (eds). 2009. English as a Lingua Franca. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge: ­Harvard University Press. Meierkord, Christiane. 2000. “Interpreting Successful Lingua Franca Interaction.” Linguistik online 5 (1). http://www.linguistik-online.com/. Milroy James, and Lesley Milroy. 1985. “Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation.” Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–384. Milroy Lesley, and James Milroy. 1992. “Social Network and Social Class: Toward an Integrated Sociolinguistic Model.” Language in Society 21: 1–26. Milroy, Lesley, and Pieter Muysken (eds). 1995. One Speaker, Two Languages. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mioni Alberto A. 1990. “Bilinguismo intra- e intercomunitario in Alto Adige/Südtirol: considerazioni sociolinguistiche.” In Mehr als eine Sprache. Zu einer Sprachstrategie in Südtirol, – Più di una lingua. Per un progetto linguistico in Alto Adige, ed. by F. Lanthaler, 13–36. Meran: Alpha & Beta. Mondada, Lorenza. 2007. “Le code-switching comme resource pour l’organisation de la parole-­ interaction.” Journal of Language Contact THEMA 1: 168–197.



Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices 

Mondada, Lorenza, and Simona Pekarek Doehler (eds). 2003. Plurilinguisme – Mehrsprachigkeit – Plurilingualism. Enjeux identitaires, socio-culturels et educatifs. Tübingen: Franke. Moore, Emilee, and Adriana Patiño-Santos. 2010. “Exploring Identity in Plurilingual Service Encounters at a Catalan University.” In Deliverable 5.3: Working Paper 5 (DYLAN Project), ed. by D. Veronesi, and M. Stabej, 38–70. Morell, Teresa. 2004. “Interactive Lecture Discourse for University EFL Students.” English for Specific Purposes 23: 325–338. Müller, Gabriele M., Laurent Gajo, Anne-Claude Berthoud, and Anne Grobet. 2012. “Participation, ressources plurilingues et élaboration des connaissances dans l’enseignement supérieur.” In Interactions cosmopolites: l’organisation de la participation plurilingue, ed. by L. Mondada, and L. ­Nussbaum, 193–223. Limoges: Editions Lambert Lucas. Nesi, Hilary. 2002. “An English Spoken Academic Word List.” In Proceedings of the Tenth EURALEX International Congress, A. Braasch, and C. Provlsen, 351–358. Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi. Nussbaum, Luci, Emilee Moore, and Eulalia Borràs. 2013. Accomplish Multilingualism through Plurilingual Activities (in this volume). Ochs Elinor, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson (eds). 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: C ­ ambridge University Press. Orletti, Franca. (2000). La conversazione diseguale. Potere e interazione. Roma: Carocci. Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Gudrun Ziegler. 2007. “Doing Science – Doing Language – The ­Sequential Organization of Science-talk and Language-talk in Immersion Classrooms.” In Language Learning/Teaching as Social Interaction, ed. by L. Wei, P. Seedhouse, and V. Cook, 72–86. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Philips, Susan Urmston. 1983. The Invisible Culture: Communication in Classroom and Community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman. Pitsch, Karola. 2005. “Interaction, auto-organisation et pratiques d’inscription: Appropriation lexicale en classes bilingues.” Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère (AILE) 22: 73–100. Pitsch, Karola. 2009. “Interaktion und Spracharbeit im immersiven Geschichtsunterricht: Zum Zusammenhang von Verbalsprache, Körpergestik und Notationspraktiken.” In Bilingualer Unterricht (CLIL) zwischen Plurikulturalität, Plurilingualität und Multiliteralität (Reihe “Mehrsprachigkeit in Schule und Unterricht“), S.A. Ditze, and A. Halbach, 203–223. Frankfurt/Main: Lang. Prodromou, Luke. 2007. “Is ELF a Variety of English?” English Today 90 (23/2): 47–53. Romaine, Suzanne. 1983. “Collecting and Interpreting Self-reported Data on the Language Use of Linguistic Minorities by Means of “Language Diaries.” M.A.L.S. Journal 9: 1–30. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics of the Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. Schmitt, Reinhold. (ed.). 2007. Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Organisation. Tübingen: Narr. Scott John. (2002). L’analisi delle reti sociali. Roma: Carocci. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. “Closing a Conceptual Gap: the Case for a Description of English as a ­Lingua Franca.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 133–158. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2005. “English as a Lingua Franca.” In Oxford Advanced ­Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 7th edn, ed. by A.S. Hornby, R92. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, John, and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

 D. Veronesi, L. Spreafico, C. Varcasia, A. Vietti & R. Franceschini Spreafico, Lorenzo. 2009. “Strategie di compensazione lessicale nel parlato accademico: una fenome­nologia.” In Bi- and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond, ed. by D. Veronesi, and C. Nickenig, 191–203. Bolzano: Bolzano University Press, Spreafico, Lorenzo. 2011. “Le pause piene nel parlato plurilingue.” In Lessico e Lessicologia. Atti del XLIV Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana, ed. by S. Ferreri, 362–373. Roma: Bulzoni. Spreafico, Lorenzo and Daniela Veronesi. 2012. La gestion de la participation dans deux séminaires ­académiques plurilingues. In Interactions cosmopolites: l’organisation de la participation plurilingue, ed. by L. Mondada, and L. Nussbaum, 133–167. Limoges, Editions Lucas Lambert. Strodt-Lopez, Barbara. 1987. “Personal Anecdotes in University Classes.” Anthropological Linguistics 29 (2): 194–258. Strodt-Lopez, Barbara. 1991. “Trying it All in: Asides in University Lectures.” Applied Linguistics 12 (2): 117–140. Thompson, Susan. 1998. “Why Ask Questions in Monologue? Language Choice at Work in Scientific and Linguistic Talk.” In Language at Work, ed. by S. Hunston, 137–150. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Van Leuuwen, Charles, and Robert Wilkinson (eds). 2003. Multilingual Approaches in University Education: Challenges and Practices, Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers. Varcasia, Cecilia. 2010. “L’apertura degli incontri di servizio in una realtà plurilingue.” In La comunicazione parlata 3. Atti del terzo Congresso Internazionale del Gruppo di studio sulla Comunicazione Parlata, Vol. I, ed. by M. Pettorino, A. Giannini, and F. Dovetto, 655–670. Napoli, Università degli studi di Napoli L’Orientale. Veronesi, Daniela. 2007. “Movimento nello spazio, prossemica e risorse interazionali: un’analisi preliminare del rapporto tra modalità in contesti didattici accademici.” In Looking at Language. Video Data in Linguistic Research, ed. by E. De Stefani, 107–129. VALS/ASLA 85-III. Veronesi, Daniela. 2009. “La lezione accademica in contesto plurilingue: prospettive di analisi tra parlato monologico e interazione plurilocutoria.” In Bi-and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond, ed. by D. Veronesi, and C. Nickenig, 205–228. Bolzano: Bozen-­Bolzano University Press. Veronesi, Daniela, and Lorenzo Spreafico. 2009. “Between Mono- and Multilingualism in the Classroom: Communicative Practices in a Trilingual University.” In Festschrift in Honour of Professor Paul N. Mbangwana, Special edition, Annals of the Faculty of Arts, Letters and Social Sciences, University of Yaounde I, 199–253. Yaoundé: Les Grandes Editions. Vietti, Alessandro. 2005. Come gli immigrati cambiano l’italiano. L’italiano di peruviane come varietà etnica, Milano: Franco Angeli. Vietti, Alessandro. 2009. “Multilinguismo in interazione: descrizione dei repertori linguistici di studenti universitari.” In Bi- and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond, ed. by D. Veronesi, and C. Nickenig, Bolzano-Bozen: Bozen-Bolzano University Press, 229–41. Vietti, Alessandro. 2011. “Reti sociali e repertori plurilingui: il caso degli studenti in un’università trilingue.” In Lingue e culture in contatto (Bolzano, 18–19 febbraio 2010), ed. by R.M. Bombi, M. D’Agostino, S. Dal Negro, and R. Franceschini, 325–345. Atti del X Congresso AItLA. Perugia: Guerra. Virkkunen-Fullenwider, Anu. 2009. “Testing for Bilingualism in Higher Education.” In Bi- and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond, ed. by D. Veronesi, and C. Nickenig, 33–47. Bolzano: Bozen-Bolzano University Press.



Chapter 12.  Multilingual higher education between policies and practices 

Young, Lynne. 1994. “University Lectures. Macro-structure and Microfeatures.” In J. Flowerdew, (ed.). 1994. 159–176. Wei, Li. 1994. Three Generations, Two Languages, One Family. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Wiesinger, Peter. 1990. “The Central and Southern Bavarian dialects in Bavaria and Austria.” In The Dialect of Modern German: A Linguistic Survey, ed. by C. Russ, 438–519. Stanford: Stanford ­Unversity Press, Wilkinson, Robert (ed.). 2004. Integrating Content and Language. Meeting the Challenge of a ­Multilingual Higher Education. Maastricht: Universtitaire Pers Maastricht. Zentella, Ana Celia. 1997. Growing up Bilingual. Oxford: Blackwell.

Appendix: Transcription conventions TEXT especially loud sound (relative to surrounding talk) 0text0 especially soft sound (relative to surrounding talk) >text