DOKTORI (PhD) DISSZERTÁCIÓ
Multilingual language learners’ intersemiotic translation into L3 English.
A grounded theory on reliance on languages in the multilingual mental lexicon
BOKSAYNÉ PAP EMESE
2021
Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Pedagógiai és Pszichológiai Kar
DOCTORAL (PHD) DISSERTATION DOKTORI (PHD) DISSZERTÁCIÓ
Emese Boksayné Pap
Multilingual language learners’ intersemiotic translation into L3 English. A grounded theory on reliance on languages in the multilingual mental lexicon
Többnyelvű nyelvtanulók képsorozatokon alapuló interszemotikus fordítása az angolra, mint harmadik nyelvre. Megalapozott elmélet a lexikális elemek közötti kapcsolatokról a
többnyelvű mentális lexikonban Neveléstudományi Doktori Iskola
Doktori iskola vezetője: Dr. Zsolnai Anikó egyetemi tanár Nyelvpedagógiai doktori program
Doktori program vezetője:
Dr. Károly Krisztina egyetemi tanár Témavezető:
Dr. Tankó Gyula egyetemi adjunktus Védési bizottság:
Elnök: Dr. Halász Gábor, egyetemi tanár, ELTE PPK
Belső bíráló: Dr. Lázár Ildikó, egyetemi adjunktus, ELTE BTK Külső bíráló: Dr. Nagy Judit, egyetemi docens, KRE BTK
Titkár: Dr. Tartsayné Németh Nóra, egyetemi adjunktus, ELTE BTK Tagok: Dr. Pődör Dóra, egyetemi docens, KRE BTK
Dr. Károly Krisztina, egyetemi tanár, ELTE BTK Dr. Csíkos Csaba, egyetemi tanár, ELTE TÓK
Dr. Furka Ildikó, adjunktus, BME GTK, Idegen Nyelvi Központ
Budapest, 2021
Abstract
The present study explores the organisation and dynamics of the multilingual mental lexicon (MML) within a grounded-theory framework with the aim to formulate a substantive theory.
The organisation and dynamics of the MML are explored by looking at how 12 secondary- school multilinguals rely on their languages in the process of an intersemiotic translation where the starting point is a series of wordless pictures and the target language is English, one of the participants’ non-native languages. To capture reliance on languages during intersemiotic translation, the think-aloud data collection strategy was used. The think-aloud verbal data was complemented by interview data reflecting the participants’ emic perspective. The collected verbal data was transcribed for analysis. The grounded theory framework of the research was based on the principles of the constructivist grounded theory method advanced by Charmaz (2006) and the principles of the multi-grounded theory method put forward by Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2010). The data analysis involved abductive reasoning (Shank, 2008) and constant comparison of the data. The formulation of the substantive theory was assisted by Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) category organising framework and by Whetten’s (1989) elements of theory development. The newly formulated substantive theory suggests that the organisation and functioning of the MML can be shaped to some extent by the joint effect of encoding specificity and fluency in processing, both of which are present in the process of language learning. It is also suggested that the phenomenon of using languages together leads to a heightened metalinguistic awareness and turns the multilingual language user into a linguistic connoisseur. The findings of the present study and the substantive theory may advance the understanding of multilingual cognition of educators involved in the teaching multilingual learners.
“(…) multilingualism does not present an exception but the rule.”
Jasone Cenoz and Ulrike Jessner
“Grounded theory method is not for the faint-hearted.”
Cathy Urquhart
“Doubts are good. Confusion is excellent. Questions are awesome.”
Manoj Arora
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 3
List of Figures ... 8
List of Tables ... 10
1 Introduction ... 11
2 Literature review ... 15
2.1 Multilingualism ... 15
2.1.1 Definitions of Multilingualism ... 17
2.1.2 The Complexities of Multilingualism ... 18
2.1.3 Second Language Acquisition, Bilingualism and Multilingualism ... 24
2.1.4 Multilingualism as More than Two Languages ... 26
2.1.5 Multilingualism and Plurilingualism ... 29
2.1.6 Multilingualism and Polylanguaging ... 31
2.2 Models Proposed to Account for the Multilingual Phenomena and the Multilingual Mental Lexicon ... 33
2.2.1 The Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (DMM) ... 33
2.2.2 The Modular On-line Growth and Use of Language Theoretical Framework ... 35
2.2.3 The Personal Lexical Space ... 38
2.3 Research Methods and Instruments Employed in MML Studies ... 40
2.3.1 Research of Multilinguality and its Historical Context ... 41
2.3.2 Overview of the Research Approaches to the MML ... 43
3 Research Methods and Strategies ... 63
3.1 The Philosophical positioning and the theoretical background of the study ... 64
3.2 Research Methodology ... 65
3.2.1 The Purpose of the Research ... 66
3.2.2 The Grounded-Theory-Method Basis of the Study ... 67
3.2.3 Early Interpretation of Data, Abductive Reasoning and Gradual Emergence .. 70
3.2.4 Theoretical Sampling, Constant Comparison of Data and Theoretically Informed Analysis ... 72
3.2.5 Building the Substantive Theory ... 79
3.3 Data Collection Strategies and the Development of Research Tools: The Think-Aloud and the Interview ... 80
3.3.1 The Think-Aloud Data Collection Approach and its Components ... 81
3.3.2 The Interviews ... 91
3.3.3 The Questionnaire ... 103
3.4 Data Collection Process ... 106
3.4.1 Location of the Study ... 107
3.4.2 The Research Participants and the Process of Purposeful Sampling ... 108
3.4.3 Collecting Data in the Pre-Task Interview ... 112
3.4.4 Collecting Verbal Data with the Think-Aloud Procedure ... 114
3.4.5 Collecting Data in the Post-Task Interview ... 116
3.5 Data Analysis ... 116
3.5.1 Coding ... 119
4 Findings and Discussion ... 130
4.1 Findings by Research Instruments ... 131
4.1.1 Findings from the Pre-Task Interview ... 131
4.1.2 Findings from the Think-Aloud Protocols ... 146
4.1.3 Findings from the Post-Task Interview ... 178
4.2 Findings by Research Questions ... 186
4.2.1 Findings for Research Question 1 ... 186
4.2.2 Findings for Research Question 2 ... 192
5 The Substantive Theory ... 195
5.1 Core Category I: Languages Used Together ... 198
5.1.1 Subcategory: Additional languages (Ln) through a native or a non-native language. 199 5.1.2 Subcategory: L2+Ln imposed by circumstances... 200
5.1.3 Subcategory: L1 linguistic assistant for L3 ... 201
5.1.4 Subcategory: L2 linguistic assistant for L3 ... 202
5.1.5 Subcategory: L2 + Ln used together on a convenience basis ... 203
5.1.6 Subcategory: L2 + Ln used together because of similar words ... 205
5.2 Core Category II: Metalinguistic Awareness ... 206
5.2.1 Subcategory: Awareness of knowing languages ... 208
5.2.2 Subcategory: Self-Confidence Because of knowing languages ... 208
5.2.3 Subcategory: Awareness of ability to integrate into the multilingual community 209 5.2.4 Subcategory: Knowing when and for what purposes a language is most efficiently of service ... 210
6 Conclusions and recommendations for further research ... 212
6.1 The Design of the Study ... 221
6.2 Summary of Findings ... 222
6.3 Evaluation of the study ... 222
6.3.1 Substantive contribution ... 223
6.3.2 The aesthetic merit of the research ... 216
6.3.3 Reflexivity ... 225
6.3.4 Impact ... 218
References ... 220
Appendices ... 261
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Architecture of the Linguistic System Based on the MOGUL model. ... 37
Figure 2. The Personal Lexical Space Model for Three Languages. ... 40
Figure 3. The Tripartite Structure of the Research Design. ... 64
Figure 4. The GTM-Research Triangle Based on Engeström’s (2015. p. 63) Activity Triangle. ... 69
Figure 5. The Constant Comparison Data-Engine. ... 74
Figure 6. Constant Comparison of Data Often Results in the Rearrangment of Properties, Subcategories and Categories. ... 75
Figure 7. Coding Configuration Chart Based on the Answer of a Research Participant About Learning and Using Multiple Languages. ... 76
Figure 8. Edited Theoretical Memo on Defining the Construct of Proficiency. ... 78
Figure 9. Research Tools and Their Chronological Order of Development in the Study. ... 81
Figure 10. The Elements of the Think-Aloud Data Collection Process. ... 82
Figure 11. Sequence of Three Wordless Picture Panels. ... 87
Figure 12. Research Tools and Their Chronological Order of Employment in the Study. ... 92
Figure 13. The Circle Represents the Frame of the Pre-Task Interview Development Procedure. ... 94
Figure 14. The Post-Task Interview Schedule Integrates Questions Based on the Initial Concepts that Surfaced in the Analysis of the Pre-Task Interwiev Data and the Think-Aloud Verbal Protocols. ... 102
Figure 15. The Grosjean-Grid for Self-Assessment of Language Fluency and Frequency of Use. ... 114
Figure 16. Simplified Succession of Steps in Data Analysis. ... 118
Figure 17. Think-Aloud Protocol Section Analysed with Quirkos. ... 120
Figure 18. Categories and Their Relationships to the Core Categories in the Phase of Theoretical Coding. ... 128
Figure 19. A Completed Language-context Matrix. ... 139
Figure 20. Hierarchical Axis of the Category LANGUAGE RELIANCE, its Dimensions and Characteristics ... 149
Figure 21. Simplified Model of Lexical Processing in an Intersemiotic Translation of Pictorial Representations into L3 Verbal Signs (third language) ... 165
Figure 22. Grosjean’s (2001) Modified Language-mode model. ... 190
Figure 23. The Cyclic Casual Relationship Between the Core Categories of the Substantive Theory... 198
Figure 24. Personal Lexical Space Model with Three Languages Based on Kit & Berg (2014).
... 203 Figure 25. Causal Relationship Between the Principles of Encoding Specificity, Successful Retrieval and Feeling of Processing Fluency as Support for Using Languages Together. . 205
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of the Components of the Definitions of Multilingualism and
Plurilingualism ... 30 Table 2. Comparasion of Research Techniques and Tools across Studies into the MML. ... 44 Table 3. Timeline of the Study Engaging Transylvanian-Hungarian Young Multilinguals. .. 106 Table 4. Transylvanian-Hungarian Participants’ Profiles Based on Questionnaire Data ... 110 Table 5. Pre-task Interview Open Codes Relating tot he Concept of Language and Its Uses ... 121 Table 6. Pre-Task Interview Open Codes Relating to the Concept of Self, Community and Language Space... 122 Table 7. Open Codes and Focused Codes from the Think-Aloud Protocol ... 123 Table 8. Post-task Interwiev Open Codes and the Focused Codes to Which They Were Included, alond with Examples from the Data ... 124 Table 9. The number of Instances the Three Languages L1 Hungarian, L2 Romanian, and L3 English Were Relied on ... 147 Table 10. Sets of Guidelines Employed in the Development of Theory ... 195 Table 11. The Subcategories of the Core Category LANGUAGES USED TOGETHER and the Open Codes, which Ground Therm to the Data ... 199 Table 12. The Subcategories Belonging to the Core Cathegory METALINGUISTIC
AWARENESS and the Open Codes Grounding it to the Data ... 207 Table 13. The Richardson-Criteria for Evaluating Research Study ... 214 Table 14. Consequences of Minimizing and Maximizing the Differences in Comparison Groups for Developing the Theory ... 227
1 Introduction
Thorough knowledge of how individuals who have command of and use more than two languages employ their linguistic resources to arrive at new understandings in the various processes of learning in educational contexts is imperative for the teachers involved in the teaching of the ever-diversifying multilingual classrooms (Warshauer & Ball, 2004). Despite recent advances in research on multilingual language learning and use as cognitive phenomena, present teaching practices suggest that multilingual individuals’ meaning making processes in a foreign language are not properly understood, and they are usually assumed to be identical with the meaning making processes of monolingual or bilingual language users. Educators’ acknowledgment of multilingual individuals’ possible use of other languages than the target language in the language classroom is also fuelled by misconceptions which have at root outdated suggestions of the best ways to teach a foreign or additional language, such as that of Fries (1945), Asher (1969), and Krashen and Terell (1983). As a result, the language classroom default setting is to discourage learners from the use of their native language, and indeed the use of any other language than the target language to be learnt (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009). This approach therefore ignores that the learners, and in general language users, in the processes of language learning and use employ their other linguistic resources whether their teachers want them or not.
The exploratory study presented in this thesis aims to investigate how multilingual individuals employ their languages during the process of composing a narrative in one of their non-native languages, English, with a special focus on how the search for the target language words takes place. The aim of the study is to contribute to the understanding of multilingual language reliance and the characteristics of the multilingual mental lexicon (henceforth MML).
Recently, multilinguals’ reliance on multiple languages has captured researchers’
interest, and it has been examined to some extent in language-acquisition contexts (e.g., Cenoz, 2001), in translation processes (Gabrys-Barker, 2006), and writing (e.g., Gunnarson, Housen, Van de Weijer, & Kallkvist, 2015). While research has focused on a wide range of multilingual individuals possessing different multilingual language repertoires with various language combinations, contexts where Hungarian is one of the languages comprised by the individuals’ linguistic repertoires remain largely unexplored. The present study, by exploring the multilingual language processing of 12 Transylvanian-Hungarian multilingual participants, aims at improving the understanding we have about multilingual language users who use Hungarian as one of their languages.
Relative to the MML, researchers and theoreticians studying multilingualism have formulated a series of theories and models in their attempt to explain the organization and
the functioning of a mind which relies on more than two languages in its linguistic formulations (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Kit & Berg, 2014; Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2014).
These theories demonstrate convincingly that knowing and using more than two languages are both quantitatively and qualitatively different states and processes than the states and processes involved in bilingualism and second language learning (Cenoz, Hufeisen, &
Jessner, 2003). The present study builds on these theories and aims at contributing to the body of knowledge we have about the interconnectivity between the lexical units of the different languages in the MML.
The following two research questions are addressed in the present study:
1. Which of their languages do multilinguals rely on when they compose a non-native- language narrative based on wordless pictures?
2. Which are the strategies used by multilinguals in the process of searching for non- native words while composing?
To find the answers, I conducted an exploratory study with 12 young multilingual participants, who were students at two secondary schools in Transylvania, the western region of Romania. The participants’ native language (L1) was Transylvanian-Hungarian, and their second language (L2), acquired very early in their childhood, was Romanian. In addition to Hungarian and Romanian, the participants used two or three further languages—French, German, and Latin—learned in the educational context. Data collection spanned from May 2014 to October 2014 and was based on the interview and the think-aloud activity. I employed the constructivist grounded theory method (Charmaz, 2006) and the multi- grounded theory method (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010) in the research. Both these methods allow fresh insights into data collection and analysis, require considerable familiarity with the data, and make possible the formulation of theory. Recently, Gregory Hadley (2017) discussed the presence of the grounded theory method (henceforth GTM) in applied linguistics research. He pointed out the many challenges the use of GTM presents and concluded that these challenges have acted as restraining factors in the adoption of the method. As a result, the number of applied linguistic studies using a GTM paradigm is rather small. The present study is an applied linguistics study in which the GTM was used for the construction of a theory grounded in data.
The main outcome of the present study is a substantive theory which proposes that besides typological closeness between languages the encoding context followed by experiences of processing fluency are possible circumstances that can shape interconnectivity between the lexical units of two languages in the MML. The theory also conceives of multilinguals as linguistic connoisseurs, that is individuals with a special ability to use languages with discrimination and appreciation of subtleties.
Substantive theoretical formulations, such as the one developed in the present study,
“are statements that draw upon, and have theoretical power constrained by a specific context” understood as “tools to be assessed for their utility in certain situations” (Bryant, 2017, p. 98). After formulating such a theory, a usual step is to take it forward and enhance it by subsequent actions of theoretical sampling. The researcher can take the investigation forward and collect data from individuals who have very similar—or utterly different, but relevant—characteristics to the original population (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 58). The substantive theory developed in the present study was therefore scaled up in a subsequent study involving L1 Vietnamese – L2 Hungarian participants. However, this second study is not included in the thesis due to space constraints.
The contents of the thesis are organized in accordance with the institutional PhD- requirements of the university in the sense that the arrangement of the sections of the thesis follows the canonical IMRD structure: the literature review section precedes the presentation of methods and data analysis. It is to be noted however that there are three departures from the traditional thesis structure. First, some new literature is introduced also in the sections in which the data analysis is presented and the findings are discussed. This organization of the thesis maps on the actual paths taken in the study because the process of reviewing the relevant literature accompanied each phase of the research process, and its focus was greatly determined by the data analysis. The constant engagement with the relevant literature is one of the distinctive marks of the GTM in general, and its importance is highlighted by the multi-grounded theory method (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010).
A second aspect connected to the structural arrangement of the content of the thesis is the recurrent mention of certain elements of the research design and data analysis. One of the organizing principles of a GTM study is the emergent nature of the research. In the present study, emergency translated into the way the reseach tools were developed and into the way the substantive theory became grounded. The research tools for data collection were designed in two stages. At the outset of the study, I developed the questionnaire employed for the purposive sampling and the think-aloud activity used for collecting verbal data on composing a narrative in an L3. The data collected with the help of these two research tools then informed the development of the questions included in the pre-task and the post-taks interviews. This particular process of reseach tool development is reflected in the structure of the thesis. As a result, elements of the data analysis are mentioned both in the early sections of the thesis (for instance, in Subsection 3.2.4 the steps I followed in theoretical sampling are presented) and are also re-addresssed in subsequent sections. This special arrangement of information concurs with GTM studies (Bryant, 2017; Charmaz, 2006; Emery & Fielding-Wells, 2018; Reichertz, 2007; Urquhart, 2007, 2013) and its adoption is recommended by grounded theory methodologists (Bryant, 2017; Kember & Corbett, 2018;
Urquhart, 2013; Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2012).
The third aspect in which the organization of the thesis departs from the more traditional structuring is connected to the content of the section dedicated to the concluding remarks—presented in Section 6—which contains a special part offering an overall evaluation of the study performed with the help of Laurel Richardson’s (2005, p. 964) criteria of evaluation for social scientific publication. This evaluation replaces the discussion of the limitations of the study customarily present in dissertation theses. Richardson (2005) originally proposed these criteria for the assessment of the merits of social science papers. I adopted them to reflectively evaluate the research activity itself given their potential to yield a systematic and critical outline of the performed research activity.
2 Literature review
The position of the literature and of the literature review in GTM research design is a very particular one (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010; Martin, 2006; McCallin, 2003; Urquhart, 2013;
Urquhart & Fernández, 2016). Researchers who work within the GTM research design have to be first of all well-acquainted with the disciplinary literature published not only in their field but also with the literature existent in all those fields which can inform their research.
Simultaneously, they are expected to think out-of-the-box and make use of what they read in an innovative way (Bryant, 2017; Glaser, 1992; Martin, 2006; McCallin, 2003). Third, they have to maintain flexibility in returning to literature and devote energy and time to reading at any point of the research process because data analysis will direct and shape their reading diet. This way, researchers are constantly informed as to what is worth reading.
The organizational pattern of the literature in the body of the present work reflects to a large extent the process of engagement with literature during the research. A unified body of literature review is provided in this section but literature is also dispersed across the thesis:
authors and their works are addressed and discussed based on the relevance they have for the issues under scrutiny. This organization of literature fulfils two important roles. The unified body of literature review acts as a framework for the thesis as a whole, while the dispersed items show to which parts of the specialist literature the different parts of this research are grounded. This type of organizational pattern of the literature review is one of the particularities of GTM research papers (Birks & Mills, 2012; Urquhart, 2013).
The main areas of literature related to the study reviewed here are multilingualism and the MML. Consequently, the first part of the literature review focuses on multilingualism as a phenomenon and briefly surveys the terminological wrangling surrounding it. The second part of the literature review includes a survey of three influential models proposed in the area of multilingualism in general, and multilingual language processing, which are relevant to the present research. The literature review section ends with an extensive review of the available MML studies with special focus on their employed research methods and instruments.
2.1 Multilingualism
Multilingualism—knowledge and use of several languages—is far from being a new phenomenon, yet it only gained important research momentum in the recent two or three decades. Multilingualism has been rediscovered in a range of major research areas such as sociolinguistics (Blommaert, 2013; Blommaert, Leppanen, Pahta, Virkkula, & Raisanen, 2012; Edwards, 1994), education (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998; García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017; García, Zakharia, & Otcu, 2012), language learning (Cabrelli Amaro et al., 2013; D.
Wang, 2019; X. L. Wang, 2008), psycholinguistics (Hofer, 2015), and neurolinguistics (Uljarevic, Katsos, Hudry, & Gibson, 2016).
People who speak several languages have never left their audience indifferent: they have either gained people’s admiration or they have provoked their envy (Bialystok, 2008;
Jiménez, 2013; Mullen, 2012; Todeva & Cenoz, 2009). The history of human existence is full of examples of situations in which two, three, or more languages were used to communicate or to record information. For instance, as early as the early Christian times, four languages were spoken on the territory of ancient Palestine. Aramaic was the vernacular language.
Hebrew was the language of education and scholarly wisdom. Latin was the language spoken in the governmental offices, and Greek was the language of trade. Researchers agree that people on the territory of ancient Palestine would have been familiar with all these four languages (Ong, 2015). In the centuries of the territorial expansion of the Roman Empire, there was a mixture of many ethnic groups and cultures due to the continued influx of people. The constant ethnic mixing in the regions of the Empire led to the existence of individuals able to understand and use two or even more languages (Clackson, 2012;
Mullen, 2012). Later, in the eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century Europe, there were several large territories on which the people that populated them spoke at least two languages on a daily basis. One such example is the Habsburg Empire. Its inhabitants knew and used a large variety of languages and dialects, and this was considered commonplace (Fellerer, 2011). Ironically, it was exactly in these territories where later multilingualism was subjected to fierce attacks in an effort to form nation-states—“linguistically and culturally homogenous entities, linked to territories and people” (Martin-Jones et al., 2012, p. 2). In the 21st century, globalization accelerated international mobility, and the speeded development of technology has turned the knowledge of more languages into a requirement without which communities and individuals may easily find themselves isolated. The changes that have been ushered in by the technological boom, globalization and the international mobility of large crowds of people are already visible in several spheres of society, and one of these spheres is education (Baker, 2001; Coelho, 1994; Pliiddemann et al., 1994). Recently, European educational contexts have been turning more and more diversified in terms of the languages known and used by the learners, the main participants in these contexts. One of the primary missions of the educators in these ever-diversifying multilingual classrooms is to foster and enforce understanding, and ultimately learning. Consequently, it is a necessity for these educators to have a thorough understanding of how individuals who have command of and use multiple languages employ their linguistic resources to arrive at new understandings during the various processes of learning (Ball & Warshauer Freedman, 2004; Lomb, 1970, 2016).
2.1.1 Definitions of Multilingualism
Multilingualism—as the prefix multi- and the stem lingua suggest—is a phenomenon which involves many languages. From this it would follow that a person who is multilingual is a many-language individual. Most of us probably would deem this ad hoc explanation adequate—however, in specialist literature the issue of multilingualism, or its related term multilingual, is not as easily delineable as it looks at first glance. In the Anglophone specialist literature, lively debates are in progress regarding both the use of the terms multilingualism and multilingual and the definition of the concept of multilingualism. These debates are conducted by several groups of researchers who are preoccupied with different aspects of the multilingual phenomenon and advance their own understandings of the phenomenon.
With this in mind, it can be argued that any interpretation of the multilingual phenomenon has to start with the question, “From whose perspective?” (Baker, 2001, p. viii). On the whole, three reasons can be enumerated to be at the base of these debates. The first concerns the complex nature of multilingualism (Aronin & Singleton, 2012; Kemp, 2009). The second relates to the question of what constitutes multilingual phenomena in terms of knowledge and use of languages. The third is rooted in the fact that there are a number of concomitant notions in use—competitors of the notion multilingualism—which attempt to name and describe very similar linguistic phenomena. These competitors are plurilingualism (European Observatory on Plurilingualism, 2005), polylanguaging (Jorgensen, 2008; Jorgensen, Karrebeak, Madsen, & Moller, 2011a; 2011b), and translanguaging (García et al., 2017;
García & Wei, 2014). Blommaert (2013) argued that the notion of multilingualism seems to have lost its “descriptive and explanatory power” (p. 8) when it is applied to account for the phenomena of highly complex linguistic combinations which characterize 21st century societies.
In the present work, I argue that the above notions appear to describe the same reality from slightly different viewpoints or with slightly different intentions. As it is presented later in this work, the notions of multilingualism and plurilingualism start from the more traditional view of languages as autonomous entities appropriated by language users on different levels of mastery; they acknowledge the fluidity and dynamic nature of languages and the key role of the language user in the dynamism of language systems. The notions of polylanguaging and translanguaging appear to have been formulated in the attempt to place the focus on the fluidity of language use of language speakers and to detach language use as much as possible from the controversial notion of language proficiency. Furthermore, both notions—by concentrating their focus around the process of mixing of languages—may be interpreted as descriptions of how multilingualism manifests itself overtly. The mixing of
languages is only one aspect of multilingual language use, albeit the most spectacular (Koostra et al., 2012).
The following subsection starts with a discussion of the complex nature of the multilingual phenomenon and the issues which originate from this complexity. It then continues with considering the notions that alongside multilingualism shape the descriptions of discourses which employ resources from a number of languages. The subsection ends with a discussion on the aspects of language knowledge and the levels of knowledge, often referred to as language proficiency levels.
2.1.2 The Complexities of Multilingualism
The complexity of the multilingual phenomenon stems from it being an interconnected whole of a range of varied elements both at the level of the individual, at the level of groups of individuals, and of the society at large. The issue of defining the multilingual phenomenon unambiguously and providing a definition which “contains nothing which is not clear” (Peirce, 1878, p. 286) is also complicated by the fact that some of the elements that have to be included in its definition are also challenging to define. The most conspicuous among the elements that they themselves would need better clarification is language and the concepts associated with it language proficiency, language use and the number of languages to be considered as belonging to the multilingual repertoire of an individual person.
A relatively recent definition of multilingualism states that:
[t]he term/concept of multilingualism is to be understood as the capacity of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage on a regular basis in space and time with more than one language
in everyday life. Multilingualism is a product of the fundamental human ability to communicate in a number of languages. (Franceschini, 2009, pp. 33–34).
For those in search of a very broad definition of multilingualism, the above definition is reasonably edifying and comprehensive, but it also encourages the reader to raise a number of questions. One of the first questions that may come to the reader’s mind is whether it is enough to use some foreign language words in our everyday native language speech, for instance, in order that our discourse to be considered engagement with languages in the sense of Franceschini (2009). For instance, would the inclusion of the French idiom trés chic into the English utterance ‘Nowadays, it’s trés chich to read English books’ be considered an engagement with more than one language? Alternatively, how frequently does somebody need to engage with a language so that engagement be considered regular? Is it regular engagement if somebody, otherwise well-accomplished in a non-native language, reads novels in that language, but does this infrequently? Then again, there is the question about
what is to be regarded a language. Are the different varieties of a pluricentric language—a language with several standard national varieties (Clyne, 1992)—to be counted as separate entities, or are they to be considered as a unity, one language, with several versions?
Questions such as these indicate how challenging it is to formulate an all- encompassing definition of multilingualism, a definition able to both capture the essence of the phenomenon and to be used in a variety of situations and environments. Several researchers, among them Aronin and Singleton (2012), De Angelis (2007), and Kemp (2009), have signalled the challenges researchers and theoreticians meet when they attempt to deal with all aspects of the multilingual phenomenon in one definition. Both De Angelis (2007) and Kemp (2009) have drawn attention to the lively debate present in the field of multilingualism, a debate intended to prune away the uncertainty surrounding the relatively new research area. A clear definition of multilingualism and of the multilingual state, stated Kemp (2009), should contain at a minimum, the element of language, reference to the degree of competence in languages, and the construct of language use.
At present, one of the liveliest debates surrounds the construct of language (Heller, 2006; Jorgensen et al., 2011a). Language is conceived in the present study as a construct
“composed of other concepts” (Hoy, 2010, p. 23) which constitute a complex system. Some concepts that build-up the construct of language are, for instance, language knowledge (Blommaert & Backus, 2013b), linguistic resources (Gumperz, 1972/1986), and language production.
Traditionally language, as a fundamental human phenomenon, was approached from a structural-linguistics viewpoint. The scholars who adopted this approach were always interested in languages as orderly systems of units and rules created, acquired and employed by the human race to communicate. The structural-linguistics point of view acknowledges both the language (the system of units and rules) and the user (the speaker- writer who makes use of the system). However, its focus is on language. In other words, structural-linguistics scholars look at the language user through the lenses provided by the language system. This view holds that language is a means of communication embodied by a “system in which basic units are assembled according to a complex set of rules” (McArthur, 1998, p. 334). Based on this view, Arabic, German, and French, for instance, are particular sub-systems, each with its characteristic units and set of rules (McArthur, 1998). Within this paradigm, languages are not seen as isolated but grouped in families and arranged along branches based on the historical relationship and similarities among them. Language contact and mutual influence are two defining characteristics of the languages-as-structured-systems paradigm. Furthermore, this paradigm acknowledges the existence of variations in language both at the individual-user level and the community-of-speakers level. This construct of
language is the one which became established in public knowledge and on which entire research areas in linguistics and applied linguistics have based their studies and theories.
For example, the second/foreign language acquisition studies, studies of bilingualism performed in the 1980s, and lately the studies surveying the acquisition of more than two languages start from the assumption that second/foreign language learners, bilinguals, and those familiar with more than two languages, acquire, master and use two or more linguistic systems in their mental lexicon (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 16; Ellis, 1994, pp. 15–17; Ortega, 2015, p.
276 for second language acquisition; Jarvis, 2009, p. 99; Meuter, 2009, p. 1, for bilingualism;
and Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2002, p. 2, for multilingualism).
The structural-linguistic viewpoint on language has become recently the subject of much debate among sociolinguists who are trying to capture the social aspects of language in superdiverse environments (Vertovec, 2007). There have been various attempts to define the sociocultural construct of language, and the newly evolved superdiverse or new multi- national environments seem to mobilize these attempts even more. Superdiversity is characterised by the strong and shifting presence of migrant communities and ethnic minority groups the members of which use several languages to communicate with each other and with the host community (Geldof, 2016; Vertovec, 2007). In the attempt to foster the social integration of the newly arrived communities and to alleviate the negative value attached to the languages spoken by the members of ethnic minority groups, researchers such as Heller (2006), Jorgensen et al. (2011a), and Rampton (1998) proposed a novel approach to the construct of language starting from the “observed language use among [...] languagers [emphasis added] in superdiverse societies” (Jorgensen et al., 2011a, p. 23). The essence of this sociolinguistic approach lies in removing the demarcations between languages as rule- and-norm-based systems and perceiving the language-in-use of the speakers who employ several languages as a “gradual shift [from one language to another] in association and meaning” (Jorgensen et al., 2011a, p. 25). The approach identifies the “use of resources associated with different ‘languages’ even when the speaker knows very little of these”
(Jorgensen et al., 2011a, p. 27) as the phenomenon of “polylanguaging” (Jorgensen et al., 2011a, p. 27). The notion of polylanguaging can be considered a manifesto of this approach seeking to demonstrate that a bottom-up perspective of language in use would refashion our understanding of what truly language is and how users put it to work in real-life situations.
However, the advocates of this rather extreme position on language admit that a view of language as a shift between sets of (linguistic) features without clearly delineating boundaries would make the analysis of polylingual discourse relatively challenging in terms of the languages present in the discourse and the nature of the shifts between these languages. Jorgensen and his colleagues (2011a) presented the challenges of such an analysis when they attempted to dissect the polylingual discourse along the lines of “linguistic
features” (p. 23) and “associations” (p. 24) and ended up by not being able to bypass the notion of language in the traditional structural-linguistic sense. On the other hand, if we look closer at the definition of polylanguaging, we notice the similarities it has with the definition of multilingualism, a definition which is discussed later in this section.
The above discussion shows that the construct of language is difficult to define precisely because researchers try to pin it down from different perspectives. In my study of how multilingual individuals, learners of English as a third language, rely on their linguistic resources in the process of composing a narrative in English, I adopted a combined psycholinguistic approach to the construct of language because I advocate the idea formulated by Bakhtin (1981), Luria and Yudovich (1971), and Vygotsky (1934/2012) that the language(s) we use are firmly rooted in all the speech acts of the environments of our mundane lives. All phenomena connected to the construct of language have to be observed in the context where they occur. Within this contextualist approach, language is considered a learnt communication and medium of thought which has characteristic structural elements such as sound system, lexis, morphology, syntax and gesture system prone to variations both at the level of the individual user and at the level of user-communities. At the level of communities, language variations materialize in forms to which we generically refer as national and minority languages. At the level of the individual user language variations surface as those idiosyncratic patterns which characterize the language use of each of us.
When individuals employ language, they draw on the “linguistic resources” (Blommaert &
Backus, 2013a, p. 7; Gumperz & Hymes, 1972, p. 20) of that language. Different languages require their users to make different choices; however, “ultimately, it is the individual who makes the decision, but his freedom to select is always subject both to grammatical and social restraints” (Gumperz, 1964, p. 138). To comply with the social restraints and diversified situational contexts proper to everyday life, language users become familiar and employ the special language registers and styles specific to certain environments (Blommaert & Backus, 2013b). Language users can follow the directions of one single language or can combine the directions of two or more languages (Clark, 2004; Wei, 2011).
By using language, language users act upon the language systems and as a result of their action these systems are in continuous dynamism (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Hofer, 2015).
This approach to language is inspired by the theory of dynamical systems (Arrowsmith &
Place, 1990; Katok & Hasselblatt, 1995) and attempts to accommodate both regularity and flexibility as fundamental properties of language systems. Language as a dynamical system is a group of elements—linguistic units—that coexist and work together. The system develops over time while it is acted upon, that is, until the language is employed by its users.
The regularity of the system manifests itself by requiring its users to follow certain rules when employing language. The flexibility of the system materializes by allowing its users to “flout
the rules and norms of the use of language” (Wei, 2011, p. 1222). The linguistic practice that most visibly unites regularity and flexibility is linguistic creativity (Brone et al., 2015).
Language users’ linguistic creativity takes various shapes, such as puns, metaphors, analogies, irony (Veale, 2006), code-mixing and code-switching (Bandia, 1996) in which elements from existing linguistic patterns are inventively and flexibly combined to yield new meanings. Adopting a combined psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic view of language, one in which language is a dynamic system characterized by particular regularities with parts that can be flexibly combined by the language users, allows the study and description of a broad range of linguistic phenomena, including adjacent linguistic varieties and remote linguistic varieties on dialect continuums.
Connected to linguistic varieties, also referred to as dialects, scholars have often highlighted the difficulties of delimiting languages from dialects because of the views on language shaped by different social and political factors (Blommaert & Backus, 2013b;
Deumert, 2011 inter alia). To resolve this difficulty, Block (2003), Busch (2012), and Todeva and Cenoz (2009) have proposed a number of novel methodological approaches to individuals’ linguistic experience. Block (2003) introduced a four-quadrant diagram to be used to describe the trajectory of language learning. Busch (2012), proposed the multimodal biographic model of language portraits as a methodology to disclose language users’
attitudes towards the languages they learnt and use. Todeva and Cenoz (2009) employed first-person language learning narratives as a methodological approach of looking at individuals’ languages in their evolution. All these approaches give priority to the individual language user’s personal experience in language learning and use and treat views imposed on languages by political factors as secondary.
By bringing forth the emic perspectives of the research participants, the researchers can obtain more nuanced views of all the concepts and phenomena connected to the construct of language (Todeva & Cenoz, 2009). One of the phenomena closely connected to the construct of language, and implicitly linked to multilingualism, is the number of languages an individual or a community uses. From the point of view of multilingualism as an area of research and theorising, the number of languages an individual has to use in order to be considered multilingual has been and still is a controversial issue. Controversy surrounding the number of languages to be counted when considering somebody multilingual is closely connected to the phenomena of learning a language and knowing a language, the latter often disassembled into sub-components such as proficiency, performance, and an array of competences (Canale & Swain, 1980; Ellis, 1994; Littlewood, 2004). Before turning to the issue of number of languages in the multilingual language repertoire, I address briefly the problem of the acquisition-learning dyad. The topic of knowing a language is also addressed later in this section.
In connection with the phenomenon of language attainment, some writers make the distinction between acquisition and learning based on the different social and situational contexts and the cognitive processes which characterize this attainment (Dörnyei, 2009;
Krashen, 1981), and some use these two terms as synonyms to denote the same reality (De Bot et al., 2007; Ortega, 2013). Recent research in educational psychology, cognitive psychology, and language attainment suggest that acquisition and learning—especially in the case of foreign and second language attainment—cannot be conceived as two elements of a dichotomy, they are rather parts of the same continuum (Blommaert & Backus, 2013b). If in the second half of the last century there was a pronounced tendency to distinguish between acquisition and learning language based on the naturalistic versus instructed contexts in which language attainment occurred, by now this tendency has decreased considerably mainly due to the realization that in contemporary societies the naturalistic and instructed contexts overlap most of the time. Thus, identifying which part of an individual’s language knowledge is ascribable to acquisition and which to learning, would be quite challenging for researchers. The acquisition and learning of languages have been also demarcated based on the permanence or “entrenchment” (Blommaert & Backus, 2013a, p. 6) of the knowledge they generate. According to this criterion, language acquisition has been held to generate more enduring knowledge than learning. However, empirical results from research into language attrition and loss suggest that an individual’s native language—the language considered the prototype of acquired languages—is prone to quick deterioration in contexts where its competitor, the language of the host community (which can be both learnt and acquired), is imposed as the main means of communication (Anderson, 1999; Fillmore, 1991).
In this work, I use the terms learning and acquisition as synonyms to denote “the broad range of tactics, technologies and mechanisms by means of which specific language resources become parts of someone’s repertoire” (Blommaert & Backus, 2013a, p. 9).
Learning a language beyond one’s native language has been addressed from different standpoints in the area of applied linguistics. There are two dominant narratives which currently inform the broad area of research in applied linguistics focusing on the learning and use of languages beyond one’s first language: one which seeks to expand the theories of second language acquisition and bilingualism to the linguistic phenomena where more than two languages occur, and a second which endeavours to study the phenomena where more than two languages occur under the aegis of multilingualism.
2.1.3 Second Language Acquisition, Bilingualism and Multilingualism
The first narrative which informs the research area of language learning in applied linguistics comes from those researchers who tend to coin any language learnt beyond the first language as “second” and maintain that there is little or no difference between learning a second language and learning a third, a fourth or any additional language beyond the second language. Among the advocates of the view that any language learnt beyond the first language is “second” are, for instance, Gass and Selinker (2001) who, in explaining what the term second language acquisition covers, stated that:
SLA refers to the learning of another language after the native language has been learned. Sometimes the term refers to the learning of a third or fourth language. The important aspect is that SLA refers to the learning of a non-native language after [emphasis in the original] the learning of the native language. (2001, p. 5)
In a very similar vein, Ortega (2013) in a more recent work defined the field of second language acquisition research as “the scholarly field of inquiry that investigates the human capacity to learn languages other than the first” (p. 2). In an earlier work, but along the same lines, Mitchell and Myles (1998) attempted to justify why equating the process of learning a second language beyond one’s native language with the process of learning any other language beyond the native language is reasonable, stating that:
[S]econd languages are any languages other than the learner’s ‘native language’ or
‘mother tongue’. (....) They may indeed be the second language the learner is working with, in a literal sense, or they may be their third, fourth, fifth language (...) because we believe that the underlying learning processes are essentially the same for more local and for more remote target languages (...). (1998, pp. 1–2)
A common trait of Gass and Selinker’s (2001), Ortega’s (2013), and Mitchell and Myles’s (1998) stance is that they take a broad view of learning of languages beyond the first language and categorize them as “second”, boldly suggesting that individuals take the same route when learning any language in addition to a first language. Another common characteristic of these definitions is their narrow focus, leaving aside the aspect of use—a central component of all kinds of learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Wittrock, 1991).
Additionally, Mitchell and Myles’s (1998) definition, highlighting the process of “working with”
(p. 2) a language as an aspect of learning, virtually immobilizes all those engaged with additional languages beyond their first language in their posture of learners.
Interestingly, definitions formulated in the area of research into bilingualism acknowledge language use as a significant component of knowing a language. Nevertheless,
they display the same broad view of who is to be considered bilingual. In a fairly recent definition, Grosjean (2010) stated that “bilinguals are those who use two or more languages [emphasis added] (or dialects) in their everyday lives” (p. 4).
It is to be noted that in psycholinguistics and applied linguistics research the tendency to extend the characteristics and definitions of bilingualism and bilingual to engulf multilingualism and multilingual has been a marked direction for a long time. A comprehensive literature review reveals that this was the “common practice” (Schreuder &
Weltens, 1993, p. 3) at the end of the last century, when researchers’ interest into multilingualism began to reinvigorate and the study area of multilingualism was very young (Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2003; Kemp, 2009). In 1993, Schreuder and Weltens used “the term ‘bilingualism’ to include bidialectism and multilingualism—that is, any situation where more than one language (or language variety) is used regularly” (p. 3; quotation marks in the original). At the beginning of the 21st century, disciplinary literature on bilingualism still favours over-generalizing the tenets of bilingualism over multilingualism. Sharwood Smith and Truscott (2014), in their book The Multilingual Mind: A Modular Processing Perspective, suggested that “the differences between ‘two’ and ‘three’ are not relevant to the discussion”
(p. 5), by-pass the complex phenomena the terms bilingualism and multilingualism denote, and state that the term bilingualism can replace the term multilingualism “simply because
‘bilingualism’ has conventionally been used in this way for so long” (pp. 5-6). Noteworthy here is that the two authors have contributed to the confusion surrounding the two terms by employing the term multilingual in the title of their book—possibly to attract a larger audience—but they have never surpassed the borders circumscribed by an L1 and an L2 in their discussion.
As we could see with Grosjean’s (2010) afore-cited definition, the predisposition to assume that what characterizes knowledge and use of two languages is also applicable in the case of more than two languages still persists despite the growing amount of information about the essential differences between the bilingual and multilingual phenomena. The reasons for relying on terminology and theories formulated in the discipline of bilingualism in trying to explore the more complex phenomenon of multilingualism are explained partly by the theories of intelligence, namely by concept formation theory (Minsky, 1975; Simon &
Newell, 1970). In its simplest form, the theory says that whenever we meet a new situation, to understand and to explain it we resort to our existing knowledge-frames. Elkin (2012), in the introduction to his book Terminology and Terminological Systems, wittily captures this in the adage “comfort can be found in the familiar”. In the case of the second language acquisition-bilingualism-multilingualism continuum, the knowledge frames developed in the field of second language acquisition and bilingualism have been resorted to in the attempt to explain the workings of multilingualism, a similar—however not identical—area of language
learning and use. Well-established fields of research often act as suppliers for newly emerging fields of enquiry, and these situations are accompanied by a process of negotiating the terminology to be used to name newly identified phenomena. The terminology resulting from this negotiating process should be “unambiguous and nonredundant” (Elkin, 2012, p. 1) so as to avoid creating confusion among readers (De Angelis, 2007).
According to Elkin (2012), a term is unambiguous when it “has a unique meaning” (p.
1) across similar context belonging to the same field of inquiry. Within this framework, the phrase second language is ambiguous because it means “next after the first language” in one context, and “third, fourth, fifth language” (Mitchell & Myles, 1998, p. 2) in another context, both contexts belonging to the domain of language acquisition research and theory.
Similarly, based on Elkin (2012), a concept is nonredundant when “there are no two concepts in a given terminology which have the same meaning” (p. 1). From this standpoint, one of the terms bilingualism and multilingualism in Sharwood Smiths and Truscott’s (2014) aforementioned statement may be deemed redundant because both terms seemingly name the same concept; however, the synonymy is not accurate as bi- and multi- are not in an equality relationship but in subsumption, where multi- subsumes bi- (Nardi & Brachman, 2003).
2.1.4 Multilingualism as More than Two Languages
As a reaction to the generalizations formulated in the areas of second language acquisition and bilingualism, scholars dedicated to the close observation of the learning and use of a third language and additional languages beyond the third have started to highlight the particularities of the multilingual state both at the level of the individual user-speaker and at societal level. Research on multilinguals has revealed some truly noteworthy facts about the individuals who have knowledge of and use more than two languages. Research has already revealed that multilinguals compared to mono- and bilinguals use more versatile grammar strategies, which guide them in learning an additional foreign language (Dolgünsöz, 2013; Kemp, 2007). While individuals who know only their native language can rely only on this language when they learn a second language (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Cook, 2010;
Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002), individuals who already know a subsequent language beyond their native language rely on both these languages in the process of learning a third language (Fouser, 2001; Gibson, Hufeisen, & Libben, 2001; Hufeisen, 2011). These are only some of the most recent empirical findings; however, taking into consideration these newly identified details, no one would disagree that the phenomenon of multilingualism asks for its own research philosophy, conceptual theory and constructs. Stimulated by the new findings in the realm of multilingualism, some researchers and theoreticians have suggested
formulations of what multilingualism and being multilingual are, which regard bilingualism as being subsumed into multilingualism. Thus, the construct of multilingualism has been argued to be the subsumer, possessing characteristics in terms of number of languages in the individual’s linguistic repertoire, language learning strategies, flexibility in the use of languages which are superposed to the construct of bilingualism, which is a subsumed of multilingualism. Based on the principles of relational logic, the relation would be written as follows: bilingualism ⊆ multilingualism (Baader, McGuiness, Nardi, & Patel-Schneider, 2003).
The subsumption relation is a hierarchical one in which the subsumer—in our case multilingualism—is superposed to the subsumed element—bilingualism. The subsumed element shares certain properties with the subsumer, which also has others beyond the characteristics shared with the subsumed element. Within this subsumption paradigm, Kemp (2009) suggested that bilingualism should be perceived as a special multilingual state, namely the state of knowing and using two languages. According to her, the term bilingual should stand to separate those individuals who use two languages from those who use three or more languages. She also cautioned that it would be unwise “to lump together all individuals who are able to use [...] more languages” (Kemp, 2009, p. 23) as this would create confusion among those interested in different kinds of multilingual complexities.
By now the tendency to consider bilingualism as part of the larger multilingual array of language combinations has become fairly visible. Herdina and Jessner (2000) highlighted that it was important for researchers to distinguish the construct of bilingualism from the construct of multilingualism, suggesting that “bilingualism is only one possible form of multilingualism” (p. 85). The same authors conceived of the multilingual phenomenon as extending to the process of second, third and subsequent language learning, positioning these learning processes on a “multilingual continuum” (p. 85) namely, on a progressive sequence from the basic “acquisition of a foreign language based on the command of one language” (p. 85) to the “command of three or more languages” (p. 85). Among the scholars who conceive of multilingualism subsuming bilingualism, second language learning and any other subsequent languages beyond a second language is Wei (2008), who stated that “[a]
multilingual individual is anyone who can communicate in more than one language” (p. 4).
Franceschini (2009) reiterated the same idea by considering multilingual individuals those who are capable of engaging “with more than one language in everyday life” (p. 33). Aronin and Singleton (2012) took on Franceschini’s (2009) definition and highlighted in their work that the terms multilingualism and multilingual are used “in such a way that they include the concept of bilingualism and bilingual with their respective ambits” (p. 7). Other researchers and authors insist more on finely tuning their definitions of the multilingual construct and are more concerned to distinguish among different multilingual situations based on the number of
languages possibly known and used by individuals. One such author is Tom McArthur (1998), who put forward one of the most comprehensive definitions of multilingualism, a definition which since its inception has been often cited (e.g., Dolgünsöz, 2013; Kemp, 2009) and has constituted a point of departure in providing definitions for the state of being multilingual (e.g., De Angelis, 2007). Among the strengths of McArthur’s (1998) definition are the inclusion of both a psycholinguistic view of multilingualism—in terms of the various degrees of language mastery which characterize languages included in the multiple language-users’ repertoire—and sociolinguistic views of multilingualism, by enumerating the social factors which influence multiple language use:
Multilingualism [is t]he ability to use three or more languages, either separately or in various degrees of code-mixing. There is no general agreement as to the degree of competence in each language necessary before someone can be considered multilingual; according to some, a native-like fluency is necessary in at least three languages; according to others different languages are used for different purposes, competence in each varying according to such factors as register, occupation, and education. [...] one language may be used in the home, another professionally, another passively for listening and reading, another spoken but not written or read [...]. (McArthur, 1998, p. 387)
In addition to McArthur (1998), others who consider it important for researchers to distinguish meticulously individuals capable of using three or more languages from those able to use two languages are De Angelis (2007) and Dewaele (2004, 2008). Herdina and Jessner (2000), discussing the particularities of third language acquisition, were among the first who argued for the need to treat the phenomenon of multilingualism as a distinct field of study, a field which albeit can be inspired by the research models, findings and theoretical models of first language acquisition, second language acquisition and bilingualism research has nevertheless to build its own research paradigms, models, theories, definitions and terminology.
In the present study, I adopted a broader approach as to the number of languages to be included in the multilingual repertoire, considering multilinguals to be individuals who know and can use more than two languages separately or interwoven with fluctuating linguistic and communicative competence depending on the communicative situation or the linguistic problem to be solved. The construct of multilinguality thus defined is in line with the complex and dynamic nature of multiple language knowledge and use, and the multilingual continuum construct proposed by Herdina and Jessner (2000). It is suggested that the use of the phrase more than two languages instead of “three or more languages” (De Angelis, 2007, p. 8; McArthur, 1998, p. 387) would be more felicitous as the meaning of “more than two”
includes “three or more” and the definition thus reformulated can still differentiate between those who use two languages (i.e., bilinguals and second language learners) and those who use more than two languages (i.e., multilinguals). In addition, a broader definition of multilingualism also accommodates emergent trilinguals, who are either bilinguals learning an additional language or monolingual language learners learning two additional foreign languages.
2.1.5 Multilingualism and Plurilingualism
The discussion of terminology and definition in the area of multilingual study cannot be concluded without mentioning the terms often used in connection with or instead of multilingualism and multilingual. In this regard, the major terminological rivals to multilingual and multilingualism are plurilingual and plurilingualism. While these latter terms appear sporadically in the now established disciplinary literature on multilingualism written in English (e.g., Santos Alvez & Mendes, 2006; Tsvetanova et al., 2009), they are commonly used by the Council of Europe in its regulations and recommendations regarding foreign and second language learning and educational policies, and by institutions satellite to the Council of Europe, such as the European Observatory of Plurilingualism. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages gives the definition of plurilingualism as “[t]he ability to use languages for the purpose of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency of varying degrees, in several languages, and experience of several cultures” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 168). If we compare the definitions of multilingualism given by Franceschini (2009) and McArthur (1998) with the definition of plurilingualism formulated by the Council of Europe, we discover that aside from different wording, most constitutive elements of the definitions are remarkably similar. The additional element in the definition of plurilingualism is the requirement for individuals to have “experience of several cultures” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 168) as an extension to their multiple linguistic abilities, an experience which is not unproblematic to gain.
In Table 1, the three most quoted definitions are contrasted along the basic definitional elements based on which multilingualism and plurilingualism have been described and identified.
The many similarities between the Council of Europe’s definition of plurilingualism and Franceschini’s (2009) and McArthur’s (1998) definitions of multilingualism bring up the problem of redundant concepts (Elkin, 2012, p. 1), that is, the employment of two different terms denoting the same reality within similar scientific discourses. The first question which arises is whether the extra element of cultural experience in the definition of plurilingualism makes necessary the use of the term plurilingualism instead of multilingualism. Alternatively, would it not be more proper to extend the definition of multilingualism so as to include also the element of cultural experience? How would those individuals qualify who use a number of languages proficiently but whose intercultural effectiveness is reduced? Would these language users be considered only multilinguals, and not plurilinguals? Finally, could the two terms multilingualism and plurilingualism be used as synonyms? Beyond doubt, these questions are challenging to answer, and one is unlikely to find an answer to suit perfectly the various academic forums where these issues are currently debated.
A careful examination of the definition quoted above reveals that its clarity concerning the terms of plurilingualism and multilingualism is eroded by the fact that first the two terms are differentiated by allocating them the areas of discourse where they will be used: the term plurilingual is connected to the individual language user and the term multilingual is linked to social groups. However, later both the terms multilingual and plurilingual appear as Table 1. Comparison of the Components of the Definitions of Multilingualism and
Comparison of the Components of the Definitions of Multilingualism and Plurilingualism
Note. Content appearing in the table is verbatim quotations from the compared definitions, however, quotations marks were omitted due to space limitation.
interchangeable terms in the phrase “multilingual or plurilingual individuals” (European Charter on Plurilingualism, 2005, p. 1), both qualifying the individual speaker.
As if to complicate the situation even more, the definition projects multilingual society as one composed of “a majority of monolingual individuals who do not speak the language of the other” (European Observatory on Plurilingualism, 2005, p. 1). Such monolingually “pure”
societies would be quite difficult to find, especially in modern Europe because in the present increasingly complex and interconnected world homogeneous and isolated groups of people are the exception and not the rule (Kerswill, 2006). The conclusion to be drawn from the above example is that it is very often the case that the definition itself can create confusion if the terms employed are not used consistently (Rogers, 2008).
2.1.6 Multilingualism and Polylanguaging
The notion of polylanguaging is closely connected to the view of an expanding heterogeneous and interconnected society in which the members “participate in varying and deterritorialized communities of practice” (Busch, 2012, p. 505). In these communities, using a multitude of languages is the norm. To name this special blend of multivoiced language use, Jorgensen, Karrebeak, Madsen, and Moller (2011a, p. 27) proposed the notion of
“polylanguaging”. The notion has been recently gaining ground to account for the multilingual discourse which characterizes mainly the extremely versatile metropolitan communities, identified as “superdiverse” (Vertovec, 2007, p. 1024); Jorgensen et al., 2011a, p. 23). As discussed below, the phenomena of polylanguaging and multilingualism share several characteristics.
Polylanguaging, as a characteristic linguistic behaviour of members in superdiverse societies, has been defined as “the use of resources associated with different ‘languages’
[quotation marks in the original] even when the speaker knows very little of these”
(Jorgensen et al., 2011a, p. 27). The novelty of the definitions partly lies in the fact that it is based on the dismissal of “the idea of distinct, countable languages as objects of analysis”
(Ritzau, 2014, p. 1)—hence the quotation marks around the term languages. From a polylanguaging stance, language is perceived “a social phenomenon among human beings rather than as coherent units isolated from use” (Ritzau, 2014, p. 1). This approach observes language in use along “linguistic features [...] associated with ‘languages’” (Jorgensen & et al., 2011a, p. 23). The other innovation of the definition is that it distances language use from knowledge of language or proficiency.
Chiquito and Rojas (2014) observe that from a polylingual standpoint “it is irrelevant to master any language at a high level because just having the knowledge of some necessary linguistic features is enough” (p. 1). Despite their slightly different emphases, the
