Polylingualism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<== попередня сторінка	\|	наступна сторінка ==>
Guidelines for extensive reading ESP texts	\|	Plurilingualism

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.003 сек.