Lecture 1: What Is Multilingualism? PDF

Preview

Summary

Pre- press version Published in: Aronin, Larissa (2019). What is Multilingualism? In David Singleton and Larissa Aronin (eds.), Twelve Lectures in Multilingualism. (pp. 3- 34). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. http://www.multilingual-matters.com/display.asp?isb=9781788922050. Part 1 Multilingualism in...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Lecture 1: What Is Multilingualism? Larissa Aronin What Is Multilingualism?

Cite this paper

Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Met hodology in Bi- and Mult ilingual St udies: From Simlificat ion t o Complexit y Ulrike Jessner-schmid, Larissa Aronin

Challenges of mult ilingual educat ion: St reamlining affordances t hrough Dominant Language Const ell… Larissa Aronin Mult i-compet ence and Dominant Language Const ellat ion Larissa Aronin

Pre- press version Published in: Aronin, Larissa (2019). What is Multilingualism? In David Singleton and Larissa Aronin (eds.), Twelve Lectures in Multilingualism. (pp. 334). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. http://www.multilingual-matters.com/display.asp?isb=9781788922050.

Part 1 Multilingualism in Society and Education

Part 1: Multilingualism in Society and Education Lecture 1: What Is Multilingualism?

Lecture 1 What Is Multilingualism?

1

Larissa Aronin

Introduction Multilingualism is a complex, vibrant and ever-intriguing phenomenon. Today the significance of multilingualism has spilled over its local and private roles into having a much broader, global importance and it is one of the most essential social practices in the world. The term multilingualism is used here to refer to the use of three and more languages and is distinguished, where appropriate, from bilingualism, the use of two languages. In this perspective bilingualism is taken to be a special case of multilingualism rather than vice versa. This position will be further explained later in this lecture where, rather than taking the similarities between bilingualism and multilingualism for granted, we consider the meaningful differences between the two. The question ‘What is multilingualism?’ is not as simple as it looks at first sight. Decades have been spent on heated discussions about what kind of person a multilingual is. Definitions and descriptions of various communities which are labelled as multilingual vary in their accounts. The basic understanding of what multilingualism is often diverges for researchers depending on their differing backgrounds and ideologies. Definitions include: ‘Multilingualism is the presence of a number of languages in one country or community or city’; ‘Multilingualism is the use of three or more languages’; and ‘Multilingualism is the ability to speak several languages’. In this last sense, multilingualism is widely regarded as ‘a natural state of humankind’ (Flynn, 2016). In addition, neuroscientists discuss multilingualism in the context of the way the brain is organized among those who speak multiple languages. The above accounts suffice for general acquaintance with different dimensions of multilingualism. Still, there is so far no simple, short and ‘one size fits all’ answer to the question ‘What is multilingualism?’. This lecture will show why we should not expect one. Instead, it will acquaint the reader with the forms, appearances and key features of multilingualism. It will discuss the basic terminology and concepts of multilingualism, introduce the fundamentals that have been established in the field so far, mention some theories and concepts suggested and employed for the study of multilingualism and provide an update on its most recent developments. In the lecture, multilingualism will be considered in a general sense mostly as a societal phenomenon.

Forms of Multilingualism Individual and societal multilingualism

It is convenient and logical to distinguish between individual and societal multilingualism. This said, we must acknowledge that the domains of individual multilingualism and societal multilingualism are not clear cut. They are closely interwoven. Human language is a collective phenomenon (Andrews, 2014: 49; Donald, 2004) and it is impossible to study individual multilingualism without considering its societal dimensions. And the opposite is also true: societal multilingualism cannot be understood without knowing how multilingualism affects individuals. Individual multilingualism relates to the personal sphere and covers the acquisition and use of several languages by an individual. It deals with an individual’s ability to master, and appropriately use, two or more languages, and includes language-related physical abilities and neurological processes taking place in the brain, in healthy, challenged and gifted individuals. Those researching individual multilingualism are interested in the emotions and attitudes of learners and speakers of multiple languages in relation to their own and others’ languages. Such researchers also study and compare the life trajectories of users of different constellations of languages, and investigate how such individuals benefit from, or are challenged by, the set of languages in their life. The term plurilingualism is sometimes used instead of individual multilingualism, especially in Francophone scholarship and documents of the European Union. The individual aspects of multilingualism are discussed in their own specific lecture (Lecture 5 by John Edwards) and are also dealt with in other lectures in this volume. The term societal multilingualism refers to the contexts, circumstances, order, manner and routines of use of languages in different kinds of communities, organizations and groups. People are not only aware of, but often regulate their language practices through the way they deal with the language varieties they know, and by introducing additional language varieties into their communal life. Societies have a prescribed or expected linguistic behaviour, associated with the particular position or status of languages in a family, school, nation and country. Language-related events going beyond an established frame are also a matter of interest for sociolinguists, applied linguists and sociologists of language. How multiple language varieties intersect in society, what the status and social opportunities of people are who use particular languages in certain multilingual contexts, what the language policies and practices are and how they change with time – all these issues are within the scope of societal multilingualism (Edwards, 2007). Also, multilingualism may impact on how the language(s) one uses influence how easily one can obtain medical help, publish an article, write a complaint and get a job in a multilingual country. Likewise, such details as whether one has a container in one’s kitchen on which the word ‘bread’ is written in an indigenous or a lesser used language, rather than in an official language of a country, are matters of societal multilingualism. By societal multilingualism we mean the organized and unorganized language practices with three and more languages and the handling of more than two languages by some or all members of a society, as well as the implications of these practices and this handling for the society and its members. ‘Handling’ involves language policies, attitudes, language behaviour and the assumptions underlying such behaviour in a particular community, all in the context of three and more languages being dealt with. The existence of societal multilingualism in a country or region does not mean that the country or region in question is peopled by equally multilingual citizens. There are communities and territories where multiple languages coexist side by side. That is, in some countries speakers use their own languages but not so much the other languages of the community; they do not normally know and do not have to know or use all the languages spoken in this territory. When many languages simply coexist in a territory, without the necessity of all of them being used by all the citizens, it can be called proximate multilingualism. Switzerland, with its principle of territoriality, is a good example of proximate multilingualism. Although this country is considered one of the oldest multilingual countries in Europe, its citizens do not need to use all four official languages of the Swiss Confederation: German, French, Italian and Romansch. A single language (e.g. Italian in Ticino, German in Zurich, Glarus, Lucerne, Nidwalden, Obwalden) is recognized as official in most cantons for use in all domains of social communication. Only a few cantons are officially bilingual: Bienne and Freiburg, as well as the federal capital Berne with French and German as official languages. There is also the trilingual canton of Graubünden, where German, Romansh and Italian are official languages. People can manage very well using just one official language of a canton. In many localities we encounter a wide range of degrees to which languages simply exist separately side by side, or are interfused in the language practices of the citizens. This range runs from indifference to languages other than one’s own to active interaction and tight language contact. In the proximal type of societal multilingualism, people speaking minority languages may live in linguistic and cultural bubbles, or may live their lives using only immigrant languages without mastery of an official majority language. Where there is predominance of the proximate type of multilingualism in a society, some speakers who master a set of the important languages will serve as mediators between the language communities.

The second form of societal multilingualism which has proliferated recently, often spreading to territories formerly characterized by the proximate form, is the integrative form of societal multilingualism. The integrative form denotes the situation where people not only encounter other languages of the context but actively use them. Integrative multilingualism is increasingly frequent owing to the globalization processes of migration and technological advance. The integrative and proximate forms of multilingualism are at opposite extremes of a continuum; there is a range of intermediate forms – less integrative and more integrative – in between.

Historical and current multilingualism In order to deal with multilingualism practically, and for the sake of theoretical understanding, it is useful to come to some conclusions about whether multilingualism existed in the past, or if is a totally new phenomenon. To answer this question let us first turn to the adjacent fields of anthropology, ethnology and history. They inform us that multilingualism is a specifically human feature and has been characteristic of humans for thousands of years. Language is involved in human evolution in an intricate way and language is a quality distinguishing our species from others. Notably, many languages have been spoken from the dawn of human interaction. Barnard (2016: 134) maintains that with Homo sapiens and possibly Neanderthals, who had bigger brains than Homo sapiens, ‘[m]ultilingualism was the norm, and multilingual peoples were made up of individuals from different linguistic backgrounds, whose groups intermarried and passed on both their genes and their linguistic diversity’. Looking at more recent history, we see that the social nature of language and ideas about it roughly parallel stages of societal evolution and organization, varying under changing historical circumstances (see Table 1.1). Table 1.1 Stages of societal organization and language patterns Stage of societal organization

Language crucial as

Tribal

A language

Nation-states

The language

Globalization: centralization and localization

Languages

Source: After Aronin (2005: 9).

This table broadly suggests that for the earliest communities, the fact of the existence of human language was important in itself. At this stage, whether in the form of a proto-language or embracing many particular communication systems, it served humans as a tool of communication and cognition and distinguished humans from other species. Later in history, with the establishment of nation-states in Europe, language became a consolidating tool for the development of a civil society. A particular language or language variety from among those used within a nation’s borders was often selected to play a unifying role and to enhance political and economic development in a country. During both waves of the development of individual nation-states, the first in the 15th–18th centuries (the Netherlands, Scotland, England, United States, France) and the second in the 19th century (Sweden, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Belgium, Hungary, Denmark, Romania, Italy, Canada, Japan, Germany, Iceland and Bulgaria), the European territories divided into nation-states which were typically each identified by one language. It was the language, e.g. French in France, High German in Germany, Spanish in Spain, that was called upon to represent communal identity, shared experiences and interests. Today, in postmodern times, multiple languages organized in unitary groups are important (dominant language constellations are discussed later in this lecture). The particular form and essence of multilingualism is time dependent and follows changes in social existence. In earlier times, particular languages and even single specific skills were instrumental in subserving a variety of facets of human existence as the backdrop to multilingualism. Multilingualism as a phenomenon was useful but not crucial for the maintenance and advancement of communities and groups. Normally, in various localities and communities, one factor came to the fore as especially useful. At other times and in other places another linguistic skill would become useful for advancement of the particular group. For instance, elsewhere we have referred to Ancient Egypt, where the skill of writing was more significant than the presence of multiple languages in the vast country (Aronin & Singleton, 2012: 44–45).

Previous multilingual contexts mainly dictated particular points of emphasis in the use of several languages or their specific single skills necessitated by particular aims or needs. We can infer that multilingualism of the past was largely circumstantial and unevenly spread between groups and individuals for a variety of purposes. Specific limited (not necessarily unimportant) aims needed to be attained, but such attainment did not define the development of humanity nor was it crucial for such development. Multilingualism in the past had different tasks and aims. It was local and patchy, whereas it is (contrastingly) systematically and overarchingly global now. Our current day-to-day existence and social behaviour, accompanied by language, differ markedly from those of previous generations. While the three basic components of multilingualism, ‘user, environment and language’ (Aronin & Singleton, 2012), endure through centuries, they also keep mutating, thus inducing changes in the resultant type of multilingualism. In other words, the same but ever-changing elements each time generate different varieties of social practice, different kinds of multilingualism. Flores and Lewis (2016: 98, emphasis added) rightly treat ‘language practices and language categories as sociopolitical emergences that are produced by the specific histories and contemporary contexts of interlocutors’. We can conclude this section as follows. The presence and the use of many languages in human societies as well as the human ability to use many languages have existed since long ago. However, the manifestations, configuration and role of multilingualism have been different in different periods relating to circumstances and the stage of human development. Emphasizing these meaningful changes, I refer to the forms of multilingualism which occurred in the past as historical multilingualism, and that unfolding today as current multilingualism. The specificity of the multilingualism of our own times will be elaborated on in the next section.

The Key Features of Current Multilingualism Current multilingualism differs from the previous social linguistic arrangements in many ways. Ignoring the transformations would be like saying that technology has not changed throughout history on the basis that we still use the wheel, which was allegedly invented in the late Neolithic period. In the following we will discuss the characteristic features of postmodernity inextricably linked to current language practices and the key features of current multilingualism.

Globalization as a context and the driving force The scope of multilingualism has broadened immensely to the extent that it now covers the whole world. Even the countries that were until recently considered strictly monolingual, such as Japan and Iceland, are now experiencing an influx of languages and multilingual speakers. Current multilingualism is suffusive, being part and parcel of most current human activities. In late postmodern times multilingualism has gradually developed into a phenomenon crucial in its role in and impact on human civilization. It is central to the progress and maintenance of modern civilization (Aronin & Singleton, 2012). What has led to such fundamental worldwide changes in the way people use their languages? Globalization is frequently invoked in this connection, and current multilingualism is linked to its basic processes such as mobility, diversity and technological innovation. These notions came under intensive discussion in the late 20th century and are often mentioned as characteristic only of more recent times. In fact, many social processes and phenomena which we think of as appearing only recently are not really new, but rather have undergone transformation with time. Globalization itself is said to have started long ago, with the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the New World in 1492. Therefore, it is important to understand how mobility, diversity, complexity and the technological advances of today feature in the reality of multilingualism. Mobility is one of the features deemed to be the cause of diversity of the current multilingualism. Yet scholars point out that people have always been on the move. Most recent anthropological research suggests that human language preceded the migrations of our species across the globe. Barnard (2016) believes that language had begun before modern humans populated the earth: ‘[w]hen humans first arrived in Australia, they arrived with language, having used it on their migration and after their fortuitous settlement on the continent’ (Barnard, 2016: 134). In the Middle Ages in Europe the roads were full of pilgrims, priests and wandering soldiers, and carriages bringing families and their luggage from villages to towns and back. Chaunu (1966) describes the ways in which improving transport in Europe facilitated the flow of people and trade, resulting in remarkable economic effects

for some places. Early modern history (see, for example, Betteridge, 2007; Schilling, 2008) also presents us with evidence of significant movements of individuals, populations and goods around Europe. We often encounter claims of an unprecedented increase of migration in recent times. It is true that the number of immigrants has increased in the last century and a half. But considering that the overall number of people on Earth has also swelled, the proportion of migrants has actually decreased. The exhaustive study of demographers Czajka and de Haas (2014) convincingly demonstrates that what actually changed in regard to migration is not its scope but the migratory trajectories, distance and destinations, especially in Europe. The patterns and meaning of migration have altered as well. Alternating between different cities, countries and continents has become ‘normal’ as opposed to one-way migration in earlier times. Contemporary migration is more visible, and receives more attention from researchers because it is more intense and more crucially intertwined with the fabric of society. Technological advance in our times may seem pertinent only to our period, but scholars tell us that the previous eras’ breakthroughs in ...