Multilingualism in Educational Contexts: Ideologies and Identities

Abstract

There is a growing body of research that addresses the sociolinguistics of multilingual classrooms. Three themes within the research can be identified. The first is classroom discourse strategies; these studies address the interactional functions of language choice. Another theme is how power relations in the larger society influence language use in the school and classroom. The third theme in this body of research is the construction of social identity by students in bilingual settings. These three intertwining areas of research are a reflection of the themes of interest in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology in general: language ideologies, social identities, and the mapping of linguistic forms on to interactional functions. Educational implications of these studies include challenging perspectives on multilingualism as exceptional and creating policies that encourage multilingual practices.

New Dimensions of Linguistic Inequality: An Overview

“…Educational contexts are one of the most attractive settings in linguistic inequality research as a place where ‘normative monolingualism’ (Fuller : 346) reproduces the hegemonic status of national languages, devaluing non‐standard ways of speaking (for an extensive review, see Fuller (, )). It has been observed that the privileged position of these languages persists among young students, even despite the existence of formal instruction in the minority language within the school (Fuller et al , Potowski ).…”

“…It has been observed that the privileged position of these languages persists among young students, even despite the existence of formal instruction in the minority language within the school (Fuller et al , Potowski ). In the same direction, Fuller (: 347–349) also notes that, although code switching is observed, it can serve to relegate a minority language to a peripheral status, that is, using English for serious academic work and Spanish for off‐task discussion (Pease‐Alvarez and Winsler , Palmer ). Even in the case of intercultural bilingual education, a segregationist and/or separatist view on language contact persists which hinders a more egalitarian relationship between languages, varieties, and, of course, speakers (Fernández, Gandulfo and Unamuno , Kanno ).…”

A Multilingual Perspective on Translanguaging

“…The consequences of denying the existence of multilingualism and therefore of codeswitching are far reaching. If codeswitching does not exist, then neither does the empirical basis for the repudiation of a deficit perspective on language mixing, a critically important and frequently cited (e.g., Cook, 2001;Durán & Palmer, 2013;Fuller, 2009;García, 2009;García, Flores, & Woodley, 2015;Gort, 2012;Grosjean, 1982Grosjean, , 2010Martínez, 2010;MacSwan Valdes-Fallis, 1978) body of basic scientific research. In other words, we cannot both rely on codeswitching scholarship to support a positive view of bilingualism and simultaneously deny that multilingualism and codeswitching exist, and by choosing to do the latter over the former, we lose the empirical case against a deficit perspective on bilingualism and are left only with an ideological one.…”

Translanguaging, language ontology, and civil rights

“…Important research on pedagogical aspects of translanguaging have included studies of the ways in which students use their two languages in combination to support bilingual acquisition in small group activities (Martin‐Beltrán, 2014), teachers’ dynamic and interactive use of two languages in classroom instructional settings (Palmer, Martínez, Henderson, & Mateus, 2014), the effects of using two languages concurrently in the teaching of reading (Soltero‐González & Butvilofsky, 2015; Soltero‐González, Sparrow, Butvilofsky, Escamilla, & Hopewell, 2016), among many others. Researchers have used a variety of terms to describe language mixing in classroom contexts, including translanguaging (Durán & Palmer, 2013; García, 2009; Gort, 2015; Gort & Sembiante, 2015; Henderson & Palmer, 2015; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Martin‐Beltrán, 2014; Martínez, Hikida, & Durán, 2015; Martínez‐Roldán, 2015; Palmer et al., 2014; Sayer, 2013; Smith & Murillo, 2015), hybrid language practices (Gutieírrez, Baquedano‐López, & Tejeda, 1999; Gutiérrez, Bien, Selland, & Pierce, 2011; Palmer & Martínez, 2013), holistic bilingualism (Soltero‐González, 2009; Soltero‐González & Butvilofsky, 2015; Soltero‐González et al., 2016; Soltero‐González, Escamilla, & Hopewell, 2011), and codeswitching (Cook, 2001; Fuller, 2009, 2010; Gort, 2012; Martínez, 2010; Moschkovich, 2007; Nava, 2009; Palmer, 2009; Reyes, 2004; Shin, 2005), following the foundational work of Jacobson (1978, 1981, 1990), Milk (1986, 1990), and Faltis (1989, 1990, 1996). See contributions to MacSwan and Faltis (2020) for further examples.…”