National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Faculty of

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Faculty of English Language and Literature Applied Linguistics in Foreign Language Teaching Monolingual practices in mainstream (foreign) language teaching, learning and testing in Europe Prof. Bessie Dendrinos

Language, languages around us n Language is all around us, in textual form, as it is displayed in the streets of our towns and cities –on street and commercial signs, on posters, shop windows, traffic signs– as it appears on pharmaceutical products, appliances, on super market shelves, on the web! n The texts we encounter are often not monolingual…

bilingual quadrilingual trilingual multilingual

multilingual

multilingual

The multimodality around us n The texts that we are surrounded by are like the texts we just saw, or like this:

and like this:

Meanings are shaped That is, by combining any of the following semiotic modes: multimodally; n n n n writing oral speech visuals (still or moving image, sculpture, craft, etc. ) audio texts (music, sounds, noises, alerts, etc. ) movement, physical contact and kinaesthesia gestures, expressions, eye movements and gaze, demeanours of the body, dance, action sequences, etc. proximity, spacing, layout, interpersonal distance, etc.

New text types & textual forms in a digital age past Textual parallels: business card, resume Linked. In Scrapbook Facebook Diary, newspaper opinion column Blogs Encyclopaedia Wikipedia Broadcast TV Interactive TV, You Tube Manuscript Google Docs Broadcast radio, Playlists podcast, i. Pod Photo album, picture book Flickr Memo, letter Email, Brochure Website Telegraph, Telegramme Twitter, SMS present

Learning how to mean… n We learn how to make meanings with language – q in combination with other semiotic modes (i. e. , multimodally) q as used in a variety of codes q as used in different discourse environments q as used in different cultural contexts n We learn language q by experience –direct or indirect q in formal and informal educational contexts q throughout our lives

Language learning n Language learning occurs as a person's experience of language in its cultural contexts expands from the language of the home, to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or by direct experience). n As this happens, the language learner does not keep the different languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language(s) contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. cf. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)

Plurilingual language learning n The CEFR’s view of how language learning occurs is the basis upon which a ‘plurilingual’ approach to (foreign) language teaching and testing is supported and endorsed.

Plurilingualism – multilingualism n Note that the CEFR distinguishes between q societal multilingualism q individual plurilingualism n In this presentation, we employ the term multilingualism as used by the European Commission, in an all encompassing sense, to refer to: q groups or individuals who speak a number of languages q communities or institutions where several languages co-exist q the mixing of languages in a communicative event q school curricula offering several languages to pupils n We use the term multilingualism in juxtaposition to the term monolingualism and its ‘kin’ monoculturalism

Language teaching and testing n Unlike language learning, all language teaching (foreign and mother tongue alike) is monolingual, monocultural, and monomodal. n The same is true of language testing, despite the efforts of organizations, such as (ALTE) to convince us otherwise. In agreement with Shohamy (2011): q n Just as language education programmes in Europe are still bound to their monolingual ideologies and built around the ‘native speaker’ competence model, classroom tests and test papers of the most popular examination batteries are constructed as monolingual instruments too. Progress and proficiency tests are intended to measure test-takers’ language competence or performance in a single language, their monolingual/ monocultural skills and awareness. The dominant paradigms in language teaching and testing are based on monolingual views of language (developing alongside the ideologies of national and linguistic homogeneities).

Monolingual, monoglossic Europe n n European states and citizens have been nourished by the ideals of monolingualism, monoglossia and monoculturalism. These ideals and a monolingual ethos of communication were cultivated during the previous two centuries, when the European nation-states needed to build their political and social cohesion around an official, standardized language (destined to dominate all other linguistic varieties and languages).

European attitudes to language(s) n Europeans seem to still need to be convinced as to the benefits of multilingualism, viewed as: q an essential aspect of European integration on a political, economic, scientific, and cultural level. q a contribution to a deeper awareness of cultural differences, to mutual understanding, and avoidance of conflict q a key to the European values of democracy, equality, transparency, and competitiveness q a means to empowering people, enhancing their creativity and problem solving skills.

European attitudes to language(s) n ‘Convincing’ the Europeans is warranted by that: q the advantages of multilingualism are still seriously doubted given that multiculturalism is viewed as a precarious outcome of our postmodern condition and/or of economic globalisation q a large potion of the population still believe the best way to achieve academic, professional and social success is by way of exhibiting mastery in English and perhaps also being proficient in another ‘important’ European language.

Euro promotion of multilingualism n The need for strategic action to promote multilingualism in Europe was at the heart of a new action by the European Commission – the development of the “Civil Society Platform” at the launch meeting of which the key messages announced were: q To promote multilingualism for social cohesion and intercultural dialogue q To provide opportunities for migrants to learn the language of the host country and also to cultivate their own native language q To take advantage of the media which have the potential to open channels for intercultural dialogue q To enhance multilingualism policy to secure the rights of all European languages (official, regional, minority and migrant languages) q To secure language learning opportunities for all citizens, throughout their lives

How has multilingualism been promoted? Some researchers (e. g. , Gal 2010, Krzyzanowski & Wodak 2011, n n n Phillipson 2003, Wright 2004) have argued that the EU perceives its multilingualism in rather limited ways. Gal, for example, claims that the EU is positioned as a “top down regime of multilingual standardization that tries to manage increased diversity in the same ways nation states managed non-standard varieties. ” I argue elsewhere (Dendrinos 2004) that the ideology articulated ‘at the top’ favours a politics of difference that may provide a forum for creating unity without denying the particular, the multiple and the specific. However, such politics serve as ground to shift attention away from the problem of how to make Europe's linguistic and cultural diversity a political referent outside the antagonistic relations of cultural domination and subordination. The discursive practices of member states arise from such antagonistic relations, ultimately maintaining linguistic and cultural hegemony (Dendrinos 1996; Macedo, Dendrinos & Gounari 2003).

Language education recommendations One of the “Civil Society Platform” WGs, appointed by the Commission in n 2010 to propose ways for effectively achieving European multilingualism was concerned with Language Education. Participating in the WG, as an EFNIL representative, the Report which in fact I prepared included the recommendations below: q Develop language inclusive (rather than language exclusive) education policies q Rethink language education from the perspective of multilingualism q Adopt language didactic approaches which involve the use of more than one language q Provide conscious support for the teaching/learning of neighbouring and of the less widely used and taught languages q Raise awareness with regard to the benefits of early language learning, lifelong language learning, and informal, as well as nonformal language learning.

Rethinking (foreign) language education n n How can we begin rethinking about foreign language education in a multilingual perspective? What types of foreign language education pedagogies are appropriate for the development of multilingual competence(s)? How can a coherent multiliteracy pedagogy be translated into pedagogical action? What types of tools are needed to measure and formally recognize multilingual competence and multiliteracies?

Moving beyond monolingual language education n n All articles included in the current special issue of the Modern Language Journal argue for the expansion of the language learning construct beyond monolingual views of language, toward different forms of multilingualism. In these articles, as well as in the wider field of multilingual studies, it seems that there are two main tendencies or approaches to multilingual education: q q the first promotes the teaching/learning of multiple languages within the same space (classrooms, schools, communities) the second promotes the development of a ‘multilingual ethos of communication’ where boundaries between languages and codes are disrupted

Multilingual education and ideology n The two approaches are underlined by two distinct ideologies or views of language: q The first is a view of language as a closed and homogeneous construct q The second views language as a non-finite concept used to negotiate and create meanings (characterized by hybridity, made up by fusions and varieties that cross over in creative ways and open up to different forms of negotiation.

Approaches to multilingualism and pedagogies n The multiple languages approach (building on arguments concerning the positive transfer among multiple languages) is connected with CLIL programmes, the European Schools model, the teaching of foreign languages at a very early age school programmes, and proficiency development following the ‘native speaker’ paradigm in as many languages as possible n The language fusion approach can be associated with intercomprehension and partial skills development, with translanguaging, intercultural and interlinguistic mediation pedagogies.

Rethinking language education Language education for multilingualism is not just about learning lots of foreign languages but about: n turning European schools (which remain monoglossic spaces of learning) into multilingual topoi –places where a single language or a single mode of semiosis does not dominate the curriculum but where several languages and multimodality come into play and are used as resources for meaning making. n involving the languages that children bring to school with them rather than crossing them out of the school language education policy. n developing new types of programmes for the languages traditionally included in the school’s foreign language curriculum with the intention of developing students’ interlinguistic and intercultural competence

Interlinguistic and intercultural competence My notion of interlinguistic competence derives from a n reconsideration of the aims of a foreign language pedagogy oriented toward the native speaker –itself an outdated and problematic term. n Given the need for multilingual and multicultural literacy, my interest lies in a foreign language pedagogy which prepares learners to use the languages they are learning as meaning making mechanisms and so increase the quantity and quality of their communication with speakers of other languages n I am thinking of a foreign language pedagogy which is oriented toward developing in learners the competence to operate at the border between a number of languages, manoeuvring their way through communicative events by using the sociocultural knowledge and skills they have developed as language users, by making maximal use of their communication strategies, their multiliteracy skills, their abilities to deal with the multimodality of texts, and of their translinguistic and transcultural knowledge.