Challenges to multilingual language teaching

Challenges to multilingual language teaching Towards a transnational approach Michael Kelly University of Southampton Abstract This article examines issues involved in developing a multilingual approach to language teaching within higher education. It discusses the concepts of multilingualism and plurilingualism that are currently used, and the ways in which they are reflected in practice. It suggests that multilingual approaches must address a largely monolingual ethos in language teaching, based on long-established pedagogical priorities. It examines difficulties in developing multicultural professional identities, arising from communities of practice that are often monolingual, and from competition for curriculum time and resources. It puts forward strategies to encourage multilingualism through professional development and through the development of intercultural approaches. It argues that significant advances in multilingual pedagogy can be achieved by encouraging greater collaboration between teachers, between their associations and between governmental agencies. And it concludes that language teachers may need to consider adopting a more transnational professional identity. Key words: multilingual pedagogy, language teaching, intercultural approaches, transnationalism, identity

For the past twenty years or more, the prevalence of multilingualism has been identified as a communications challenge to international institutions (European Institute 1993). During that time, the promotion of multilingualism has become a core value and strategic policy objective for Europe, occupying a political and symbolic role at the heart of European politics and culture. This has placed particular responsibilities on the world of language teaching, which is professionally equipped to promote multilingualism, but which also has its own priorities. The aspirations of political leaders, or moral philosophers, to promote multilingualism do not always sit comfortably with the purposes and practices of language teachers. This article examines the challenges in European Journal of Language Policy 7.1 (2015) © Liverpool University Press

ISSN 1757-6822 (print) 1757-6830 (online) doi:10.3828/ejlp.2015.5

For Author Review Only

64

Michael Kelly

adopting an explicitly multilingual approach to the teaching of languages in higher education. Multilingualism has attracted intensive debate in Europe over the past decade. The reasons for this were summarised concisely in a legal working paper for the European Central Bank: “the concept of multilingualism stands out as one of the most prominent symbols of European historical, political and cultural diversity and has gradually assumed, in addition to its inherently symbolic dimension, the mandatory nature of a legal imperative and the significance of a political necessity” (Athanassiou 2006: 5). The working paper goes on to analyse the significance of multilingualism for the creation of the European currency, the euro, and demonstrates that the spelling of the euro is not a linguistic question but is essentially a legal and economic question. This is a clear demonstration of the point that language is never just linguistic communication. On the contrary, language is deeply embedded in every area of life. From a different perspective, the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben confirms this. Examining the phenomenon of the oath in Western societies, he argues that it is both a “sacrament of power” and a “sacrament of language”, which places oath-giving at the intersection of law, religion and politics. He suggests that the link between language and power underlies the ethical relationship between speakers and their language, because “unlike other living things, in order to speak, the human being must put himself at stake in his speech” (Agamben 2011: 71). In that sense, language is never just language: the use of language mobilises a complex network of relationships, which are personal, cultural, social, political and economic. Developing a multilingual approach

Echoing its political importance, multilingualism has emerged to become a key focus of research in applied linguistics in Europe. In the process, it has acquired a very wide range of meanings. In descriptive terms, it has long been viewed as either the attribute of an individual who possesses “active and passive comprehensive proficiency in two or more languages” (Braun 1937: quoted by Hufeisen and Jessner 2009: 113), or as the co-existence of two or more languages in close contact (Weinreich 1953; Alladina and Edwards 1991). For more than 30 years, an extensive research culture has developed around it, expressed in a growing body of books and journals which recognise both individual and social aspects, and consequently draw on the very different disciplines of psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics (Kemp 2009). The interactions between these two dimensions


Challenges to multilingual language teaching

65

have been extensively studied, to reveal complex individual practices in dynamic social environments (Blackledge and Creese 2009; Kramsch 2009; Byrd Clark and Dervin 2014). In parallel with research aimed at understanding and analysing it, multilingualism has become the focus of policy debates, which revolve around the ways in which it could or should be managed in different countries and regions. This has been a particular preoccupation in Europe, where the nineteenth-century heritage takes language to be a key component of nation building. Wilhelm von Humboldt argued that “if one thinks of nation and language together, the latter has an original character which has fused with the character it acquired from the nation” (Humboldt 1997: 56). The intrinsic connection between language and national identity has dominated the ideological framework within language policy as it has developed in Europe. Until the 1950s, multilingualism was regarded as a marginal issue in most countries, and often as a problem. There were, however, a few countries that embraced it, in the sense of recognising more than one official language in order to negotiate a national identity that included different indigenous ethnic groups (for example, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland). The post-war creation of European institutions, such as the European Communities and the Council of Europe, required countries to build closer relationships with their neighbours and to address the diversity of languages between them (Liddicoat and Muller 2002: 1–3). At this point, multilingualism began to appear as a political obligation. The mutual respect for different languages was entrenched in treaties and conventions as a condition for political and economic development. However, language diversity also continued to appear as a problem, presenting a non-tariff barrier to trade and mobility, and a constraint on the engagement of citizens in European cooperation. Following the creation of the Single Market, the European Union gave a high level of priority to improving education in languages, adopting the aim of all citizens developing “proficiency in three Community languages” (European Commission 1995: 47–49). This has continued to be the main focus of language policy in the Union, expressed in detail in substantial Communications from the Commission (European Commission 2005; 2008) and endorsed by the Council of Ministers (Council of the European Union 2008). The policy has been modulated to accommodate a wider range of languages, including the current 24 official languages, more than 60 regional languages and several hundred languages spoken by immigrants from outside Europe. The aim of EU policy makers then became a Europe where everyone can speak two other languages in addition to their mother tongue (Council of the European Union


66

Michael Kelly

2008: clause 2a). This is still the declared policy.1 As a result, education systems are expected to enable citizens to master at least two foreign languages. Developing a multilingual approach to language teaching has therefore become a strategic objective of the European Union. However, the policy is still predicated on the Humboldtian principle of an identifiable number of languages, each of which is integral to the identity of a distinct national or ethnic group. And it largely assumes that each citizen has one mother tongue, most commonly an official language of the state to which they belong. Policy makers have not yet taken full account of the more complex social reality of multilingualism in the twenty-first century, which has been studied in increasing depth by researchers. The complexities include the very uneven distribution of multilingualism in different areas of society, the growing number of people with more than one first language and the rapid changes in the language profile of individuals and communities, especially in larger cities (King et al. 2011). These are compounded by the different contexts of learning that are now available, beyond formal education, and include supplementary and lifelong learning of various kinds, as well as the informal acquisition of languages. In the light of these changes in society, existing policies for language education need constantly to be re-examined, including the norms associated with language proficiency and the explicit objectives for language learning. They also need to take account of new generations of pedagogical tools that have been developed, and the increasing range of technological solutions, which may both support and replace language learning. The challenge for educators is therefore to agree on what a multilingual approach to language teaching should consist of, and what objectives it should adopt. The established approach is to aim at increasing the number of languages that individuals can speak. This is the main focus of the European Commission’s policy on multilingualism, which concentrates on the ability of people to use several languages, with the cultural, social and economic benefits that brings (European Commission 2008: 5). It is a key objective of the Council of Europe’s policy on plurilingualism, which seeks to enrich the repertoire of languages and language varieties on which an individual can draw (Council of Europe 2006: 5). However, the Council of Europe’s Language Policy Division classically distinguishes between plurilingualism, which is an attribute of the individual, and multilingualism, which is the attribute of a society in which several languages are present. This is a helpful distinction, 1. See the section “Multilingualism” on the Europa website. Available at: http://europa.eu/pol/ mult/index_en.htm (accessed 3 February 2015).



67

not least because it enables a much more flexible analysis to be developed, identifying the linguistic repertoires and strategies that individuals can deploy in interactions. It also provides a valuable basis for language education policy, setting the aim of developing and improving the repertoire of learners, making them aware of the nature and value of their linguistic and cultural repertoire and giving them the means of developing it themselves through autonomous acquisition (Beacco and Byram 2007: 38–39; Beacco 2005). In some recent publications, plurilingualism is identified with interactions rather than individuals, including, for example, the use of code-switching in language classes (Barnard et al. 2011). In practice, the distinction between multilingualism and plurilingualism is not widely followed. For example, the term plurilingualism is not generally used in European Union policy documents, though their discussions of individual multilingualism adopt many of the same concepts. Outside the realm of academic researchers and language policy specialists, neither term has much currency. When the terms are used, they often appear interchangeably. A multilingual approach to language teaching therefore has different levels of meaning. At the strategic level, it means recognising and embracing the wider social context of increasing language diversity and language contact. At the level of the classroom, it means developing innovative pedagogical methods and tools that equip learners to thrive in the rapidly changing language environment. And between these two, at the level of policy, a multilingual approach means on the one hand managing education systems in such a way as to respond creatively to the new social context and on the other hand providing an educational environment in which new pedagogies can develop. In this sense, the policy level connects the strategic and pedagogical levels. It is the place where the relationship between the two is negotiated: confronting political and pedagogical priorities, recognising the needs of the wider society, as articulated by legitimate political authorities, and respecting the professional integrity of teachers in their day-to-day responsibilities towards their learners. It is the role of educators and academic leaders to balance these priorities. In the European context, there is a political consensus that language teaching should support and promote multilingualism. Educators must therefore address difficult pedagogical issues in implementing multilingual policies in education across Europe. An increasing amount of education policy development is concerned with language learning by children, particularly in their early years. Nevertheless, higher education remains an important focus of policy since it concerns young people on the brink of entry into economic activity.


68

Michael Kelly

Language teaching in higher education

Higher education in Europe is a complex policy area. On the one hand, education policy is the responsibility of member-state governments, who are often deeply attached to their own distinctive national traditions. On the other hand, there are strong movements towards harmonisation, encouraged by the internationalisation of higher education and by the European response in the form of the Bologna process, which led to the creation of a European Higher Education Area in 2010.2 At the same time, there is an increasing tendency for universities to be given greater independence, so that each institution has been given responsibility to develop in the ways it chooses (Sursock and Smidt 2010). The role of policy makers at national or European levels is therefore to deploy a form of “soft power”, which is less concerned with imposing policy decisions and more concerned with enabling and encouraging policy directions. This complexity has a direct impact on languages. Language teaching in higher education is expected to play a supportive role for the individual institution, assisting it to respond to the challenges it faces. Universities universally wish to increase their international activities in teaching and research, and to improve their international standing (Rauhvargers 2011). Languages are usually seen as a strategic issue in achieving this (Jones 2011). The need for language learning in universities is especially affected by the number of languages that are used for instruction. Some universities continue to use only one language of instruction for all programmes other than specialist courses in languages and cultures, where the “target” language is often used. But with the growing role of English internationally, monolingualism in teaching is increasingly confined to institutions in the English-speaking countries of Europe: Britain and Ireland. Most other universities use at least two languages in some of their courses. Some use more than two, with a commitment to multilingualism that usually reflects the linguistic diversity of the area in which they are located. But in all universities, language teaching must address many different learner communities. As well as students and staff who wish to improve their knowledge of the language(s) of instruction, learners are drawn, for example, from students who wish to work or study abroad, students who want to improve their language profile for career purposes, and researchers who need to access material in other languages. For all these purposes, multilingualism may mean several things. It may refer 2. See the website of the European Higher Education Area, available at: http://www.ehea.info (accessed 3 February 2015).



69

to the teaching of a range of languages, providing students with opportunities to develop a repertoire of relevant languages, in which they can communicate. This is most typically viewed as languages for specific purposes, and does not generally address the learners’ language profile as a whole. These programmes are generally described as an institutional language programme rather than as multilingualism (Bickerton 2004). A second sense of multilingualism is the extension of language programmes to offer the teaching of several languages to staff and students in order to strengthen the institution’s capability in at least some of the many languages that are of value to students in a contemporary university environment. This requires active language policy development and is pursued with different levels of commitment in different institutions (CEL/ELC 2013). Thirdly, multilingualism may mean that institutions try to respond effectively to the multilingual and multicultural composition of their staff and student populations, recognising the challenges that this provides to long established pedagogical practices.3 This requires learners and teachers to reflect on their linguistic repertoire and develop strategies to use it effectively. It is a less common understanding of multilingualism and corresponds to the philosophy of the European Language Portfolio, several versions of which exist for higher education. In principle, the Portfolio encourages reflection on an individual’s language profile (Schneider and Lenz 2001). This third sense of multilingualism is beginning to inform teaching practice across a range of subjects. However, there is also an awareness that the Portfolio’s potential impact on “plurilingualism in its multifaceted aspects” has not been fully exploited (Stoicheva, Hughes, and Speitz 2009: 20). In particular, it is noteworthy that the development of multilingual strategies is rarely addressed explicitly in language teaching practice, which generally focuses on the development of a single target language. A monolingual teaching ethos

The educational approaches most commonly adopted in university language programmes may paradoxically work against multilingualism. This is largely because contact between different languages is most commonly discouraged. Discouragement may take several forms. First, it is a by-product of the pervasive use of the target language to the exclusion of the other language(s) that may be 3. These issues are explored in the Erasmus Academic Network project, The Challenges of the Multilingual and Multicultural Learning Space in the International University (IntlUni). Project website available at: http://intluni.eu (accessed 3 February 2015).


70

Michael Kelly

brought to the classroom by learners or teachers. There are strong motivations for this, including maximising students’ exposure to the target language over a limited number of teaching hours, making full use of native speaking teachers and assistants, avoiding confusion in a class where several first languages are present among learners, and adopting a strategy of learning through total immersion (Gray and Klapper 2009). These reasons are widely accepted and recommended as good practice, particularly in some state-promoted teaching of the national language as a foreign language (English as a Second or Other Language, français langue étrangère, Deutsch als Fremdsprache, etc.). However compelling the cultural and pedagogical reasons, the effect of the “target language only” approach is to produce a determined monolingualism in the teaching ethos. A second way in which contact between languages is discouraged is in minimising relationships between different languages in the classroom. This is an issue in many programmes where languages are frequently compartmentalised, whether structurally, culturally or pedagogically. The structural separation may stem from such factors as the timetable or the structure and management of a language department. The cultural separation may be based on distinctive approaches to language teaching associated with the particular language and its traditions. Within the classroom, the segregation of languages is often based on pedagogical concerns, aimed at avoiding errors in performance in one language by the intervention of another. “Language transfer” of this kind has been debated since antiquity (Odlin 1989: 7). Much concern has focused on “interference” by the learner’s first language (George 1972; Bhela 1999). However, in specialist language departments there is also a concern to avoid interference between foreign languages. It is a well-known phenomenon that people studying two languages experience this kind of interference. In speaking one foreign language they may use words, phrases or structures from their second foreign language, especially when they are speaking about a country of the second language. The need to compartmentalise languages in this situation has often been challenged, particularly on the general argument that students can build on their knowledge of one foreign language to facilitate learning another, especially where there are structural or lexical similarities between the languages. In recent years, the argument has been developed in the context of “intercomprehension”, an approach which encourages the learning of a further language in the same linguistic family as one already learned (Blanche-Benveniste and Valli 1997; DGLF 2006). However, it remains a widespread practice that the teaching of one language is segregated from the teaching of others. The de facto multilingualism of teachers and



71

learners is structured as a series of separate strands, which Monica Heller has called parallel monolingualisms (1999: 139). In large measure, the monolingual ethos of language teaching is organised around a native speaker model of language learning. The aspiration to be a native speaker reinforces the sense that learners should envelope themselves in the target language to the exclusion of all others. In the context of linguistics, it has been argued that the native speaker is at least in part a myth (Davies 2003), that is, a constructed narrative which serves to give order to experience. In language learning, it serves to articulate an ideal performance, which typically consists of a purified version of the standard language, at some remove from the speaking or writing patterns found in actual speakers of the language as a first language. It is a fictional construct of the education system, designed as a benchmark of performance and a basis for assessment. However, it is well established that second language learners find it impossible to replicate all aspects of “native speaker” competence (Lee 2005). This notoriously forms the basis for a perpetual sense of failure among learners, even when they are in most respects proficient users of the language in question (Cook 1999). Language learning becomes a labour of Sisyphus, which always needs to be renewed. No doubt, to borrow Camus’s insight, there are learners whom one may imagine to be happy (Camus 1942), but many are also discouraged by the experience. There are alternative models, which can be used as an ideal or aspiration for language learners, including the aim to be a language expert (Rampton 1990), a competent language user (Lee 2005) or a multicompetent speaker (Cook 1999). Each of these alternatives implies a relationship between the second language and other languages, and points to a multilingual outcome and, in the Council of Europe’s terms, a plurilingual citizen in a multilingual world. The inherent monolingualism of language teaching is frequently complemented by a monoculturalism, which develops knowledge of the target culture removed from its wider cultural contexts and the ebb and flow of cultural exchanges that are common to almost every country in the modern world. Teaching materials, for example, are commonly chosen to reflect traditional or distinctive aspects of a target culture and in some cases may be purged of references to other cultures. This is becoming more difficult as the movement of globalisation draws cultures into increasing interaction.


72

Michael Kelly

Multilingualism and professional identity

Some of the key challenges to multilingualism arise from the professional identity of language teachers. This is a complex area to analyse and touches on some of the tensions within the concept of a profession. The pioneering work of Eric Hoyle (1975; 1982) and more recent studies by Linda Evans (2008; 2011) provide a help framework of analysis. Professionalism is always a challenge for teachers. They attach great importance to the specialised activity of teaching, but tend to regret that this profession does not enjoy the same social status as the professions of doctor, lawyer or architect, among others. Like these other professions, teaching offers an important public service, its practice is regulated by legal frameworks and it shares a broad professional culture. However, unlike the more prestigious professions, the teaching profession is not a closed or highly restricted occupation. On the contrary, it is a very open one: entry into the profession is only partially limited. Whereas state school systems are often highly regulated, other sectors such as private or adult education tend to operate as a virtually free market, in which relevant qualifications are often optional. The situation of university teaching is a mixed economy which lies somewhere between a regulated occupation and a free market. The barriers to entry may be low, especially at the more precarious end of the scale, where temporary and part-time staff may be employed with less rigorous qualifications. Taking up a distinction suggested by Hoyle, it may be that the problem that concerns teachers is one of “professionalism”, that is, the social existence of teachers, rather than their “professionality”, that is their ability to teach (Hoyle 1975; 2001). However, the two are closely interconnected, and it is helpful to follow Linda Evans’s distinction between demanded, prescribed and enacted professionalism (2008). Enacted professionalism incorporates the professional skills and attitudes that teachers actually deploy in response to social expectations or legal obligations. Looking at the enacted professionalism of language teachers in higher education, it seems apparent that the spectrum of enactment is very broad. That is, the range of skills is very varied, as is the range of attitudes of teachers to their profession. The uneven and disjointed composition of the profession is a serious weakness. It is well recognised that enhancing the quality of teachers’ knowledge and skills is an important contributor to their ability to work effectively as professionals. However, it is less frequently argued that attitudes and culture can play a vital role. This was one of the innovatory proposals in the European Profile for Language Teacher Education (2004), which argued that



73

values are an important area that needs to be addressed in language teacher education. The values embedded in multilingualism may offer remedies to the potential monoculturalism of language teachers, especially if teachers learn that respect for and promotion of diversity are key elements in their teacher education and subsequent teaching, and see the importance of maintaining linguistic diversity in Europe (Kelly et al. 2004: 82). Traditionally, teachers of different languages have often adopted monolingual or monocultural professional identities. In this way, teachers of English, French or Italian, for example, would belong to distinct communities of practice, supported by subject associations focused on the specific language. These structures are very important internationally and represented by organisations such as the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL), the Fédération Internationale des professeurs de français (FIPF) or the Associazione Internazionale dei Professori d’Italiano (AIPI).4 They typically have single-language member associations located in individual countries. The activities of the associations are usually supported by the cultural institutes from relevant countries, such as the Goethe Institut, the Instituto Cervantes or the Confucius Institutes, in the case of German, Spanish and Chinese. Although these structures are valuable in giving support to language teachers, they tend to promote a monocultural approach to language learning, and need to be supplemented by other structures that create contact between teachers of different languages. There are several examples of such multilingual bodies, including the Fédération Internationale des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes (FIPLV) and the European Network of Language Teacher Associations (REAL),5 which are connected to both monolingual and multilingual associations in different countries. At the level of day-to-day experience, monolingualism is often strengthened in professional identities by the competition between languages that is visible in all educational institutions. This may well be endemic in the teaching of languages, since there is generally limited space in curricula for languages, and there is continual competition between individual languages to protect or improve the proportion of classroom time they command. Competition takes many forms. It can be seen in the struggle to attract students to learn a particular foreign language. Students who are not following a specialist degree in languages and related studies have limited opportunities to follow 4. See the websites of these associations, available at: http://www.iatefl.org, http://fipf.org, http:// www.infoaipi.org (accessed 5 February 2015). 5. See the website, available at: http://www.fiplv.org and the web page https://www.facebook.com/ REALassociation.eu (accessed 5 February 2015).


74

Michael Kelly

a language course and are often only able to study one foreign language. Consequently, their course requirements or their choices will affect the amount of resources dedicated to a particular language. Linked to this is the struggle to secure staffing for teaching a particular language. Staff members who teach a particular language may well see other languages as competitors and threats, particularly during discussions around staffing levels and allocations. Where language departments are competing for a limited amount of staffing, relations can become tense. To some extent, this competition may be attenuated (though not entirely eliminated) where languages are combined within a single administrative department, and the discussions are purely internal to the languages group. Multilingualism and professional development

Multilingualism can be encouraged by teacher education and by continual professional development. In many European countries, there are few requirements for teachers in higher education to undertake teacher training. Often, the main qualifications for recruitment to university posts are researchbased. There have, however, been movements to provide teacher education, typically in the early stages of an academic career. This was demonstrated, for example by the Network of European Tertiary Level Educators (NETTLE), a thematic network within the SOCRATES programme, which produced a reference document for teaching in higher education (Baume 2008). However, a majority of university staff undertake their teacher education through continuing professional development (CPD), on a lifelong learning basis. In this context, it is valuable to organise CPD on a multilingual basis, bringing teachers of several languages together to reflect on their practice and learn lessons that may be applied to different languages. Multilingual professional development may be undertaken within a particular institution, where the academic leaders are concerned to enhance the skills of their staff. It may also be provided by nationally based organisations. These are often concerned with broadly based staff development, but there are examples which specialise in the area of languages, including, for example CIEP: Centre international d’études pédagogiques in France and LLAS: Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies in the UK.6 At the European level, important work in the languages area is undertaken by the 6. See websites http://www.ciep.fr and http://www.llas.ac.uk (accessed 5 February 2015).



75

European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) at Graz, Austria.7 Experience in all of these cases has been that the encounter between teachers of different languages has led to productive dialogue between them, with opportunities for sharing ideas and cooperation. Beyond the exchange of ideas between teachers, multilingualism can also be encouraged as part of an intercultural pedagogy for language education. This is a more challenging route, which replaces monocultural forms of pedagogy with a more comparative approach to language learning. An abundant literature has been developed over the past twenty years, including the work of Michael Byram and his collaborators (Byram 1997; Byram and Fleming 1999; Byram, Gribkova, and Starkey 2002), Manuela Guilherme 2002, Alison Phipps (Phipps and Guilherme 2004; Phipps and Gonzalez 2004), Jacques Demorgon (Demorgon et al. 2003), Martine Abdallah-Pretceille 1986, Louis Porcher (Abdallah-Pretceille and Porcher 1999; 2001) and Karen Risager 2007. Some of this thinking has been included in the Common European Framework of Reference (Council for Cultural Cooperation 2001). However, its contribution to intercultural pedagogy has tended to be overshadowed by the Framework’s focus on levels of attainment and assessment in language proficiency. The development of intercultural dimensions still remains a work in progress. Intercultural pedagogy has the benefit of developing a deeper reflection on the relationship of the learner to languages, including a questioning of the native speaker model. It fosters a strong sense of respect for the diversity of languages, and recognises the many areas of interaction between languages. It enables teachers and students to compare and contrast the different cultures that are in contact, and adopt a broader and more intercultural perspective. In this way, they may enter a “third space”, which marks the difference between cultures and enables bridges to be built between them (Kelly 2009). This is increasingly important for improving the quality of language learning for students who are already multilingual and multicultural. It also gives advantages to students who are themselves from monolingual backgrounds but need to acquire strategies and attitudes that enable them to thrive in a multilingual world. It may be surprising that intercultural approaches have been relatively slow to enter language teaching practice, but as Anthony Liddicoat notes, each language contributes differently to learning, especially as between the home language and the target language (Liddicoat 2007). Moreover, intercultural approaches run counter to the predominant interpretations of communicative language teaching, which tend to focus on the target language, using a native 7. See http://www.ecml.at (accessed 5 February 2015).


76

Michael Kelly

speaker model, and aiming solely at communicative proficiency rather than intercultural competence (Liddicoat, Papademetre et al. 2003). The alternative may be “a complex engagement with linguistic and cultural diversity” (Liddicoat and Scarino 2013: 1982). However, this is a challenging option, which does not sit easily with the dominant professional identities. Some nine years ago, Lies Sercu found that “teachers’” current foreign language-and-culture teaching profiles do not yet meet those of the envisaged “foreign language and intercultural competence teacher”’ (Sercu 2006). It is not certain that those profiles have substantially changed in the intervening decade. Conclusion

At a professional level, the multilingual approach can be supported by greater collaboration between teachers’ associations and professional bodies, and by increased cooperation between embassies and cultural institutes to promote multilingualism. There was a distinct increase in this activity in the period before the economic crisis of 2008, reflecting the shared commitment to multilingual policies on the part of EU member states, and the increased European awareness of subject associations. The crisis has certainly reduced the resources that were available to pursue these aims through development projects and professional development. But it has not reduced the need for a more fundamental commitment to multilingualism on the part of teachers. As has been suggested, this is likely to require teachers to reconceptualise their professional identities. It is an important first step to encourage teachers to see themselves as language teachers rather than as teachers of a particular language (English teacher, French teacher, etc.). The notion of a “European language teacher” has been proposed as an ideal that the EU and Council of Europe institutions could support and encourage (Kelly, Grenfell, and Jones 2003). However, with the rapid development of more international perspectives, it might be timely to propose a wider notion of transnational language teacher. This would suggest that teachers who teach one or more languages but are also comfortable in moving between countries and cultures would teach learners to reflect on the diversity of languages and cultures, and to develop strategies for working effectively with this diversity. There are many individual teachers who already have these attributes and their numbers seem to be growing. If they are to be nurtured, they will need to have access to appropriate forms of professional recognition across a range of countries. There is already a good deal of research and good practice on which



77

to build. But there will be a significant requirement for public investment in this process, particularly to support development projects, pilot projects and increased teacher mobility. If the political will is present, multilingual approaches can be developed more widely. They have the potential to provide learners with the range of knowledge, skills and values they now need if they are to study, work and live effectively in today’s multilingual and multicultural world. Amin Maalouf’s diagnosis was that strengthening the multiplicity of languages presented “a rewarding challenge” for Europe (Maalouf 2008). The changing patterns of language and power in the globalised world mean that multilingual language learning is now an urgent and necessary challenge. References Abdallah-Pretceille, Martine (1986) Vers une pédagogie interculturelle. Paris: Institut national de recherche pédagogique. Abdallah-Pretceille, Martine and Porcher, Louis (1999) Diagonales de la communication interculturelle. Paris: Anthropos. — and — (2001) Éducation et communication interculturelle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Agamben, Giorgio (2011) The Sacrament of Language. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Alladina, Safder and Edwards, Viv (1991) Multilingualism in the British Isles: The Older Mother Tongues and Europe. London: Longman. Athanassiou, Phoebus (2006) The Application of Multilingualism in the European Union Context. Legal Working Papers Series. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: European Central Bank. Barnard, Roger, Robinson, Matt, da Costa, Norberto and da Silva Sarmento, João (2011) ‘Plurilingualism in English university classes: A case-study from Timor-Leste’, Language Education in Asia 2.1: 43–55. Baume, David (2008) A Reference Framework for Teaching in Higher Education. NETTLE Project Publications. Available at: http://www.edshare.soton.ac.uk/7337/1/32360_ NETTLE_English.pdf (accessed 3 February 2015). Beacco, Jean-Claude (2005) Languages and Language Repertoires: Plurilingualism as a Way of Life in Europe. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Beacco, Jean-Claude and Byram, Michael (2007) From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Bhela, Baljit (1999) ‘Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage’, International Education Journal 1.1: 22–31. Bickerton, David (2004) Institution Wide Language Programmes. Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Available at: http:// www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/352 (accessed 24 March 2014).


78

Michael Kelly

Blackledge, Adrian and Creese, Angela (2009) Multilingualism: A Critical Perspective. London: Continuum. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire and Valli, André (1997) ‘L’Intercompréhension: le cas des langues’, N° spécial Le Français dans le monde. Braun, Maximilien (1937) ‘Beobachtungen zur Frage der Mehrsprachigkeit’, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 199.4: 8–130. Byram, Michael (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Byram, Michael and Fleming, Michael P. (1999) Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Byram, Michael, Gribkova, Bella and Starkey, Hugh (2002) Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Byrd Clark, Julie S. and Dervin, Fred (2014) Reflexivity in Language and Intercultural Education: Rethinking Multilingualism and Interculturality. New York and Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Camus, Albert (1942) Le Mythe de Sisyphe. Paris: Gallimard. CEL/ELC (2013) Report of the Higher Education Language Policy (HELP) working group. Berlin: Conseil Europeen de Langues/European Language Council, January. Available at: http://www.celelc.org/activities/Working_groups/Concluded-Working-Groups/ Resources_Working_Groups/HE_Language_Policy_-_Final_2013_w_summary. pdf (accessed 3 February 2015). Cook, Vivian (1999) ‘Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching’, TESOL Quarterly, 33.2: 185–209. Council for Cultural Cooperation (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2006) Plurilingualism in Europe. 50 Years of International Co-operation. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. Council of the European Union (2008) ‘Council Resolution of 21 November 2008 on a European strategy for multilingualism’, Official Journal C 320 (16 December): 0001–0003. Davies, Alan (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Demorgon, Jacques, Müller, Burkhard, Lipianski, Edmond-Marc and Nicklas, Hans (2003) Dynamiques interculturelles pour l’Europe. Paris: Anthropos DGLF 2006. L’Intercompréhension entre langues apparentées. Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France. Paris: Ministère de la Culture et de la communication. European Commission (1995) Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society. White Paper on Education and Training. Available at: http://europa.eu/documents/comm/ white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf (accessed 3 February 2015). — (2005) ‘A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions’. Brussels:



79

European Commission. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0596 (accessed 3 February 2015). — (2008) Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://www.unavarra.es/digitalAssets/187/187906_Multilinguism-CE.pdf (accessed 3 February 2015). European Institute (1993) Multilingualism in Europe and the US: A Communications Challenge for Transatlantic Relations and Global Business: Conclusions from an International Round Table Seminar. Washington, DC: European Institute. Evans, Linda (2008) ‘Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 56.1: 20–38. — (2011) ‘The “shape” of teacher professionalism in England: professional standards, performance management, professional development, and the changes proposed in the 2010 White Paper’, British Educational Research Journal 37.5. George, H. V. (1972) Common Errors in Language Learning: Insights from English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gray, Carol and Klapper, John (2009) ‘Key aspects of teaching and learning in languages’, in Fry, Heather, Ketteridge, Steve and Marshall, Stephanie (eds), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 323–44. Guilherme, Manuela (2002) Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World: Foreign Language Education as Cultural Politics. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Heller, Monica (1999) Linguistic Minorities and Modernity. London: Longman. Hoyle, Eric (1975) ‘Professionality, professionalism and control in teaching’, in Houghton, Vincent, McHugh, Royston and Morgan, Colin (eds), Management in Education: The Management of Organisations and Individuals. London: Ward Lock Educational/ Open University Press. — (1982) ‘The professionalization of teachers: A paradox’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 30.2: 161–71. — (2001) ‘Teaching: prestige, status and esteem’, Educational Management & Administration 29.2: 139–52. Hufeisen, Britta and Ulrike Jessner (2009) ‘Learning and teaching multiple languages’, in Knapp, Karlfried, Seidlhofer, Barbara and Widdowson, Henry (eds) Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning, pp. 111–38. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1997) Essays on Language, ed. Harden, Theo and Farrelly, Dan. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Jones, Elspeth (2011) Global Perspectives and the Role of Languages. London: University Council of Modern Languages. Kelly, Michael (2009) ‘A third space for Europe: intercultural communication in European language policy’, European Journal of Language Policy/ Revue européenne de politique linguistique 1.1: 1–20. Kelly, Michael, Grenfell, Michael, Allan, Rebecca, Kriza, Christine and McEvoy, William (2004). European Profile for Language Teacher Education – A Frame of Reference. Available at: http://www.lang.soton.ac.uk/profile/ (accessed 3 February 2015). Kelly, Michael, Grenfell, Michael and Jones, Diana (2003) The European Language Teacher. Bern: Peter Lang.


80

Michael Kelly

Kemp, Charlotte (2009) ‘Defining multilingualism’, in Aronin, Larissa and Hufeisen, Britta The Exploration of Multilingualism: Development of Research on L3, Multilingualism, and Multiple Language Acquisition, pp. 11–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. King, Lid, Byrne, Nick, Djouadj, Imke, Lo Bianco, Joseph and Stoicheva, Maria (2011) Languages in Europe. Towards 2020: Analysis and Proposals from the LETPP Consultation and Review. London: LETPP Consortium. Kramsch, Claire (2009) The Multilingual Subject (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lee, Joseph J. (2005) ‘The native speaker: An achievable model?’, Asian EFL Journal 7.2: Article 9. Liddicoat, Anthony J. (2007) Language Choices in the Intercultural Classroom: A Discussion Paper. Magill, South Australia: Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education. Liddicoat, Anthony J. and Muller, Karis (2002) Perspectives on Europe: Language Issues and Language Planning in Europe. Melbourne: Language Australia. Liddicoat, Anthony J. and Scarino, Angela (2013) Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning. Chichester, UK: Wiley–Blackwell. Available at: https://books.google. co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZefwQJC3kNwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1980&dq=intercu ltural+language+teaching&ots=uO9cmG5Iaq&sig=szVJC9kuXm4o1p8zD9sQxd 8E6IE#v=onepage&q=intercultural%20language%20teaching&f=false (accessed 5 February 2015). Liddicoat, Anthony, Papademetre, J. L., Scarino, A. and Kohler, M. (2003) Report on Intercultural Language Learning. Canberra: DEST. Maalouf, Amin (2008). A Rewarding Challenge: How the Multiplicity of Languages Could Strengthen Europe. Proposals from the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue. Brussels: European Commission. Odlin, Terence (1989) Language Transfer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Phipps, Alison and Gonzalez, Mike (2004) Modern Languages. Learning and Teaching in an Intercultural Field. London: Sage. Phipps, Alison M. and Guilherme, Manuela (2004) Critical Pedagogy: Political Approaches to Language and Intercultural Communication. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Rampton, M. B. H. (1990) ‘Displacing the “native speaker”: expertise, affiliation and inheritance’, ELT Journal 44.2: 97–101. Rauhvargers, Andrejs (2011) Global University Rankings and their Impact. Brussels: European University Association. Risager, Karen (2007) Language and Culture Pedagogy: From a National to a Transnational Paradigm. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Schneider, Günther and Lenz, Peter (2001) European Language Portfolio: Guide for Developers. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Sercu, Lies (2006) ‘The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The acquisition of a new professional identity’, Intercultural Education 17.1: 55–72. Stoicheva, Maria, Hughes, Gareth and Speitz, Heike (2009) ‘The European Language Portfolio: An Impact Study’, in the Report of the 8th International Seminar on the European Language Portfolio. Graz, Austria: Council of Europe. Sursock, Andrée and Smidt, Hanne (2010) Trends 2010: A Decade of Change in European Higher Education. Brussels: EUA Publications.



81

Weinreich, Uriel (1953) Languages in Contact, Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.

Résumé Cet article examine les questions impliquées dans le développement d’une approche multilingue de l’enseignement des langues dans l’enseignement supérieur . Il aborde les concepts de multilinguisme et du plurilinguisme qui sont actuellement utilisés , et les façons dont ils se reflètent dans la pratique. Il suggère que les approches multilingues doivent répondre à un éthos largement monolingue dans l’enseignement des langues , en fonction des priorités pédagogiques établis de longue date . Il examine des difficultés à développer des identités professionnelles multiculturelles , découlant de communautés de pratique qui sont souvent monolingues , et de la concurrence pour le temps et les ressources curriculum . Il met en avant des stratégies pour encourager le multilinguisme grâce au perfectionnement professionnel et à travers le développement d’approches interculturelles . Il fait valoir que des progrès significatifs dans la pédagogie multilingue peuvent être atteints en encourageant une plus grande collaboration entre les enseignants , entre leurs associations et entre les agences gouvernementales . Et il conclut que les professeurs de langues peuvent avoir besoin d’envisager l’adoption d’une identité professionnelle plus transnationale . Mots clés: pédagogie multilingue ; l’enseignement des langues ; approches interculturelles ; transnationalisme ; identité
