2.1.1 The problematics of positing multilingualism within the structuralist theoretical construct of bilingualism”
Multilingualism and multilingual education is gradually becoming the norm all over the world (Cenoz, 2009). Despite the fact that multilingualism is not a recent phenomenon and has been dominant since ages (Cenoz, 2009), multilingualism has been put under scrutiny of various research studies as in today’s world,
(m)ore and more interactions and encounters are multilingual as people, goods, services and information move with increased speed and frequency as a result of new technology in a globalized world (Garcia, 2011, p.2).
With globalisation blurring barriers, plurality is becoming a common feature of the world. Hence, the concept of what a language is and how multilingual linguistic practices are viewed are undergoing radical shifts (Blackledge and Creese, 2010) and it is essential to understand those shifting moves within the literature to be able to posit one of the main theoretical constructs of this study, which is multilingualism.
29
Most of the literature which is available on multilingualism in the 20th century is deeply embedded within the structuralist theoretical construct of bilingualism. Defined generally as the ability to use two languages, the construct of bilingualism is very often criticised due to the view perpetuated that a bilingual equates with a double monolingual in a person (Herdina and Jessner, 2002). The theoretical construct within which bilingualism is embedded has spun mostly out of research carried out in Western contexts, research which was conducted mainly within the dominant structuralist linguistic paradigm. Hence, whether it has been early research conducted by Saer (1922, 1923) on bilingualism, Ervin and Osgood’s (1954) distinction between compound and coordinate bilingualism, Selinker’s (1972) concept of interlanguage, Peal and Lambert’s concept of positive transfer (Herdina and Jessner, 2002) and Lambert’s distinction between additive and subtractive bilingualism, all these studies have only viewed bilingualism as equating with double parallel monolingualism. These researches only serve to compartmentalise the different languages of a bilingual. Furthermore, the concept of diglossia, which has been much used within research conducted in bilingualism (Ferguson, 1959; Fishman, 1967, 1972, 1980; Baker, 2003) and which is used to describe how two languages are used for distinct and separate social functions in a bilingual society, emphasises the boundaries that separate the two languages used by a bilingual. Another term which has also been much used within research on bilingualism is the phenomenon of code switching, terminology which has first emanated from North American studies (Lin, 2013). Code switching is defined as ‘language alternation – the alternating use of more than one linguistic code in the classroom by any of the classroom participants’ (Lin, 2013, p.2). Code switching like diglossia is perceived as being a negative habit of a bilingual who is not able to use only one code to communicate but has to switch from one code to another in order to make meaning. The very term ‘code’, which has been taken from information theory (Lin, 2013), puts forth the notion of language as being a static and bound entity. Like diglossia, code switching also denotes this notion of the languages of a bilingual being very much separate from each other and the bilingual as being able to consciously pick a code over another in an interaction.
Moreover, bilingual proficiency has generally been measured against monolingual proficiency, and this has created the dichotomy existing between the monolingual native speaker and the non- native speaker (Cook, 2010 a, b). Indeed, Cook (2010b) contends that one of the main aims of second language teaching within the 20th century construct of bilingualism across the world has been since ages to develop native-like competency in students; therefore, native speaker models
30
are used in language teaching, and students’ performancestudents is measured against standards set for native speakers. According to Kirkpatrick (2008, p.1), the fact of measuring learners’ performance against “idealised native speaker models” puts “extreme linguistic and cognitive demands on children”. As can be noted, all these researches depict the concept of bilingual as being “two monolinguals in one body” (Gravelle: 1996, p.11). Thus, this monolingual view (Grosjean, 1985) still prevails in most studies done within the dominant structuralist linguistic paradigm pertaining to bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Hence, in this study, it is felt that such a construct which delineates the different languages into bound separate entities cannot be used to ground the multilingual linguistic complexity within Mauritius, as has been described in Chapter One.
Likewise, there is a lot of criticism against the fact that most researches conducted on the concept of multilingualism have been theoretically grounded within the framework of bilingual research (Blackledge and Creese, 2010; Garcia, 2011; Hoffman, 2001). Indeed, the phenomenon of multilingualism is believed to be quite different from the phenomenon of bilingualism, which makes research carried out through the theoretical lens of bilingualism quite problematic. Many researchers (Cenoz and Jessner, 2000; Cenoz, Hufeisen and Jessner, 2001a, b; 2003a) claim that the theoretical construct within which multilingualism should be posited should be different from that of bilingualism. This is deemed necessary because the multilingual learning environment is still considered complex and multifaceted, and needs to be understood as it is and not embedded within either monolingualism or bilingualism, as theoretical constructs (Hoffman and Ytsma, 2003). Indeed, the structuralist linguistic view of bilingualism/multilingualism brings forth the notion of language as being separate, monolithic entities. In face of such a concept, the questions that come forth when one is cognisant of the complexity of the multilingual situation in Mauritius are as follows: What does being a multilingual entail? Does being multilingual, therefore, mean someone who uses a number of languages separately? If so, when does someone become a multilingual or is termed as a multilingual? Is someone who uses the different languages a multilingual or is someone multilingual, simply by virtue of an exposure to multilingualism in the environment? These are complex questions given that the boundaries between the different languages are not as clear as propounded by the simplistic structuralist view of bilingualism/multilingualism, as has been highlighted previously in Chapter One. Seeing the languages as being separate entities is considered a simplistic way of understanding the complexity
31
of what being a multilingual entails. Thus, this study finds it problematic to embed the theoretical construct of multilingualism within the dominant structuralist notion of bilingualism as a theoretical construct. In the following section, the construct of multilingualism will be looked at, as it has been used in research studiesstudies dealing with the educational context, in an attempt to best understand the construct and, thus, find an adequate theoretical framework within which to ground it as phenomenon under study in this research.
2.2 Section Two: Multilingualism in the domain of education