A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice

Intercultural Communication and Language Education Stephanie Ann Houghton Jérémie Bouchard Editors Native-Speakerism Its Resilience and Undoing Intercultural Communication and Language Education Series Editors Stephanie Ann Houghton, Saga University, Saga, Japan Melina Porto, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina This book series publishes top quality monographs and edited volumes containing empirical research that prioritises the development of intercultural communicative competence in foreign language education as part of intercultural citizenship. It explores the development of critical cultural awareness broadly aimed at triggering and managing personal and social transformation through intercultural dialogue. Citizenship education and interculturallyoriented language education share an interest in fostering learner exploration, critical analysis and evaluation of other cultures within dynamic socio-political environments. To complement existing research on the development of intercultural communicative competence, this book series explores the techniques, processes and outcomes of intercultural language pedagogy and intercultural citizenship inside and outside the classroom. It also explores the nature, dynamics and impact of intercultural dialogue outside the classroom in real-world settings where various language codes are in use, including World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. Further, this book series recognizes and explicitly attempts to overcome wideranging real-world barriers to intercultural dialogue and intercultural citizenship. This is especially important in the field of English language education considering the status of English as a global language and associated problems connected to linguistic imperialism, ideology and native-speakerism among others. To promote the development of deeper understandings of how such social problems connect to the use of foreign languages in general, contributions are also sought from disciplines outside foreign language education such as citizenship education, social justice, moral education, language policy and social psychology that shed light upon influential external social factors and internal psychological factors that need to be taken into account. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13631 Stephanie Ann Houghton • Jérémie Bouchard Editors Native-Speakerism Its Resilience and Undoing Editors Stephanie Ann Houghton Faculty of Art and Regional Design Saga University Saga, Japan Jérémie Bouchard Faculty of Humanities Hokkai Gakuen University Sapporo, Japan ISSN 2520-1735 ISSN 2520-1743 (electronic) Intercultural Communication and Language Education ISBN 978-981-15-5670-8 ISBN 978-981-15-5671-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephanie Ann Houghton and Jérémie Bouchard Part I The ‘Resilience’ of Native-Speakerism 2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective . . . . . . Jérémie Bouchard 3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy and Related Hiring Practices: A Focus on the Japanese ‘Top Global Universities’ Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lisa Fairbrother 4 5 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native Dichotomy: An Argentine Perspective . . . . . . . . Melina Porto Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps Between Teacher and Pre-Service English Teacher Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephanie Ann Houghton Part II 1 17 47 69 89 The ‘Undoing’ of Native-Speakerism 6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices and Symbols Within a Post-Native-Speakerist Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Stephanie Ann Houghton 7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . 157 Martine Derivry-Plard v vi Contents 8 “Native” Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary and Secondary Schools in Australia . . . . . . . 173 Kaoru Kadowaki 9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School Professional Development Programme in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Gregory Paul Glasgow, Patrick C. L. Ng, Tiina Matikainen, and Tomohisa Machida 10 Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice, and Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Claudia Kunschak and Nariyo Kono 11 Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism: A Case Study of a Transnational Education Platform Involving Universities in Hawai‘i and Japan . . . . . . . . . . 243 Chisato Nonaka, Nezia Azmi, and Aaron Levine 12 Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Matthew W. Turner, Matthew Y. Schaefer, Robert J. Lowe, and Stephanie Ann Houghton Chapter 7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice Martine Derivry-Plard Abstract Language education has been driven by a monolingual paradigm, which reached a climax with the ideologies conveyed with the nation-states. Deeply rooted in perceptions about languages and cultures and the perennial dichotomy between us and them, the monolingual–monocultural paradigm was progressively built upon the standardization of languages for pedagogical purposes (Derivry-Plard, Les enseignants de langues dans la mondialisation, la guerre des représentations, postface de Claire Kramsch, EAC/PLID, 2015; Towards post-native-speakerism. Dynamics and shifts, Springer, 2018). Native-speakerism has been part and parcel of the monolingual paradigm. When one fully addresses the emergence of a multilingual paradigm in language education with regard to both language teachers (L1 or L2) and other subject teachers, and their increasingly plurilingual–pluricultural learners, native-speakerism starts being undone. In order to investigate how language teachers and learners could contribute to the multilingual–multicultural paradigm, projects of intercultural telecollaborations at secondary and higher education were undertaken. These projects show the complexity of these learning environments (different students, levels of target languages, perceived objectives) while addressing the notion of intercultural citizenship in practice. These intercultural learning environments have to be apprehended in terms of linguistic, cultural and intercultural openness and curiosity—two attitudes that can be fostered through intercultural communication mediated by language education and education through languages. Experience journals appear to be essential activities in supporting students’ reflexive approach towards self and others within a multilingual–multicultural paradigm. M. Derivry-Plard (*) University of Bordeaux, INSPE, Bordeaux, France e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_7 157 158 7.1 7.1.1 M. Derivry-Plard Introduction Research in Language Teaching and Learning The teaching and learning of languages, especially “foreign” languages (FL) at schools has always been in an incongruous position since it highlights differences, both cultural and linguistic, between learners and otherness. Teaching and learning another language and culture as a school subject is characterized by some educational schizophrenia since proposing an alterity as an objective, i.e., learning and engaging in another language and culture, is carried out within the same mindset of the language curriculum and programme where it is delivered, and not with the curriculum or programme of this other language or culture. In other words, when one is reminded of Durkheim’s work on education and society (Blommaert, 2018), and its close link to national identities, the teaching of foreign languages at school needs to be perceived through the linguistic and cultural filter of the educational and cultural setting of a specific country. For example, the teaching and learning of English in France was designed for French learners by French teachers of English: the socialization of future French citizens was thus not hampered by the FL subject since learning English in a French school was imbibed by the French curriculum (Derivry-Plard, 2003). This proposal also applies to any teaching of the so-called foreign languages. In fact, other additional languages to be learned, traditionally called foreign languages are taught in a given society, and FL teaching, more particularly in its institutional and educational form, cannot go beyond the national or contextual bias but has to deal with it. The turning point in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been particularly innovative in that the field of language teaching and learning research as linguistics, or applied linguistics, is no longer the unique reference, and research has brought together a whole range of other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, history, educational sciences, sociolinguistics, the sciences of language, research in language acquisition (bi/multilingualism). The plurilingual perspective—increasingly more prominent in international research in language teaching and learning—accompanies the acceleration of globalization processes by questioning the status of languages (Blommaert, 2010), their circulation, the tensions between “major languages” and “small languages” (Alao, Argaud, Derivry-Plard, & Leclerq, 2008) and between the hyper-language of world markets and other languages (Gazzola, 2018; Grin, 2005; Phillipson, 2009). It is, therefore, according to the principles of plurilingualism (Coste, Moore, & Zarate, 1997/2009; Zarate, Levy, & Kramsch, 2011) that the history of language teaching is presented in this chapter (Germain, 1993; Howatt & Widdowson, 2004), a story related to the construction of nation-states and the monolingual–monocultural paradigm (Baggioni, 1987; Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018; Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Thiesse, 1999). The cultural fragmentation of societies as a result of migration or economic globalization multiplies the social and political responses through integration and conflict processes on several scales—local, regional, national, transnational—and through the power struggle of 7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice 159 defining norms and standards. The emergence of a multilingual–multicultural paradigm1 is related to this cultural fragmentation, these various language norms and the power balance between languages or registers due to increased language contacts. This unprecedented situation invites us to re-conceptualize language teaching once we take into full account the new practices of actors and particularly the new Y generations who have been learning languages in and out of school with the Internet and social networks or through mobility. How can language and subject teachers consider the linguistic and cultural diversity of their learners for language learning and content learning, which is always delivered through a language? How does language teaching and learning accommodate or not with new inequalities in terms of discrimination and exclusion when the international motto for educational excellence is to implement English Medium Instruction (EMI) through a massive global competition? How can the teaching and learning of languages from a plurilingual and pluricultural perspective initiate new patterns of socialization for the education of intercultural citizenship (Porto, Houghton, & Byram, 2018)? The linguistic field of teaching (Derivry-Plard, 2015) should be understood as a framework in the fabric of individuals with plural or multiple identities (Lahire, 1998) and who will share different communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) all through their lives. How can the linguistic field of teaching still remain within the boundaries of school education and go beyond them through the reshaping of the socio-cultural links that can be encapsulated with the notion of intercultural citizenship (Byram, Golubeva, Hui, & Wagner, 2016; Orsini-Jones & Lee, 2018; Porto et al., 2018). A theoretical reconceptualization of the language/cultural curriculum worldwide based on a multilingual paradigm helps set new core practices of multilingual learning environments that include monolingual learners and teachers or native-speakers, thus going beyond the native-speakerist stance and focus of the monolingual paradigm. In the rest of the chapter, a brief history of the monolingual paradigm is presented followed by a discussion and clarification of the plurilingual paradigm. Intercultural telecollaborative learning environments from primary, secondary and higher education are then presented to conceptualize the educative potential of these emerging practices as part of a multilingual paradigm in language education. 7.1.2 A Monolingual Paradigm in Language Teaching and Learning What we know about the origins of languages is that they were diverse and multiple contrary to the myth of a common, pure and sacred language. Perceptions have been progressively constructed to view through this diversity a linguistic world made of separate, self-contained languages: the monolingual paradigm. We can say that from the origin of writing (circa 3500 BC) the monolingual paradigm emerged and slowly 1 Or plurilingual/pluricultural as these adjectives would be used as synonyms in this chapter. 160 M. Derivry-Plard evolved to reach a climax with the advent of nation-states in Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This powerful ideology, which is widespread all through the world, is still dominant, but no longer unchallenged, particularly within the domain of sociolinguistics and research in language learning and teaching and within other new communities of practices that are de facto plurilingual. 7.1.2.1 Plurilingual Origins Towards a Monolingual Construction From the beginnings of humanity, numerous languages have emerged with people seeking to be understood, including through the use of translation: the Rosetta Stone (196 BC) represents an exemplary illustration in this regard. History also tells us that languages with a written code have had advantages over others in terms of language mnesis and development, which is also the result of geopolitical and symbolic power relations between nations and languages. Languages with scripts will gain social power when they are not only used by a community of people but are taught as L1 or “first” language. Thus, the higher the status of a language, the more a language is taught not only as a vector of all other disciplines or subjects but also as a subject in its own right. The higher its geopolitical status, the more widespread a language is taught, not only as a L1 but also as a second or foreign language and eventually as a world language: this is what occurred with French in the eighteenth century (Casanova, 2015) and English in the twentieth century (Phillipson, 2009). In the Greco-Roman era (Germain, 1993) two kinds of teachers appeared: the teacher (didascalos) or philosopher, the one who has knowledge and makes learners think through maieutics and the pedagogue (paidagôgos) who leads the child and helps them to recite lessons. This pedagogue was often working for great Roman families, for example, a Greek slave who taught Greek to the children of a rich Roman family. The children would thus acquire Greek in a natural way with the care of a “native” speaker of Greek (Germain, 1993). Bilingual learning is acquired through contact and exchanges with the pedagogue, and the issue is of importance since Greek was at that time the language of prestige and culture. From the beginning, “the language teacher” was a “native” speaker and a “slave” at the service of children and the family. Later, foreign preceptors and governesses attended the rich families to teach certain disciplines but especially the prestige language of the moment. As vernacular languages gained status, grammars needed to be developed for language learners. Thus, the first grammar of French (Lesclarcissement de la langue francoyse) was published in London in 1530 and was designed by John Palsgrave, an English, “non-native” speaker of French (Palsgrave, 2003). 7.1.2.2 Nation-States and a Monolingual/Monocultural Paradigm If the world is multilingual, Europe as a geographic region was built with the economic development that accompanied the progress and formalization of 7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice 161 European vernacular languages and their dissemination on the world stage. Nationstates gradually build on a monolingual discourse that they are shaping. The monolingual paradigm is part of this powerful linguistic-national ideology exemplified by the slogan “a people, a language, a nation,”2 the credo of nation-states, which draw from it the fabrication of national identities (Baggioni, 1987; Thiesse, 1999). For this reason, education systems are set up from basic compulsory education for all through a language of schooling (Beacco, Byram, Coste, & Fleming, 2009). In other words, compulsory education and language are both built to form the future citizens of the nation. Languages and cultures (in the sense of the “national” culture) are gradually formalized and standardized in textbooks and taught as necessary elements for socialization (Durkheim, 1938/2014). This creates a strong structural opposition between the learning of languages in the institutional and non-institutional spaces not only in France but throughout the powerful Europe of the time depending on the progress of the nation-states. Thus, at the end of the nineteenth century, when Western countries set up systems of universal education, public and elite schools, both demonstrated an institutional difference in preference for foreign language teachers. 7.1.2.3 Language Teachers and the Monolingual/Monocultural Paradigm If L1 teachers are “native” to the language they teach, L2 or foreign language teachers were divided into “native” or “non-native” L2 speakers. For these FL teachers, there was no competition between their differentiated legitimacies or teaching profiles as they occupied different spaces: “native” L2 speakers taught for adults in language schools that were usually private (Berlitz was created in 1878) and “non-native” L2 speakers taught children and teenagers in schools that were usually state-owned (Derivry-Plard, 2015, 2018). Discourses and perceptions were interrelated and opposed the native speaker teachers as “better” for “language and culture”—the language model to the non-native speaker teachers as better for teaching due to the fact they have followed the same learning process as their students—the learning model (Derivry-Plard, 2003, 2018). This particularity of the field of foreign language teaching based on the differentiation of the linguistic profile of teachers and their teaching places (non-institutional/institutional) has favoured the development of two opposing educational legitimacies: that of the native teacher as a language model within the non-institutional and private space and that of the “non-native” teacher as a model of learning within the institutional and public space. 2 “Race” could even be added, notably with Nazi Germany. 162 7.2 M. Derivry-Plard A Multilingual Paradigm in Language Teaching and Learning At the end of the twentieth century, continuing education and the discourse on lifelong learning for adults developed. New means of communication such as low-cost airlines and the Internet (1990) favoured travel and trade. The two institutional and non-institutional spaces became porous, and both legitimacies (the one for the native speaker teacher as a model of language and the one of the non-native speaker teacher as a model of state-institutionalized learning) found themselves in conflict and competition (Derivry-Plard, 2003, 2015). 7.2.1 Resistance to the Multilingual Paradigm In a monolingual stance based on the dichotomy (native and non-native), the goal of learning is to move towards the model represented by the native-speakers in an idealized version of their language and culture. This perception is also common to the non-native speaker teachers who chose teaching a L2 with this unattainable goal of the native speaker teachers as they are not. These institutional spaces (places of non-native speaker teachers of FL) are finally weakened by this monolingual paradigm that gives primacy to native speaker teachers, who are more able to claim their place due to social pressure based on native-speakerism even if the right of entry into national “institutional” systems remains particularly high (Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018; Houghton & Rivers, 2013). The predominant monolingual vision reinforces the visibility of native language teachers within institutional spaces now more permeable to social demands. Native language teachers build on their commercial credibility already acquired in private language schools. Non-native speaker teachers, traditionally not present in these non-institutional private spaces, are virtually excluded, while native speaker teachers are gradually included in the institutional space. The situation in universities, institutional places whose discourses are driven by the rhetoric of the internationalization of higher education is particularly interesting in this respect (Le Lièvre et al., 2018). Discourses among language teachers remain generally marked by this “native/non-native” duality, their respective qualities and complementarities, insofar as there is always adherence to both types of language legitimacy. The international literature related to surveys dealing with the perceived advantages and disadvantages of native/non-native speaker teachers also confirms this structuring of the field of language teaching (Derivry-Plard, 2015). 7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice 7.2.2 163 Emergence of a Multilingual Paradigm in Research Research challenges these rigid perceptions and discourses and suggests the notion of repertoires: ... in sociolinguistics, ‘communicative competence’ – the knowing what and knowing how to use language which Hymes pitted against Chomskyan ‘competence’ (Hymes 1972b is the locus classicus, see also Hymes 1992). ‘Repertoire’ so became the word we use to describe all the “means of speaking” i.e. all those means that people know how to use and why while they communicate, and such means, as we have seen, range from linguistic ones (language varieties) over cultural ones (genres, styles) and social ones (norms for the production and understanding of language). (Blommaert & Backus, 2012, p. 4). In this multilingual, diverse world, people have different repertoires of saying either in L1 or L2 (Coste et al., 1997/2009) and these repertoires are not only communicative (language and culture) but can also be pedagogical. The native speaker becomes an intercultural speaker or a plurilingual–pluricultural speaker and the purpose of language teaching becomes plural and much more elaborate and complicated in terms of objectives, content, learners’ knowledge, implementation of integrated ICT systems, practical evaluation, follow-up of learners, collaborative work between learners, between teachers, with administrative staff and external actors of civil society (parents, employers, associations, etc.). It is no longer a question of speaking like a “native,” of following a textbook or a programme but of communicating in an intelligible way across languages and cultures. Learners become social actors (notion present in the CEFR, 2001) with their resources, languages and linguistic and cultural repertoires of teaching and learning. The aim is to develop skills or know-how through more or less specialized and sophisticated learning processes and repertoires dealing with translanguaging (Garcia & Wei, 2014). Taking into account the plurilingual and pluricultural realities of the speakers as social actors who have been overshadowed by the monolingual paradigm, the fetishist ideology of language-culture and related native-speakerist discourses and practices becomes central in the reflection of the teaching and learning of languages in a multicultural world. 7.2.3 Defining the Plurilingual Paradigm The following figure is to explain what is understood by a plurilingual paradigm. The linguistic field (Bourdieu, 2001) encompasses the linguistic field of teaching as not all languages or repertoires of the linguistic field are explicitly taught and used for teaching. The linguistic field of teaching is broader than the field of language teaching, which only concerns the languages taught as L1 or L2, which comprises the field of Foreign Language teaching as fewer languages are taught as a FL (Fig. 7.1). 164 The Linguistic Field M. Derivry-Plard The Linguistic The Field of Field of Teaching Language Teaching The Field of Foreign Language Teaching Fig. 7.1 Language and linguistic fields of the plurilingual paradigm (Derivry-Plard, 2018, p. 142) This “pluri” or “multi” paradigm opposes the binary “mono” categories (native/ non-native; mother tongue/foreign language, etc.) and instead promotes continua and scales (macro-meso-micro), structural hierarchies with their dominant power relations, actors with more or less plural habitus, linguistic and cultural markets and the conditions of a given communication setting for interaction. The teaching/ learning of languages (field of language teaching) and through languages (the linguistic field of teaching) is no longer exclusively organized in the “classroom,” nor in a territory, but in a given community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Culture is viewed as a community of practice when people interact and learn together on a specific domain that they share and thus develop their social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 2001). Learners and teachers are becoming increasingly plurilingual. The training of language teachers is therefore becoming more demanding, knowing that both teachers and their learners will have to travel and work with colleagues from other countries in other languages, to even settle in other countries either as a desired or imposed move. Faced with the challenges of globalization (as conveying a neo-liberal doxa according to Blommaert, 2010) and Mondialité (as conveying the realization of a diverse, unequal one-world according to Glissant, 1997), new power struggles within education systems that remain national, while at the same time teachers and learners become more diverse linguistically and culturally, open new possibilities to intercultural education and intercultural citizenship. Intercultural education takes into account language, whose essential role “is not the production of linguistic forms but rather the creation, communication and interpretation of meanings” (Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013, p. 9). Language is de-essentialized and conversely, culture is de-essentialized too (Zarate, et al., 2011) as “we need to move beyond seeing cultures as discrete, static entities and see cultures as varied, subjective and power-based construction of lived experience” (Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013, p. 7). This intercultural education is to be considered as part of the plurilingual/pluricultural paradigm that de-essentializes both language and culture while fully acknowledging our diverse, super-diverse one-world. Within that framework, interculturality is more than accepting language and cultural diversity: it is about intercultural speakers (Byram, 2012) with their linguacultural repertoires (Risager, 2007), becoming more competent through intercultural education, more able to engage in dialogues between cultures 7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice 165 (Byram, 2012) and languages through the process of meaning-making (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). If education is about the socialization of the young generation towards social beings and citizens in a given society, intercultural education is about the emerging socialization of intercultural subjects and citizens. This is how many blended learning environments participate nowadays in fostering languages and cultures of their learners towards intercultural citizenship, combining two common objectives: language education and citizenship education (Risager, 2007; Byram, 2008; Miller, Kostogriz, & Gearon, 2009; Houghton, 2012; Diaz, 2013; Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; Majhanovich & Malet, 2015; Holmes & Dervin, 2016; Byram et al., 2016; Orsini-Jones & Lee, 2018). 7.3 New Intercultural Practices In and Through Language Learning New practices are emerging and entering a real dynamic even if they remain at the margins of educational systems around the world. Among them, the Erasmus program in Europe for student exchange, eTwinning platforms, TILA (2013–2015) and TeCoLa (2016–2019) for secondary school teachers and UNIcollaboration for higher education allow finding a partner to co-construct online learning environments to enhance language learning as well as any subject matter through an intercultural setting (Derivry-Plard & Lenoir, 2017). Through these platforms, teachers implement self-training or guided training in providing online, synchronous and asynchronous exchange learning environments. They develop language and intercultural competences for their learners and for themselves across different education systems. They adapt to the circumstances and affordances of their classes and national curricula especially for compulsory education in primary or secondary schools or adjust to the specific cultures of higher education across different countries. For further information about these new developments, readers are invited to consult the websites of TILA and TeCoLa where they would find concrete activities, teaching guides, research conclusions of the TILA project (Jauregui, 2015) and the TeCoLa seminars online. 7.3.1 Telecollaboration for Languages and for any Subject Matter The intercultural dimension supported by telecollaborative tasks (learning by doing) is inherent to all these learning environments. However, it requires a lot of knowhow, between the educational, teaching and learning cultures to be effective in terms of intercultural awareness and sensitivity (O’Dowd & Lewis, 2016). Some scholars even argue that the goal of language teaching would now be to address intercultural citizenship: the FL classroom should ‘become a Content and Language Integrated 166 M. Derivry-Plard Learning (CLIL) classroom, i.e., where the FL is used as a medium of instruction and the content is “intercultural citizenship”’ (Byram et al., 2016, p. xxiii). New language teaching and learning practices are emerging, expanding and growing fast, benefiting from the porosity between the institutional and non-institutional spaces, from some dilution of the “native/non-native” language teachers and the crumbling language class policy of the target language only. Teachers can no longer ignore the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) facilitating intercultural collaborations and telecollaborations. Even if going and studying abroad cannot be replaced as an experience, the language class of the twenty-first century has the possibility on a very large-scale to engage students to travel while staying at home, to encounter others within the security of the language telecollaborative class and to provide the opportunity for millions of students to communicate, interact and learn together. The language class has always represented a third space according to Kramsch (1993), a specific space where languages and cultures meet. However, with online telecollaboration, this third space becomes more authentic due to the co-constructed learning environments that engage teachers and their learners in carrying out common tasks and sometimes even in the joint evaluation of these tasks (Liaw & English, 2013). The foreign language class or the “modern language”, which has always been a place where otherness was introduced (openness to the world), is now a place where learners and teachers can not only imagine and learn about, but actually meet, interact, communicate in an authentic setting (Kohn, 2018). Communication is no more or no less authentic than in the traditional classroom but the telecollaborative environment provides the pedagogical setting of using the target language directly with “foreigners”: no need to go abroad for that authentic experience. Teachers will be able to accompany, support and scaffold the different stages of the experience through meaning-making and knowledge-making. 7.3.2 Telecollaboration for the Cultural and Intercultural These intercultural practices, still limited within the national education systems, open up common areas of training and socialization, and through their multiplication, open discussions in line with democratic values can take place when allowing different points of views, perspectives and understanding to be expressed and negotiated (Majhanovich & Malet, 2015). These learning environments are also organized beyond the traditional binary exchange of schools and school trips abroad, where only learners of the target language are included (French learners of English and English learners of French). These learning environments provide enriched practice to the traditional modalities of reciprocity of languages (previous example of French learners of English with English learners of French) and add up the lingua franca modality (French learners working in English with Taiwanese learners, for example). In this perspective, the cultural and intercultural dimensions of language learning are even more complex as we no longer deal theoretically with only two 7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice 167 languages and two cultures but rather with more than two languages and cultures. The ecology of the new learning environment requires an even more critical and sensitive approach (Dervin, 2017) than the reductive and cast-aside attitude of the cultural and intercultural curriculum of language learning. The TILA and TeCoLa programmes in Europe are good examples of these new developments in language learning and teaching within the institutional spaces of European education. A plurilingual perspective envisages that the language reciprocity modality as well as that of the lingua franca can be realized in any language, for example, Basque and Kashubian learners in reciprocal language learning, or learners of Yorubà lingua franca, with French and Portuguese speakers. In this last example of a language learned as a lingua franca, the intercultural potential is broadened since beyond the target language (Yorubà), three cultural dimensions can be worked out or crossanalysed: Yorubà, Portuguese and French according to the community of practice of the group considered and their objectives. The intercultural potential offered by these online learning environments through the designing of common tasks or projects allows students to enhance cultural knowledge and intercultural experiential practices. Language learning is seen as intelligible communication, of deeper meaningmaking through the tasks of projects to be carried out and of recognizing oneself and others through doing and negotiating together (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). This learning by doing can be guided in particular with learning logs (or journals of experience), in which the individual learner reflects on his/her experience of accomplishing common tasks related to this specific intercultural learning path. These reflections must help learners to decentre from themselves and adjust to new realities. These narratives aim to develop reflectivity and meta-cognitive abilities related to languages, cultures and learning through the comments of peers and teachers. This is an essential educational development that can be evaluated for itself with the specific communities of practice but cannot be “standardized” neither in terms of contents nor processes. To put it in a nutshell, diversity, once it is taken seriously, cannot be normalized.3 7.4 Bridging Theory and Practice within a Multilingual Paradigm These examples of intercultural telecollaborations remain marginal within the whole language curriculum but they are part of a dynamic that is concretely supported by the multilingual paradigm. Moreover, language learning can no longer be reduced to the language curriculum as we also learn and do languages through subject matters and outside any formal education. We practise translanguaging (Garcia & Wei, 3 See French Associations ASDIFLE, ACEDLE, TRANSIT-lingua about the new descriptors of http://asdifle.com/content/d%C3%A9bat-participatif-14-et-15-juin-2019; https:// CECRL transitlingua.org/debat-participatif-de-juin-2019.html#deb-5 168 M. Derivry-Plard 2014), which resembles what we have called in France “competence plurilingue” (Coste et al., 1997/2009) even though the French word of “competence” is more open and flexible than the English one. In fact, we do translanguaging as we use different sociolinguistic repertoires and language repertoires within the education system (the linguistic field of teaching) and outside its scope, within the linguistic field when we mobilize our language resources to communicate with others. The linguistic field as conceptualized by Bourdieu is the sociolinguistic reality of diverse human beings with their different languages and the symbolic representations linked to any linguistic forms. Behind languages, there are always geopolitics and ideologies, power struggles for the “best” language, the “best” teacher and the “best” language teacher. In that sense, the monolingual/monocultural paradigm is a powerful nationalistic enterprise promoting one language, one culture, one “race”, one “native” speaker and is therefore a warlike ideological linguicist system, in which people have to compete for the dominance of “their” language and “their” culture viewed as a simplistic entity. Rethinking languages and cultures in terms of a plurilingual/pluricultural paradigm allows going beyond binary oppositions as speakers with monolingual habitus are included along bi/plurilingual speakers (Deyrich & Majhanovic, 2017). Binary oppositions are converted into continua, scales of speech, discourses and meanings, which take place in situated social settings, in which people use language (s) and do translanguaging in order to deal with their multiple activities. 7.4.1 Integrating Pedagogies and Contents Research in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), i.e., carrying out an educational activity in another language, should gain from the broader perspective of the multilingual paradigm. Usually used for the sole English language, CLIL could be used for any language. The integration of content and language would also require some common know-how between content and language teachers, and it calls for pedagogical training for both types of teachers within the linguistic field of teaching so that they can devise teamwork and co-teaching. Within the field of language teaching, another integration or team teaching should be worked out between the “first” language or the school language and other languages to give more strength and efficiency to language learning (Beacco et al., 2009). Finally, the field of foreign language teaching should also work on integrated pedagogies based on intercomprehension (Escudé & Janin, 2010) and plural approaches (Candelier, 2010) in language learning and teaching. All levels of the linguistic field of teaching have to consider the variety of plurilingual/pluricultural learners, to mobilize their knowledge and know-how as essential resources at hand for all teachers. In order to be able to mobilize these resources, both types of teachers (content and language) need to get some common training. Through collaborative and telecollaborative trainings with pre-service and in-service teachers of languages and of content, we can set the conditions of common integrated practices that are essential to cope with diversity. 7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice 7.4.2 169 Designing Cultural Spaces and Communities of Practice Even though, inequality is the main steady universal dimension of the linguistic field and therefore of the linguistic field of teaching, people in the digital world function more and more across nation-states and across languages, bringing their diverse languages and cultures when communicating with other people; nonetheless, these people are also very unequal in terms of social and cultural capital, linguistic capital and mobility capital. In other words, people will move from a variety of positions between those having all three types of capital at the highest amount—they are usually the cosmopolitans who can move from one country to the others very easily and use languages equally—whereas other people, with very limited capital, can either be assigned to a territory for life or forced to move. In each communicative situation, either for language learning, or for learning through languages, the speaker can no longer be fully explained through the “native” criterion, as they may have acquired more than one first language and might also have become versed in a range of repertoires. A multilingual paradigm simply considers the realities of the learnersspeakers in the diversity of their own repertoires in order to optimize language learning, communication and intelligibility across cultures. These learners-speakers can also be teachers-speakers to address this linguistic and intercultural diversity within multilingual and intercultural education (Kramsch, 2014; Cenoz & Gorter, 2015). 7.5 Conclusion A multilingual paradigm in language education combines language teaching and learning and education through languages. Without this conceptual framework we cannot grasp how new practices of plurilingual learners and teachers create or fashion some foundation to intercultural citizenship (Porto et al., 2018). Let us conclude very concretely with a French learner of an intercultural telecollaboration in English where each working group was composed of four students (Bordeaux, Valladolid, São Paulo, Taichung). In her own words in her learning log, she encapsulated the experience reported by all the other learners: Whole experience teach me information about education in the world but also about culture. I realize that we had some similarities around the world, even if we don’t have the same situation (age, way of life, jobs). First of all, this experience was a human experience. What’s more I feel more confident in English, I learnt to speak slowly but surely, being not anxious. I think this experience should be renew with others students but also with pupils. They can improve their level but also develop social skills like empathy, solidarity it will be a real citizen exercise. 170 M. Derivry-Plard This kind of intercultural telecollaboration in the linguistic field of teaching has a full potential to bridge the gap between theory and practice within a multilingual paradigm as it can be used for: Any language learning and teaching, be it an international language, a “dead” language or a sociolect if need be. Any language speaker (native, bi/plurilingual) and any language teacher (native, bi/plurilingual). Any language and content, Cultural, intercultural and reflexive approach, once teachers and particularly language teachers have a robust training in sociology and anthropology in order to avoid any stereotyping when dealing with the cultural and intercultural dimensions of the community of practice created by the learning environment, Research-action for pre and in-service teachers, either in languages or in different subject matters, Research in language acquisition, critical and reflexive thinking, intercultural sensitivity, educational cultures in any subject matters and comparative education... With these new practices and curricula in language learning, and in learning through languages within a multilingual paradigm—which is no alternative to linguistic social hierarchies, but a comprehensive model acknowledging language diversity—there is a fresh educational agenda: fostering a democratic and human rights agenda worldwide through these micro-specific situated intercultural spaces based on a speaker-learner with multiple identities (Lahire, 1998), who is a social and intercultural actor. References Alao, G., Argaud, A., Derivry-Plard, M., & Leclerq, H. (Eds.). (2008). Grandes et petites langues, pour une didactique du plurilinguisme et du pluriculturalisme. Bern: Peter Lang/Transversales. Baggioni, D. (1987). Langues et nations en Europe. Paris: Payot. Beacco, J. C., Byram, M., Coste, D., & Fleming, M. (2009). Language(s) of schooling. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. (2018). Durkheim and the internet, sociolinguistics and the sociological imagination. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2012). Superdiverse repertoires and the individual. The Future of Education Reserach, 2, 9–32. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Langage et pouvoir symbolique. Paris: Seuil. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship. Essays and reflection. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2012). Language awareness and (critical) cultural awareness - relationships, comparisons and contrasts. Language Awareness, 21, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011. 639887 Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Hui, H., & Wagner, M. (2016). From principles to practice in education for intercultural citizenship. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Candelier, M. (2010). CARAP: Cadre de reference pour les approaches plurielles des langues et des cultures. Graz; Strasbourg: CELV; Conseil de l’Europe. 7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice 171 Casanova, P. (2015). La langue mondiale, traduction et domination. Paris: Seuil. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Multilingual education. Between language learning and translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Common European Framework for Languages – CEFR. (2001). https://www.coe.int/en/web/com mon-european-framework-reference-languages Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (1997/2009). Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Strasbourg: Ed du Conseil de l’Europe. Derivry-Plard, M. (2003). Les enseignants d’anglais « natifs » et « non- natifs ». Concurrence ou complémentarité de deux légitimités. Thèse, Paris La Sorbonne. Derivry-Plard, M. (2015). Les enseignants de langues dans la mondialisation, la guerre des représentations, postface de Claire Kramsch. Paris: EAC/PLID. Derivry-Plard, M. (2018). A multilingual paradigm in language education: What it means for language teachers. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism. Dynamics and shifts (pp. 131–148). Singapore: Springer. Derivry-Plard, M., & Lenoir, P. (Eds.). (2017). La télécollaboration interculturelle. Les Langues Modernes. Paris: APLV. Dervin, F. (2017). Critical interculturality: Lectures and notes. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Dervin, F., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2013). Linguistics for intercultural education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Deyrich, M. C., & Majhanovic, S. (2017). Language learning to support active social inclusion: Issues and challenges for lifelong learning. Dordrecht: Springer. Diaz, A. R. (2013). Developing critical languaculture pédagogies in higher education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters/LICE. Durkheim, E. (1938/2014). L’évolution pédagogique en France. Paris: PUF. Escudé, P., & Janin, P. (2010). Le point sur l’intercompréhension, clé du plurilinguisme. Paris: CLE International. Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging. Basingstoke: Macmillan Palgrave. Gazzola, M. (2018). Les classements des universités et les indicateurs bibliométriques: Quels effets sur le multilinguisme dans l’enseignement et la recherche? In F. Lelièvre, M. Anquetil, M. Derivry-Plard, C. Fäcke, & L. Verstraete-Hansen (Eds.), Langues et cultures dans l’internationalisation de l’enseignement supérieur au XXIème siècle (pp. 130–159). Bern: Peter Lang. Germain, C. (1993). Évolution de l’enseignement des langues: 5000 ans d’histoire. Paris: Nathan. Glissant, E. (1997). Traité du tout-monde. Paris: Gallimard. One World in Relation. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=aTNVe_BAELYTexte. Grin, F. (2005). L’enseignement des langues étrangères comme politique publique. Paris: Rapport pour le Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de l’école. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from http://www. linguistic-rights.org/francois-grin/Rapport\_GRIN.pdf Holmes, P., & Dervin, F. (2016). The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a Lingua Franca. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A. (2012). Intercultural dialogue in practice, managing value judgment through foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts. Singapore: Springer. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Howatt, A. P. R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jauregui, K. (2015). Integrating telecollaboration for intercultural language acquisition at secondary education: Lessons learned. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL (pp. 268–273). https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.9781908416292 Kohn, K. (2018). MY English: A social constructivist perspective on ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2018-0001 172 M. Derivry-Plard Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization. Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12057.x Lahire, B. (1998). L’homme pluriel. Les ressorts de l’action. Paris: Nathan. Le Lièvre, F., Anquetil, M., Derivry-Plard, M., Fäcke, C., & Verstraete-Hansen, L. (Eds.). (2018). Langues et cultures dans l’internationalisation de l’enseignement supérieur au 21ème siècle. (Re)penser les politiques linguistiques : anglais et plurilinguisme. Peter Lang: Bern. Liaw, M. L., & English, K. (2013). Online and offsite: Student-driven development of the TaiwanFrance telecollaborative project. In M. Lamy & K. Zourou (Eds.), Social networking for language education (pp. 158–176). New York: Macmillan Palgrave. Liddicoat, T., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Majhanovich, S., & Malet, R. (2015). Building democracy through education on diversity. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Miller, J., Kostogriz, A., & Gearon, M. (2009). Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms (New perspectives on language & education). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. New York: Routledge. Orsini-Jones, M., & Lee, F. (2018). Intercultural communicative competence for global citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Palsgrave, J. (2003). L'éclaircissement de la langue française (1530). In Texte anglais original avec traduction et notes de Susan Baddeley. Paris: Honoré Champion. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. New York: Routledge. Porto, M., Houghton, S. A., & Byram, M. (2018). Intercultural citizenship in the (foreign) language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 22(5), 484–498. Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. TeCoLa-Pedagogical differentiation through telecollaboration and gamification for intercultural and content integrated language teaching funded by Erasmus+. (2016–2019). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/tecolaproject/ Thiesse, A. M. (1999). La création des identités nationales, Europe XVIIIè-XXè siècle. Paris: Seuil. TILA-Telecollaboration for Intercultural Language Acquisition funded by the European Commission within the Lifelong Learning Programme. (2013–2015). Retrieved from http://www. tilaproject.eu/ Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zarate, G., Levy, D., & Kramsch, C. (2011). Handbook of multilingualism and multiculturalism. Paris: EAC.