91��Ʒ���ϳԹ�

Dialogue between Instructional Practice and Theory: Contrasting the Implications of ‘Unitary’ versus ‘Crosslinguistic’ Translanguaging Theory for Educating Multilingual Students

CCERBAL 2021 Conference

During the past decade, the concept of translanguaging has come to dominate discussions of appropriate instructional practice in multilingual school contexts. This had had the positive effect of highlighting both the relevance of multilingual students’ home languages for their academic development and the benefits for all students of building a focus on language awareness across the curriculum. However, a danger in the current academic discourse that centers on translanguaging is that this component gets foregrounded and other components, equally significant in reversing underachievement, fade into the background. These other components include scaffolding meaning, reinforcing knowledge of academic language across the curriculum, promoting sustained literacy engagement, connecting with students’ lives, and affirming identities. The impact of translanguaging is also potentially undermined by ‘extraneous conceptual baggage’ that has become associated with unitary translanguaging theory (UTT). This conceptual baggage includes a variety of counterintuitive claims such as the following:

• Languages have no cognitive or linguistic reality – ‘a language is not something that a person speaks’ (Otheguy et al., 2015: 256).
• ‘Academic language is a raciolinguistic ideology that frames racialized students as linguistically deficient’ (Flores (2020: 22).
• Additive bilingualism represents a ‘retarding obstacle’ (Otheguy et al., 2019: 648) to bilingual students’ educational success and reflects a ‘dual correspondence theory of bilingualism that ‘has had pernicious effects in educational practices’ (Otheguy et al., 2019: 625).

In contrast to UTT, crosslinguistic translanguaging theory (CTT) argues that bilinguals do speak languages which are experientially, instructionally, and socially real for students, teachers, policymakers, curriculum designers, politicians, and most researchers. CTT also affirms the legitimacy of constructs such as additive bilingualism, academic language, common underlying proficiency, and teaching for transfer across languages.

The presentation will examine the extent to which each of these versions of translanguaging theory satisfy criteria of empirical adequacy, logical coherence, and consequential validity, and also the extent to which there is any difference in instructional practice implied by these alternative understandings of translanguaging.

Beyond Bilingualism: Indigenous languages’ place in the lands now called Kanata

CCERBAL 2021 Conference

The road to the creation of language policy in Canada doomed Indigenous languages from the beginning, ignored from the time of Confederation in 1867 (Derwing and Munro, 2007). “Canada has been officially bilingual since its founding” notes Gourd (2007, p. 122). Colonial attitudes towards Indigenous people denied their involvement when language policy was being determined in Canada. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism established in 1963, through both title and intention pre-determined the outcomes in relation to Indigenous languages as its focus was limited to the “two founding races” (Innis, 1973, Foreword). From this basis of cultural and linguistic imperialism, Indigenous languages were treated as if they did not exist. Hague & Patrick (2014) explain, “indigenous language interests continued to be marginalised in policy priorities shaped by the Canadian state's colonialist and racist underpinnings…. [and] little place for indigenous languages was recognised by those with the power to shape Canadian policy” (p. 28). After more than a century of exclusion, following decades of Indigenous advocacy efforts, the Government of Canada passed an Act Respecting Indigenous Languages (Bill C-91, 2019). Now, adequate implementation and long-term, stable funding for Indigenous language education to ensure language survival is needed.

With adequate resources – and efforts of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people – Indigenous languages could be restored within three generations. A national project led by Indigenous language champions, educators, scholars, and non-Indigenous allies from across Canada came together in 2016 to engage in positive action through a federally-funded, Indigenous-led language revitalization research project, entitled NEȾOLṈEW (one mind-one people). The name signifies the spirit of collaboration and unity towards the goal of Indigenous language revitalization and maintenance, embracing the diversity of languages across distinctive Indigenous communities and cultures. The overall goals of the project are to document successful language programs, strengthen leadership capacity, share knowledge, and create political pressure for federal, provincial and territorial action that provides meaningful support for Indigenous language retention, revitalization and recovery. This collaborative agenda across language groups and communities, together with settler-allies, is critical in the continuation and revival of Indigenous languages. These languages are “part of our shared heritage as Canadians” (FPCC, 2014) and therefore our shared futures and shared responsibility too. Together we must take a stand to restore Indigenous languages, the original of these lands, a place where languages should thrive alongside, not instead of each other.

More than Two from the very Beginning—on the Difficulties of Making the European Project a Reality

CCERBAL 2021 Conference

This contribution is dedicated to the longstanding efforts undertaken by transnational, national and regional bodies to realize a multilingual Europe. Insights into the ideological grounding of the transnational project will take up the plurilingualism–multilingualism debate and identify tensions between a holistic and an additive orientation. The emphasis, however, will be on the multilingual individual. How shall the ideal multilingual European look like? Which features are controversial, and which agreeable? Which texts contribute to an understanding of what it means to be multilingual in Europe? Which ideas were marginalised and got lost? Is there a common understanding of the underlying basic concepts? These questions are discussed on the basis of influential texts and their implication for language education. Language policy documents with a certain impact upon language education are mainly produced by the European Union (e.g. Barcelona Council Conclusions and more recent documents) and the Council of Europe (Common European Framework of Reference and its ‘update’). If and how they inspire national and local educational practice is discussed in two particular contexts: the case of minority language education and urban multilingualism. For many decades, socalled autochthonous minorities have been developing (and most commonly also fighting for) models for multilingual schools. Urban multilingualism represents another challenge for language education practice with quite particular constellations. Both have turned into discursive battlefields where the different levels (transnational, national, regional) meet and the main principles of European multilingualism policy are at stake.

Translanguaging and multilingualism in schools

CCERBAL 2018 Conference, Keynote

This presentation proposes that the ways in which we think about language has consequences for the education of all students, and especially in the minoritization of some. Taking the standpoint that language is the widely distributed human capacity to relate to others and to ideas, and that language is not simply a discrete label such as English or French, we examine how this perspectival shift opens up spaces for pedagogical practices that expand the multilingual capacities of all language users. Besides clarifying the concept of translanguaging that underlies this framework, we give examples of how classroom teachers have taken up translanguaging to expand educational opportunities and multilingualism for all.

(This content is only available in french)

(Mé)tissage, maillages de langues plurigraphies: Fautil avoir peur du pluriel et de la complexité en didactique?

CCERBAL 2018 Conference, Keynote

On note depuis quelques années une floraison de concepts cherchant à mieux théoriser la complexité et le pluriel en didactique des langues. Ces nouveaux termes ne servent-ils qu’à dépoussiérer ou remettre à la mode des notions antérieures ? La contribution vise, d’une part, à donner quelques repères historiques sur la théorisation de la compétence plurilingue et pluri-/ interculturelle (Coste, Moore & Zarate, 1997/2009), notamment dans le monde francophone, et discutera comment différents concepts entrent en écho (ou non) avec d’autres concepts circulant du champ (Marshall & Moore, 2016) pour, d’autre part, en discuter les potentialités pour repenser les compétences en langues, la recherche et l’enseignement. Plusieurs études, menées dans différents contextes éducatifs complexes, nous serviront de toile de réflexion pour mieux comprendre comment les apprenants tissent et maillent leurs langues, les distinguent ou les fondent, font sens de leurs pratiques et mobilisent, dans les espaces d’action qui sont leurs, des ressources plurilingues pour comprendre et apprendre.

Modes d’enseignement bilingue à l’université : enjeux didactiques et sociopolitiques

Immersion Symposium 2017, Keynote

Symposium abstract

Immersion in higher education: where do we stand today?

We are celebrating ten years of immersion at the University of Ottawa. Where do we stand, in Canada and in the world, since the last assessment made in the book “Immersion française à l’université : Politiques et pédagogies”? The Post-Secondary Immersion Research Group (PSIRG) of the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute (OLBI) is hosting an international symposium entitled ‘Immersion in higher education: Where do we stand today?’. This two day symposium will be a unique occasion for researchers, teachers, students, administrators and all others with an interest in the development of immersion in higher education to gather and share experiences, knowledge and ideas. In Canada, immersion programs are offered in the second official language of the country. Whereas CLIL is an approach for learning content through a second or foreign language, immersion is an approach for learning a second language through content.