10.1515 - Applirev 2016 2010

Applied Linguistics Review 2017; 8(1): 131–161
Gabriela Sylvia Meier*

The multilingual turn as a critical movement
in education: assumptions, challenges
and a need for reflection
DOI 10.1515/applirev-2016-2010
Abstract: This study establishes the multilingual turn as part of a critical

movement in education. It highlights the importance we ought to attach to
how we understand the concepts of language, the learners and language
learning and related terms, as such assumptions determine what language
teachers and learners do in the classroom. A thematic decomposition analysis
of 21 chapters, contained in two books both with phrase the multilingual turn
in their title (Conteh and Meier 2014, The multilingual turn in languages educa-
tion: Opportunities and challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters; May 2014a,
The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education. New
York: Routledge), confirms that new critical understandings of these concepts
have developed in recent years. While there is not total accord, my findings
showed that authors, associated with the multilingual turn, conceive languages
as a resource for learning and as associated with status and power; the learners
as diverse multilingual and social practitioners; and learning as a multilingual
social practice based on theoretical pluralism, consistently guided by critical
perspectives. While theoretically relatively well established, the multilingual
turn faces important challenges that hamper its translation into mainstream
practice, namely popularly accepted monolingual norms and a lack of gui-
dance for teachers. The findings combined with previous research inform a
framework to reflect on practice, which may, in the long term, help address the
challenges identified.
Keywords: critical pedagogy, language learning, multilingualism, bilingualism,

reflective practice
*Corresponding author: Gabriela Sylvia Meier, Graduate School of Education, University of

Exeter, Heavitree Road Heavytree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, E-mail: g.s.meier@exeter.ac.uk
132 Gabriela Sylvia Meier
1 Introduction
Our assumptions about language, learners, language learning and related con-
cepts determine what we do as language teachers and what we expect our
learners to do. This article examines in what way such concepts are understood
as part of the multilingual turn (Conteh and Meier 2014; May 2014a), and
discusses implications for theory, pedagogy, teacher education and research.
‘Turn’ is a name given to a development that has established itself, or is in
the process of establishing itself. There have been previous ‘turns’ in the field
of second and foreign language learning. For example, Block (2003: 11) explains
that the cognitive turn, which came about in the 1980s, occurred at “the
moment in which a critical mass was reached, whereby one could begin to
speak of SLA [second language acquisition] as a respectable area of research in
its own right”. Based on this, when people talk about a ‘turn’, the phenomenon
they are describing is not new but has been noticed and developed over some
time and has gained some significance. The social turn gained momentum
when Firth and Wagner (1997) questioned cognitive understandings, emphasis-
ing the social dimensions in language learning (Block 2003). This was based on
the observation of a division between those researchers who argued that second
language learning occurs in the mind of the learner through individual proces-
sing of information (e. g. Pienemann 2008) and of those who argued that
second/additional language learning, as indeed all learning, is socially con-
structed and mediated above all through social interaction (e. g. Lantolf 2011).
This has led to ontological differences of how we conceptualise and understand
language, learners and language learning (Atkinson 2011a; Myles and Mitchell
2004), concepts which I in turn took as a starting points for my study. In this
article, I confirm that the field has developed a new turn in recent years.
The article is based on two books, which were published in 2014, both with
the phrase “the Multilingual Turn” in the title. They were conceived indepen-
dently on different sides of the globe: one was edited by Stephen May (2014a) in
New Zealand and the other one by Jean Conteh and Gabriela Meier (2014) in the
UK. Both books argue that there is a need to break down boundaries between
language education for so-called ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ language populations,
terms that will be critiqued below. May presents research predominantly from
Anglo-Saxon/Western contexts while Conteh and Meier present research from
five continents, including Continental Europe.
In order to synthesise the theoretical understandings that the authors,
including myself, jointly establish, I used thematic analysis to examine in what
way the concepts in question, as well as related features of the multilingual turn,
The multilingual turn as a critical movement 133
are understood in these two books. Thus, the overarching research question was:
in what way are language(s), learners and language learning conceptualised in
the two books?
This article is not a literature review, as it does not summarise the findings
or arguments presented in the two books. In contrast, by deconstructing dis-
courses and assumptions identified in the chapters, and by thematically analys-
ing these, it elaborates ontological foundations of the multilingual turn, which
can be associated with a critical movement in education, including challenges,
which inform the framework for reflection I propose below. Thus, this article
complements the two books, and related literature, and would be useful to
anyone who is interested in expanding their understanding of the multilingual
turn and where we can go from here.
In the way of a theoretical starting point, I will review how these concepts
have been understood in the past, followed by a description of the research
design. I then report themes identified, before, in the final section, I discuss
findings, offer answers to the research question and a discussion including a
framework to guide critical interrogation of theory, practice, and research.
2 Conceptualisations of language, learners

and learning in the past
Many researchers have been interested in the concepts of language, learners and
language learning (e. g. Atkinson 2011a; Kumaravadivelu 2005; Myles and
Mitchell 2004; Norton and McKinney 2011), as the understandings of these
concepts inform teaching in the classroom. Based on this, I will provide
accounts of the different conceptualisations as well as their theoretical princi-
ples, and outline respective pedagogic implications. Myles and Mitchell (2004)
and Atkinson (2011b: title) provide useful and, in my view, complementary
overviews of cognitive, socio-cultural and sociolinguistic perspectives as well
as “alternative approaches to second language acquisition” respectively. While
descriptions of this kind are part of many textbooks, I will look at these again
and identify to what extent different understandings allow for intralingual or
indeed crosslingual conceptualisations, based on Kumaravadivelu’s (2005: 187)
idea of language learning through either keeping language systems separate and
operate in one only (intralingual), or through a compound bilingual, or multi-
lingual, approach (crosslingual). Thus, I reviewed literature that preceded the
multilingual turn, with the following aims in mind:
– Summarise the history and development of the three concepts

– Establish to what extent concepts were based on intralingual or crosslingual
understandings
– Summarise pedagogic implications
2.1 Language
I identified four strands of developments in the literature: cognitive, integrated,
socio-critical and multimodal understandings of language, which I will discuss
in this order.
Structuralists understand language as discrete monolingual and separate
structures that can be studied (Saussure 1966). Based on cognitive understand-
ings of language, grammar is seen as a system that can be processed by humans
(Chomsky 1959; Pienemann 2008; Towell and Hawkins 1994) or as a pattern that
humans build in their mind (cf. connectionism, emergentism), and based on
usage of language (Ellis 2006; Tomasello 2003). In these views, language is
conceptualised largely mono- or intralingually as a stable representational
system that exists independent of the people who use it.
Literature suggests a new integrated/crosslingual way of looking at lan-
guage started around the 1980s, based on the much cited, and at the time
visionary, interdependence hypothesis (Cummins 1979), arguing that bilinguals
have an underlying integrated language proficiency rather than separate mono-
lingual competencies. This hypothesis, which has since been accepted based on
neuroscience and psychology research, confirmed, for example, that multilin-
guals have an integrated multilingual lexicon (Kroll et al. 2013; Lowie et al. 2014)
from which they draw for all communication, placing language in the minds of
users. In sociolinguistics this is echoed by languages understood as integrated in
the form of a language repertoire (Blommaert and Backus 2011). Complexity
theorists understand language “as a complex adaptive system, which emerges
bottom-up from interactions of multiple agents in speech communities” and
thus as a “dynamic set of patterns emerging from use” (Larsen-Freeman
2011:49) that constitutes a “system [that] is in constant flux” (50). This under-
standing posits that languages are integrated in the mind, dynamic and con-
structed through social interaction.
The notion of bottom-up and more socially and critically informed under-
standings of language, as conceived by sociocultural and post-structural theor-
ists, have had a series of followers, as language is seen as a tool for
communication (Halliday 1985), as a dynamic tool for social action (Atkinson
2011a: 146) and mediation (Lantolf 2011). Thus language is not seen as separate
from people, but constructed through a local practice (Pennycook 2010) through
which “relationships and identities are defined, negotiated, and resisted”
(Norton and McKinney 2011: 77), as well as a practice that occurs in contact
zones (Pratt 1991) where languages meet. Thus languages are no longer seen as
belonging to just one place but are seen as translocal and deterritorialised
(Blommaert 2010). Whereas previously languages were thought to ‘belong’ to
the people who speak them as native speakers (Wright 2004), more recent user-
based understandings of language reject the idea of ownership based on birth
and propose dynamic and developmental language models, where language
ownership can be acquired later in life (Canagarajah 2013; Jenkins 2006).
Thus, from a critical perspective, languages and literacy are not neutral but
inherently political and a site of struggle (Sarroub and Quadros 2014).
A further movement led to the understanding of language, as part of a
multimodal repertoire, as an “intricate web of social meaning woven from
grammar, intonation, gaze, gesture, head movement, bodily orientation, and
additional semiotic resources” (Atkinson 2011b: 147), and as socially constructed
based on ideology and power as “a web of interlinked socio-political and
historical factors that shape one’s identity and voice” (Kumaravadivelu 2005:
72). Dynamic systems theory makes a useful contribution by conceptualising
languages as crosslingual systems, including dialects, genres, registers and
discourses, as “being patterned and structured while being open to change
and further pluralization” (Canagarajah 2013: 31).
In sum, an alternative understanding has developed over the last 35 years or
so, which views languages not to exist separately from one another, nor sepa-
rately from the people who use them, nor from the wider social and political
framework, but as an integrated, crosslingual, dynamic and multimodal semio-
tic system, as translocal and mobile resources owned by those who use them to
engage in practice in a contact zone.
2.2 The learners
Early behaviourists conceptualised learners as empty vessels or trainable

through external stimuli (Skinner 1957). The cognitive turn, importantly, recon-
ceptualised learners as people who have a cognitive and creative capacity to
process environmentally available input. In this view, the learner’s mind and the
architecture of the brain constituted the main interest as part of a learning
theory (Myles and Mitchell 2004). More socially-informed conceptualisations of
the learner (e. g. Block 2003; Firth and Wagner 1997), see learners as social
actors who construct meaning and new knowledge in social interaction with
others, based on Vygotsky’s (1978) ideas (Lantolf and Appel 1994), in interaction
with the world (Norton and McKinney 2011), as agents who “play an active role
in language development” (Larsen-Freeman 2011: 55) and in turn shape and are
shaped by their environment (Atkinson 2011a; Larsen-Freeman 2011). As will be
seen below, the notions of social practice, agency and environment are impor-
tant to understand the multilingual turn.
The idea that individual differences (e. g. motivation, ability) can be viewed
as “stable and monolithic learner traits”, which is associated with cognitive
perspectives, has been criticised (Larsen-Freeman 2011). This led to a major
departure from behaviourist/cognitive understandings in two ways: 1) towards
learner heterogeneity and variability, emphasising “[t]he unique local particula-
rities of the person as self-reflective intentional agent, inherently part of and
shaping his or her own context” (Larsen-Freeman 2011, based on Ushioda), and
towards affordances and relationships. Based on this, researchers became inter-
ested in “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how
that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person
understands possibilities for the future” which are associated with identity
(Norton and McKinney 2011: 73), based on post-structural and critical concep-
tualisations. In a review of learner conceptualisations over time, Kibler and
Valdés (2016) showed that learner categorisations are not neutral, and the way
we talk about learners matters. Thus, identity development is also seen as a site
of struggle, as it is socially negotiated and “constantly changing across time and
space” (Norton and McKinney 2011: 75).
More recently, theoretical pluralists have proposed socio-cognitive
(Atkinson 2011a; Larsen-Freeman 2007; Zuengler and Miller 2006) and ecological
(Pennycook 2004; van Lier 2004) understandings, pointing towards reconcilia-
tion of theoretical perspectives. The latter sees the learners as “ecological
organisms” who “make decisions to deploy language resources to realize trans-
actional, interpersonal, educative, self-expressive, etc. goals and the multiple
dimensions of self and identity, affective states, and social face” (Larsen-
Freeman 2011: 58), and who “depend on [and shape] their environment to
survive” (Atkinson 2011a: 143). Thus, according to Atkinson, mind, body and
the world are interactively connected. To conclude this section, I argue that
crosslingual alternative views of learners have developed over time.
2.3 Language learning

Perspectives on learning are based on classical, behaviourist, cognitivist and
social conceptualisations. Power and identity approaches have broadened the
field, proposing more holistic and complex, critical and post-structuralist

understandings.
The classical method was based on the understanding that languages need to
be studied through the analysis and translation of texts (Cook and Singleton
2014), modelled on the study of Latin or ancient Greek in Europe. Relevant
pedagogic methods include the grammar-translation (see Howatt and
Widdowson 2004), contrastive-analysis and error-analysis (Gass 2013) approaches
that are associated with an emphasis on the correct production of structures and
form, based on detailed, crosslingual comparison between languages. These
approaches may seem outdated to some, but they are arguably crosslingual
and empower the bilingual teacher, as an expert bilingual role model.
Behaviourist views of second or additional language learning have paral-
lels with training animals through environmental stimuli (Skinner 1957).
Pedagogic implications of this are that “practice makes perfect” through
reinforcement, repetition, imitation and reward (Myles and Mitchell 2004:
31), which was the foundation of the largely monolingually conceived audio-
lingual approach (Cook and Singleton 2014). Such approaches to learning are
what Kumaravadivelu (2005: 90) describes as language-centred approaches,
which “treat learning as a linear, additive process” that can be planned and
structured, and that is to a certain degree predictable. The task of the teacher,
in this view, is “to introduce one discrete linguistic item at the time, and help
the learner practice it” (2005: 90).
Cognitivist or psychological views of second language learning are based on
the information processing metaphor, suggesting that learners process, develop
patterns and make sense of input (Davies and Elder 2004; Krashen 1985) that is
provided by the environment. In this view, learning is associated with learning-
centeredness, in which learning is seen as unpredictable, and which “requires
the creation of conditions in which learners engage in meaningful activities in
class”, and with learner-centeredness “based on the learner’s real-life language
use in social interaction or for academic study” (Kumaravadivelu 2005: 92).
Pedagogies related to this understanding of learning include communicative
language teaching (Howatt and Widdowson 2004), immersion education
(Lasagabaster and Sierra 2007), task-based learning and teaching (Ellis 2003),
and other concept-based teaching methods. This approach is usually based on
monolingual and intralingual pedagogies (Kumaravadivelu 2005), modelled on
first language acquisition. It is often associated with the native-speaker aim for
second language learners, and with the idea that native speakers are best placed
as language models and teachers. This preference of native speakers is a
practice that is particularly wide-spread in the world of English language teach-
ing globally.
Socio-cultural and post-structuralist understandings assume that language

learning is based on co-construction of meaning, focussing “on the construction
of interpersonal interactions where participants actively and dynamically
negotiate not just textual meaning, but also their social relationships”
(Kumaravadivelu 2005: 70). In this conceptualisation of learning, it is not just
the teacher that facilitates learning but also peer-learners. Socio-cultural theory,
based on Vygotsky (1978), emphasises support/strategy instruction (scaffolding)
so that the learners can move towards autonomous learning (self-regulation)
and fulfil their potential with the help of others (zone of proximal development)
(Lantolf 2011). This conceptualisation assumes that learners have different
learning trajectories and backgrounds, and thus learn in different and unpre-
dictable ways based on socio-constructivism. The role of the teacher is therefore
to assess individual needs, provide scaffolding and provide formative feedback
or dynamic assessment. As this perspective is open to the use of other lan-
guages, such as the first language, to support additional language learning
(Moore 2013), I argue that this pedagogy could be described as potentially but
perhaps not explicitly crosslingual. Based on their understanding of language
as a social and political construct, post-structuralists (e. g. Duff and Talmy 2011;
Norton and McKinney 2011) and critical educationalists (e. g. Kumaravadivelu
2005) go a step further in that they not only understand learning based on
interaction, but also on the power-relations inherent in relationships of learn-
ing. Teachers must therefore not only provide learners with suitable content
and conditions for learning (context), but also think about identity formation
and social transformation, under the umbrella of empowering education
(Kumaravadivelu 2005).
More recently, “ecological accounts of learning” that are interested in the
intersection between individuals and social interaction perspectives (Larsen-
Freeman 2011: 66) have found increased attention, claming that “mind, body,
and world function integratively in second language acquisition” (Atkinson
2011a: 143). This intersection approach, combining different perspectives, or
“holistic approach” (Larsen-Freeman 2011: 67) to language development,
requires locally relevant pedagogies (Kumaravadivelu 2005), positing that tea-
chers should have an awareness that “language, its use, and its acquisition are
mutually constitutive” (Larsen-Freeman 2011: 49). In addition to this, language
socialisation theorists recommend that “greater attention [is paid] to L1, L2, L3,
etc.” and the roles of these in particular contexts (Duff and Talmy 2011: 111).
Crosslingual pedagogic approaches are not a recent phenomenon. Some are
clearly based on the cognitive paradigm: grammar-translation (Howatt and
Widdowson 2004), contrastive analysis (Gass 2013), intercomprehension
(Carrasco Perea 2010); and some guided by socio-constructivist, critical or plural
paradigms: plurilingualism1 (Council of Europe 2001), third-language education

(Cenoz 2012), use of L1 in L2 education (Cook 2001; Scott & de la Fuente 2008),
content and language integrated learning (Mehisto et al. 2008; Meyer et al.
2015), translanguaging (García & Leiva 2012; Williams 2000) and translingual
practice (Canagarajah 2013).
2.4 Summary of the literature

In this section I have confirmed that new crosslingual understandings of the
three concepts have developed prior to the multilingual turn. Some theorists
continue their work guided by cognitive and largely intralingual perspectives
(e.g. Gass 2013), while others now work in a more critical multilingual or cross-
lingual paradigm (e. g. Canagarajah 2013; Cenoz 2012). Furthermore, it shows
that crosslingual understandings of languages and learners are a more recent
phenomenon, while crosslingual understandings of learning – and teaching –
may not be new, but they have changed over time. More recent crosslingual
understandings consider languages as dynamic in the way that they shape and
are shaped by language users, and that languages are integrated in mind, body
and world, and do not exist separate from these. They further consider language
use and learning to be based on social practice. In the present study, I will flesh
out such cross-lingual understandings by an in-depth analysis of the first two
books (Conteh and Meier 2014; May 2014a) explicitly associated with the English
phrase the multilingual turn.
3 The present study

In order to answer the research question introduced above, I used thematic
analysis. This is a commonly used method to identify deductive/inductive and
semantic/latent themes, and to establish and report patterns identified across
different data sets (Braun and Clarke 2006). The data sets in this case are the
21 chapters in the two books (May 2014a; Conteh and Meier 2014).
My analytical approach draws in part on Stenner’s thematic decomposition
method (1993), which “is a specifically-named form of ‘thematic’ discourse
analysis which identifies patterns (themes, stories) within data, and theorises
1 The term plurilingualism indicates personal bi/multilingual language competences as defined

by the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001).
language as constitutive of meaning and meaning as social” (Braun and Clarke

2006: 8). The thematic decomposition method has the aim of going beyond
“neutrally identifying and labelling” themes or positions in a text, but aims to
“look to what may be said to be achieved by its use”. I argue that this method is
useful to examine or deconstruct the content of the two books, to identify and
question “subject positions” and potential “competing stories”. To this end there
are some similarities with critical discourse analysis.
With the help of NVivo 9 software, I first searched for the three main
deductive themes in the texts: language, learners and learning. The sub-themes
and dimensions relevant to these concepts were established both deductively
(guided by literature) and inductively (based on data rather than on predeter-
mined categories). I coded relevant passages into themes (nodes) and then into
sub-themes or dimensions. Findings are reported in the next section based on
the coding structure thus established (Tables 1–5).
In the way of limitations, the reader needs to be made aware that I am one
of the editors (Conteh and Meier 2014), thus positively inclined toward cross-
lingual approaches. Furthermore, the analysis is limited to two books. Having
said this, I position my findings in the context of research published over the
last decades, thus strengthening my arguments as outlined below.
4 Findings
May’s book contains nine and Conteh and Meier’s twelve chapters. The former had
12 contributing authors, and the latter 18. Some chapters were co-authored and
some authors contributed to more than one chapters in one or both books. In order
to contextualise these books and determine subject positions (Stenner 1993), I
looked at the two unpublished book proposals that were submitted to Routledge
(May 2014a) and to Multilingual Matters (Conteh and Meier 2014). Both suggest the
multilingual turn to have implications for theory, pedagogy and practice, and
interestingly both identified the need for a dialogue between second and foreign
language education. In his proposal, May stresses the monolingual and the native-
speaker bias in SLA and TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages),
while Conteh and Meier invite alternative views to monolingual school practices.
Both proposals suggest a critical approach: May explicitly by suggesting the need
for “an alternative, critical multilingual, approach”, and Conteh and Meier impli-
citly by suggesting the need for new ways of thinking about multilingualism in
education, in relation to equality, social justice, social cohesion, belonging and
empowerment of learners and teachers.
In the following sections, I will first report themes and subthemes, and
provide examples of authors who mentioned these in one or more of the
chapters, all published in 2014.
4.1 Conceptualisation of language

Interesting findings in this section report the way authors conceptualise/
describe languages in different ways, how they all relate language to status
and/or power, see it as a resource, and as conceptualised multilingually. The
main themes identified (Table 1) will serve as headings, and the numbers in the
table indicate in how many chapters each dimension was mentioned. This
format is also applied to the following sections.
Table 1: Conceptualisation of language.
Themes and sub-themes No of chapters
Description of language
Labels (description based on space, origin, succession) 
As a resource 
As literacy 
As a system 
As embodiment 
Language and power
Status 
Power 
Ownership 
Multilingualism
As practice 
Integrated in the mind 
Alternative understandings
Towards mobile, dynamic, integrated, social, expertise- 
based understandings
4.1.1 Description of languages
Languages were described/labelled in three different ways: where they are

spoken (spatial), in which succession they are acquired (succession), or where
they come from (origin). Spatial labels given to languages indicate where the
language that is being acquired/studied is spoken, such as abroad, locally or
supra-regionally. Successional labels given to languages indicate that languages

are developed in succession: first language, second language or third language.
All authors except Conteh et al. (2014a) and Li Wei (2014) refer to languages in
this way. However, some query the idea that languages are developed neatly one
after the other (Conteh et al. 2014a; May 2014b), and argue that the development
of language repertoires is more complex than this. Origin labels are given to
languages in order to show what community the languages might belong to
(heritage, migrant, community language) or that they were developed through
blood ties (mother tongue, native, family, ancestral language). All authors
except García and Kano (2014), Hu and McKay (2014) and Norton (2014) refer
to languages as related to their origin. Some problematise this practice
(Cruickshank 2014), by arguing that simple labels (e. g. heritage language lear-
ners) are not appropriate to describe the “complexity and dynamism of the
young people’s identities”. This resonates with Blommaert’s (2010) idea of
translocal languages, and of language ownership based on usage rather than
birth (Canagarajah 2013; Jenkins 2006). According to my analysis, viewing
languages as translocal is a feature of the multilingual turn. However, in the
two books, sometimes these labels are used uncritically, perhaps because they
are embedded in the educational discourse, e. g. heritage languages in the USA,
or community languages in the UK.
Language is also described as a resource, above all as a social resource. This
is supported by all 21 chapters (see above all Blackledge et al. 2014; Canagarajah
2014). Furthermore, languages are seen as a resource for learning in twelve and
for teaching in six chapters. Based on this, the languages-as-a-resource view is a
pronounced feature associated with the multilingual turn and is supported by
Atkinson’s book (2011a) for instance. Associated with this is the idea of English
as a particular linguistic resource that is deemed necessary for education and
employability in English-speaking as well as international contexts (Norton
2014). Authors have observed developments in understanding language as a
mobile resource (Canagarajah 2014; Conteh et al. 2014). This means that all
languages, including English, would be seen as mobile resources, steering away
from ‘native speaker’ and ‘mother tongue’ understandings, and from territorial
conceptualisations of language, proposing a languages-as-deterritorialised-
mobile-resource view.
Literacy is a term that is often used to describe competence to read and
write in the official language of instruction in schools, which can be the first
language for some, and a developing new language for others. Literacy is
mentioned in 15 of the chapters as being related to power, as a social practice
and related to cognitive development (see above all García and Kano 2014;
Norton 2014). The interest in the development of other languages beside the
school language has increased in recent years, thus encouraging a dialogue

between previously separate disciplines (literacy, modern/foreign and second
language). The chapters indicate that the development of different languages
should not, in principle, be separated from one another (Meier 2014a; Young
2014).
Interestingly, as part of the multilingual turn, languages are still – or
again – described as a system, albeit as an integrated, crosslingual, non-linear,
heterogeneous, patterned and dynamic one (García and Kano 2014; May 2014b;
Piccardo and Aiden 2014), consolidating important terms including linguistic
repertoire (Canagarajah 2014; Gajo 2014; García and Flores 2014; García and
Kano 2014) and plurilingualism (Gajo 2014; Meier 2014b; Piccardo and Aiden
2014; Young 2014) to describe individual competences. This understanding is
quite different to previous narrower, monolingual and arguably more limited
understandings (Chomsky 1959; Gass and Selinker 2008; Saussure 1966), and
is supported by recent research (Atkinson 2011a; Kumaravadivelu 2005;
Pennycook 2010). In fact, eight chapters confirmed that the field has developed
a new understanding in this respect (Blackledge et al. 2014; May 2014b; Piccardo
and Aiden 2014).
Furthermore, in the two books, languages are described as embodied and
as part of a multimodal repertoire, including gestures, gaze, etc. (see above all
Block 2014). This has recently also been described by Mondada (2012) and
Atkinson (2011b). I argue, that this could be understood through behaviourism,
not in the way Skinner (1957) understood this, but in a more holistic way of
understanding languages as internalised performative activity.
4.1.2 Language and power
In the chapters I identified consistent concerns related to power. Twenty chap-

ters referred to status (Blackledge et al. 2014), 16 to power (Young 2014; Auleear
Owodally 2014) and four to ownership (Canagarajah 2014; Hu and McKay 2014)
associated with languages. This is very much in line with critical applied
linguistics (Pennycook 1998), and with literature related to voice and affor-
dances (Kumaravadivelu 2005), as well as language socialisation and ideology
(Duff and Talmy 2011). This is further linked to debates about languages per-
ceived as useful or not useful (Lamb 2001; Cummins 2007). Additionally, own-
ership refers to the belief that native speakers have greater legitimacy to use and
teach a language than those who have acquired a language later in life, a point
to which I will return. Five of the chapters mention developments in our field to
consider languages as related to social representation, including status and
power of certain linguistic groups (Blackledge et al. 2014; Norton 2014), strength-
ening a critical understanding of languages. Thus, the concern with power and
ideologies, or a language-as-power view is an important and consistent feature of
the multilingual turn.
4.1.3 Multilingualism and alternative understandings
One of the main tenets of the multilingual turn based on my findings is the
understanding of language as a multilingual and situated social practice. This
idea is supported in 17 of the chapters (above all Auleear Owodally 2014;
Blackledge et al. 2014; Canagarajah 2014; García and Flores 2014; García and
Kano 2014). This is an ontological departure from seeing languages as discrete
systems that exist independent of the people who use them (as understood by
Pienemann 2008; Towell and Hawkins 1994). This language-as-multilingual-
practice view, identified in the two books, is related to the view of languages
as integrated in the mind and in contact zones (Pratt 1991), as well as to dynamic
systems theory (Atkinson 2011a; Larsen-Freeman 2011), and points the way to
alternative understandings of learning and pedagogy. Here, too, authors have
observed changes in the field, namely towards understanding languages as
social practice (García and Flores 2014) and towards “linguistics of contact”
(Canagarajah 2014).
According to my analysis of the chapters, languages are understood as
integrated in the mind in 17 chapters (Gajo 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014).
This is based on linguistic-psychological understandings, but unlike Ellis (2006)
and Tomasello (2003), languages thus understood are seen as inter-related and
interdependent in the mind rather than separate. This view is also supported by
recent literature from neuroscience (Kroll et al. 2013; Lowie et al. 2014). In this
respect, changes in the field have been confirmed in terms of increased use of
the term plurilingualism (Gajo 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014) and languages
seen as dynamic and integrated (Gajo 2014).
4.2 Conceptualisation of the learners
Important findings discussed in this section are: labels used to describe learners;
learner identities; learners as unique and complex; as agents; as language users
and multilingual practitioners; as shaped by society; and as participants in a
multilingual world. Additionally, Anderson and Chung (2014) argue that the way
we understand the learner needs to be reconceptualised.
Table 2: Conceptualisation of the learner.
Description of learners
Labels (description based on background, origin, potential) 
Learners as individuals
As unique 
As agents 
As having identities 
As complex 
Learners as (multilingual) practitioners
As language users 
As multilingual practitioners 
Learners in society
As shaped by society 
In a multilingual world 
4.2.1 Description of the learners
On the one hand, authors in 11 chapters labelled learners by their background,

for example by birth as “native speakers”, by country, by origin or by lan-
guage background. On the other hand, learners were described as potential
bi-/multilinguals in 16 chapters, which is a potential-oriented, rather than
an essentialist, view that understands all people as potential or emergent
bi-/multilinguals. This is related to the themes of ‘ownership of language’
and ‘multiple identities’.
4.2.2 Learners as individuals
Authors in eleven chapters understood learners as having individual, hetero-

geneous and dynamic identities (Cruickshank 2014; García and Flores 2014;
Norton 2014). This is different from earlier understandings of learners as
trainable (Skinner 1957) or as above all cognitive beings (Chomsky 1959). It
could be viewed as an extension of socio-cultural understanding of people
learning in interaction with others (see Lantolf 2011). Interaction is associated
with negotiation of participation and understanding yourself vis-à-vis another.
This learner-with-dynamic-identity view is supported by a range of previous
research (Freeman 1994; Norton and McKinney 2011; Wenger 1998), using
different perspectives.
Eighteen chapters referred to learners as unique human beings (Canagarajah

2014), with individual biographies and needs, while three referred to them as
complex (May 2014b). This is different to previous understandings that emphasised
regularities and correlations, e. g. between learner characteristics and their learn-
ing, which has been described and criticised by Larsen-Freeman (2011).
Understanding the learners as complex human beings has also been confirmed to
be a recent change in our field (Block 2014; May 2014b).
Authors in thirteen chapters understand learners as agents (Anderson and
Chung 2014; Canagarajah 2014) who have and make choices. Socio-cultural
theory also sees learners as active participants in the learning process
(Atkinson 2011a; Lantolf 2011; Larsen-Freeman 2011), and as a part of a social
practice in a multilingual contact zone. Thus, the multilingual turn features a
learner-as-a-complex agent view.
4.2.3 Learners as multilingual practitioners
Authors in ten chapters (Conteh et al. 2014a; Cruickshank 2014; Gajo 2014)
understand language learners as multilingual practitioners and in 11 chapters
(Leung 2014; Ortega 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014) as language users. It could
be argued that conceptualising learners as users of their ‘new’ languages in the
present rather than in the future is associated with the communicative turn and
cognitive views of the learner, which, in the past, had often been intralingually
conceived. However, the authors suggest a view of learners as multilinguals
and users of mixed and integrated languages. To this end, some authors
(May 2014b; Ortega 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014) recommend a move away
from pathologising language learners by focussing on deficits rather than
assets. Indeed some authors (Canagarajah 2014; May 2014b; Ortega 2014) stated
that there has been a move away from viewing learners as lacking language
competence, as was the case with the notions of non-native speakers, ‘inter-
language’ and ‘fossilisation’ that refers to incomplete and incorrect language
use, previously described and criticised by Jenkins (2006). This learner-as-
multilingual-practitioner view is therefore an important aspect of the multilin-
gual turn.
4.2.4 Learners in multilingual society
While learners are seen as agents, as discussed above, authors in 12 chapters

also understood them as influenced by society or their social environment
(especially Auleear Owodally 2014). This could be seen as another indicator that
behaviourism may still have some relevance, as this highlights environmental
stimulus as important in the learning process (Skinner 1957). However, based on
my findings, the environment is conceptualised as more than just stimulus, it is
seen as socialising learners into social structures and thus is understood in a
more ideological way (Duff and Talmy 2011). This is also associated with affor-
dances (opportunities) as discussed below.
In ten of the chapters, authors mentioned that learners should be seen as
existing in the (multilingual) world (Conteh et al. 2014b; Meier 2014a), unlike
previous understandings of learners that conceptualise learners as more inde-
pendent cognitive beings (Gass and Selinker 2008). This indicates that the
multilingual turn aligns with critical and ecological perspectives, seeing learners
as an integral part of a larger eco-system (Pennycook 2004; van Lier 2004).
Thus, I argue that this learners-in-a-multilingual-ecosystem view is another
important feature of the multilingual turn.
4.3 Conceptualisation of language learning

All authors subscribe to the critical paradigm, which, however, does not stop
them from drawing on a range of perspectives, in their moves towards multi-
lingual understandings of learning (Table 3).
Table 3: Conceptualisation of language learning.
Theoretical perspectives
Critical 
Complexity 
Socio-cultural 
Cognitive 
Practice-based 
Multilingual understandings
Pluralistic approaches 
Language-centred 
Practice-based 
Competence-based 
Learner-centred 
Alternative understandings
Theoretical changes observed (from... towards...) 
Through linguistic integration 
As practice 
4.3.1 Theoretical perspectives
The authors in the sample refer to different perspectives, including cognitivist

(Meier 2014b; Piccardo and Aiden 2014), socio-cultural (Canagarajah 2014; Conteh
et al. 2014a; Meier 2014b), complexity (Block 2014; Canagarajah 2014; Piccardo and
Aiden 2014), and all refer to critical perspectives on understanding learning. The
latter is not surprising as the editors of both books proposed this. Nevertheless,
based on my analysis, all authors endorse this perspective. While behaviourism
was not mentioned specifically, the emphasis on embodiment (developing
physiological automaticity) as well as on affordances and socialisation (as struc-
tural stimulus encouraging or discouraging certain behaviour) indicates that a wide
range of previous understandings of learning (behaviourism, cognitivism, socio-
cultural theory, complexity and critical perspectives) arguably come together in the
multilingual turn, thus incorporating, integrating and adapting previous theoretical
understandings. This resonates with calls for theoretical pluralism and/or reconci-
liation that I observed in recent years (Larsen-Freeman 2007, Larsen-Freeman 2011;
Zuengler and Miller 2006). Some authors in the chapters argue that learners
cognitively make sense of the world around them. However, there is no consensus
on this. While some reject the cognitive understanding (May 2014b; Norton 2014;
Block 2014), others advocate an expanded understanding to include multilingual
approaches to learning (Ortega 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014), such as intercom-
prehension and language awareness, which both draw on multilingual knowledge
and repertoires. Practice- and competence-based understandings are also impor-
tant notions of understanding language learning more generally and multilin-
gually. The notion of competence includes linguistic, strategic and world
knowledge that can be drawn on for learning, using multilingualism as a resource,
which is in line with a constructivist notion of learning. It also includes performa-
tive knowledge, which is arguably connected to embodied practice that could be
associated with behaviourism, not narrowly conceived (see Skinner 1957), but in an
expanded multimodal understanding (see Block 2014). Practice- (Gajo 2014) and
user-based (Ortega 2014) understandings are learner-centred understandings, to
use Kumaravadivelu’s (2005) term, as they consider how learners use their lan-
guage repertoires in interaction with others in their everyday lives, which is related
to learning through social interaction, as understood by socio-cultural theory
(Lantolf 2011; Sieloff Magnan 2008). A critical understanding, or a learning-as-
empowerment view, must be a determining (and expected) feature of the multi-
lingual turn, as conceptualised in the two books. All authors in the sample (espe-
cially Norton 2014; Li Wei 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014) are concerned in one way
or another with entitlement, justice, equality and rights, building on Pennycook
(2004) and earlier writers such as Freire (1970). Others emphasise the importance of
pre-existing knowledge (Conteh et al. 2014) as suggested by advocates of funds-of-

knowledge pedagogy (Gonzalez 1994; Mercado & Moll 1997) or the idea of distrib-
uted knowledge (Lantolf and Poehner 2008). One of the main strands in this view,
endorsed by all, is the recognition that learners have dynamic, and potentially
complex, identities and that they invest in their future through using and develop-
ing their language repertoires.
4.3.2 Multilingual and alternative understandings
Multilingual competence based on Cummins’ interdependence hypothesis

or on plurilingual competence was referred to in six chapters. There are
language-centred, learner-centred and practice-based multilingual conceptua-
lisations. An interesting finding concerns three useful terms that are used to
think about multilingual learning: plurilingualism relating to individual exper-
tise (Gajo 2014; Meier 2014b; Piccardo and Aiden 2014), translanguaging as
individual practice (García and Flores 2014; García and Kano 2014) and trans-
lingual practice as social practice (Canagarajah 2014). Based on my under-
standing, plurilingualism is more related to competence such as the language
repertoire, including different languages, varieties and registers, while trans-
languaging describes the way people use those repertoires to make sense of the
world, some argue in a cognitive way (Canagarajah 2014), but also in interac-
tion with others referred to as translingual practice (Canagarajah 2014). Thus,
there is some overlap between translanguaging and translingual practice, but
translingual practice is more concerned with social rather than individual
practice.
The authors in the two books argue that there have been changes in our
field relating to understanding language learning as multilingual practice
(Canagarajah 2014; Gajo 2014; Leung 2014; Ortega 2014), and as based on
linguistic integration rather than separation (Blackledge et al. 2014; Block
2014; García and Flores 2014; García and Kano 2014; May 2014b; Meier 2014b;
Ortega 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014). These observations support the learning-
as-a-multilingual-practice view and consolidate the findings established above
that languages are not separate in the mind, body, school or society.
4.4 Challenges related to the multilingual turn

Some authors have explicitly referred to ‘challenges’, which is an inductively
identified theme. In six of the chapters, authors expressed concerns about
widespread monolingual myths, hampering wider application, and five observed

a lack of support for practitioners in schools. These findings resonate with
Weber’s (2014: 186) argument that there are “major pedagogical and attitudinal
obstacles” in the way of implementing the more flexible multilingual education
he proposes. Based on this, I developped two inductive themes to deepen our
understanding of both the attitudinal and the pedagogic challenge.
4.4.1 The attitudinal challenge
The attitudinal challenge, described by Weber (2014), has similarities with the
monolingual myths that I identified as a theme (Table 4). The latter appear to be
based on misunderstandings (Young 2014; Ortega 2014), the wide-spread ideo-
logically-informed monolingual norm (Ortega 2014; Canagarajah 2014),
ingrained pedagogic and learning-theoretical traditions (Meier 2014a; García
and Flores 2014), as well as economic/political motivations (Norton 2014;
Leung 2014), including the general acceptance of language hierarchies.
Table 4: Monolingual myths.
Monolingual myths
The monolingual norm 
Pedagogic traditions 
Misunderstandings about multilingualism 
Economic, political beliefs (e. g. English is enough) 
Learning theory 
There is the argument that pedagogic traditions and beliefs are largely built on a
monolingual attitude, which is hard to shift (Young 2014; Ortega 2014; May
2014b) – including the native-speaker myth, the language separation myth, and
the sequential acquisition myth. This shows that the attitudinal challenge has
been recognised but what we should do about it is less clear.
4.4.2 Pedagogic challenge
Besides identifying the lack of guidance for teachers, I also looked at pedagogic
considerations that underlie the multilingual turn (Table 5), to better understand
the challenge at hand.
Table 5: Pedagogic considerations.
Sub-themes No of chapters
Lack of teacher guidance

Educators unsure what to do 
Pedagogy
Pedagogic considerations 
Empowerment of stakeholders 
Multilingual approaches 
Curriculum 
Learner-centred approaches 
Reconceptualisation of teacher role 
The pedagogic considerations, featured in 12 chapters, point to power relations

inherent in society and educational institutions, and question the nature and
location of knowledge (Anderson and Chung 2014; Canagarajah 2014).
Furthermore, ten chapters refer to the need to empower stakeholders (Conteh
et al. 2014a; Anderson and Chung 2014), namely learners, teachers, families, and
thus societies through reconceptualising knowledge, above all by recognising
the learners’ funds of linguistic and other knowledge. Some emphasise learner-
centredness (Li Wei 2014; Conteh et al. 2014a), including knowledge as dynamic
and co-constructed between participants. The idea of empowerment through
drawing on knowledge present in the classroom, identified in the chapters, is
based on a socio-constructivist funds-of-knowledge approach (see Gonzalez
1994; Mercado and Moll 1997) or the idea of distributed knowledge (see
Lantolf and Poehner 2008). With regard to pedagogic practice, the authors
suggest that languages (including varieties) should be integrated and drawn
on for learning, and that the native-speaker goal should be revised, and
replaced) by that of plurilingual competencies or multilingualism as a goal.
Kumaravadivelu’s (2005) post-method approach is deemed potentially useful
(Piccardo and Aiden 2014).
Another important tenet of multilingual-turn pedagogy, manifest in the two
books, is that teachers themselves can be seen as potential plurilingual beings
who can draw on their language repertoires and facilitate collaborative co-
construction of knowledge, again in line with socio-cultural theory, rather
than presenting the teachers as the sole person with authoritative native-speaker
knowledge in the classroom. Such a reconceptualization of the teacher, called
for by authors in seven chapters, suggest implications for teacher education
(Conteh et al. 2014b; May 2014b). This could be supported through web-based
and research-informed teacher resources (see May 2014b for an example), or
through critical reflection on student-teachers’ own language ideologies, power

and status “so that they may become agents of change in the multilingual
classroom” (Young 2014). To this end, education could potentially challenge
the monolingual norms, and already does as is evident from the two books, but
perhaps not alone.
5 Discussion and conclusion

Based on my analysis, I argue that the multilingual turn can be seen as a critical
transdisciplinary movement, as it problematises knowledge and power relations that
are at play in education and societies more widely, as it straddles literacy, second
and foreign language learning, as well as the role of languages in content education.
None of the chapters explicitly refer to critical pedagogy. Nevertheless, the findings
presented here are consistently concerned with concepts that are central to critical
pedagogy, such as the link between power and knowledge (McLaren 2013), and to
pedagogies, which are additionally concerned with the ways in which “social
relationships are lived out in language” (Norton and Toohey 2004: 1). In the follow-
ing, I suggest that my analysis at the centre of this article is helpful to approach
attitudinal and pedagogic challenges by gaining a clearer understanding of assump-
tions that underlie the multilingual turn. Addressing the lack of pedagogic guidance
more fully goes beyond the scope of this article and I refer the reader to Weber (2014),
May (2014a), Conteh and Meier (2014), Cummins et al. (2006), Cummins (2007) and
Kumaravadivelu (2005) for further reading. Besides this, more research is urgently
required to inform the development of user-friendly pedagogic guidance as part of
more critical, crosscurricular, context-sensitive and flexible multilingual pedagogies.
In order to add practical relevance to my findings, I present a framework for
reflection in the final section
5.1 Conceptualisations associated with the multilingual turn
One of the contributions of this article is that it makes visible the ontological
foundations of the multilingual turn and links this to antecedent literature.
At the same time this offers an answer to the research question, as follows.
In the chapters languages are conceptualised as integrated in mind, body
and world, and above all as transnational mobile resources for learning and
teaching, and as a multilingual social practice. These largely consistent findings
confirm developments observed in the field towards an integrated view of
languages, as previously proposed by relevant authors (Canagarajah 2013;
Jenkins 2006; Atkinson 2011b; Kumaravadivelu 2005). Language thus under-

stood bridges linguistic and educational disciplines as described above.
Related to the above, learners are constructed as multilingual social practi-
tioners and agents with dynamic and complex biographies and identities who
exist in a multilingual ecosystem. These findings reflect research interests devel-
oped in recent years on user-based linguistics (Ortega 2014), identity (Norton
and McKinney 2011; Freeman 1994); language socialisation (Duff and Talmy
2011); and ecological perspectives (van Lier 2000). In addition, user-based
linguistics is linked to the idea of ownership of language, steering away from
native-speaker, monolingual, and standard language norms (Jenkins 2006;
Canagarajah 2013), as well as from territorial views of language (Blommaert
2010). However, there is some inconsistency in the chapters in that language
backgrounds are sometimes used to categorise learners, as part of a certain
community (e. g. minority or majority), while others steer clear of such categor-
isations. Essentialised representations or labels are seen as problematic (Sarroub
and Quadros 2014; Kibler and Valdes 2016) as this can reify certain deficit
identities. Thus the possibility view of emergent bi/multilinguals may be more
useful, or the notion of developing linguistic repertoires.
Learning as theorised in the chapters is consistently based on the idea of
empowerment and learning as a multilingual practice, based on critical perspec-
tives, possibly, at least in parts, based on editor bias but nevertheless endorsed
by the 30 authors in the two books, as well as previous literature (e. g. Atkinson
2011b; Cenoz 2012; Cummins 1979, 2007). Besides this, there is wide-spread
agreement that socio-cultural theory is a useful perspective to understand
learning. Indeed the latter is seen as a constituent or precursor of the multi-
lingual turn (May 2014b). However, there is no unanimity, and authors in the
sample argue that cognitive perspectives are either not useful, or that they need
to be revised to accommodate the multilingual turn. Learning could therefore be
understood based on theoretical pluralism. This enables researchers, who
associate themselves with the multilingual turn, to assume different ontological
positions, and draw on revised forms of behaviourism and cognitivism, as well
as socio-cultural theory, complexity and ecological perspectives, guided above
all by critical understandings. This is not necessarily a contradiction; on the
contrary the multilingual turn could be described as inclusive, proposing or at
least tolerating, plurality, unlike the previous cognitive and social turns that
tended to reject previous understandings of learning. Thus, the multilingual turn
may be less divisive along theoretical, but perhaps more divisive along ideolo-
gical lines, such as between those who welcome and accept more plural socie-
ties, and those who may see these as a threat. In the current climate of
uncertainties, such as climate change, economic downturns, political changes,
refugee crises and terror threats, multilingualism may be seen by some as a

further destabilising force, and be one of the reasons for the perpetuation of
monolingual and standard language norms by stakeholders in schools and
society. To this end the thematic decomposition analysis enabled me to uncover
the ontological foundations, the political and ideological nature of the multi-
lingual turn and associated societal challenges.
5.2 A framework for critical reflection
Above, I have shown that there is an over-arching critical, and arguably

ideological, theoretical perspective associated with the multilingual turn,
which questions widely held assumptions about language, learners and learn-
ing, as well as the nature and location of knowledge, social relationships and
power; all concepts associated with critical pedagogy (see McLaren 2013; Norton
and Toohey 2004).
Teachers, learners, parents and schools may make linguistic decisions that
are shaped by widely accepted monolingual and standard language norms and
prevailing ideologies. Marxists might refer to this as false consciousness, suggest-
ing unreflected acceptance of unequal power relations. In this article, I show that
different ontological stances, or understandings of language, learners and learn-
ing can thus lead teachers and schools to perpetuate, resist or challenge current
norms. Whatever ontological and ideological positions educators assume, con-
scious reflection of these concepts may contribute to understanding the conse-
quences of these. Based on this, I invite (student) teachers, teacher educators and
researchers to reflect with their students, colleagues and/or participants on their
own local practices at societal, school, curricular and individual level and query
their prevailing assumptions, associated consequences, such as participation,
power and knowledge, and potential alternatives. The framework in Table 6,
which is informed by this study and related literature, is designed to inform
such a reflection. The left-hand side of the table is loosely guided by traditional,
monolingual assumptions, and the right-hand side is guided by critical, multi-
lingual assumptions. However, I argue that there is no right or wrong, as most
linguistic choices are compromises based on complex understandings that might
encompass both sides. However, being conscious of these assumptions is of
critical importance as this may lead to different expectations, actions and power
distributions in classrooms and society more widely.
This framework could act as a starting point to critically reflect on a
particular situation, using the concepts shown in Table 6, and examine our
understandings and attitudes of the potentially restrictive or emancipating effect
Table 6: Framework for critical reflection.
Languages are understood as...

stable and/or dynamic
standard languages consisting of language varieties
territorial de-territorialised
owned by NS owned by users
neutral being associated with power
having equal status hierarchical
linguistic systems a social practice
separate systems integrated complex systems
Multilingualism is...
to be avoided and/or a desirable goal
seen as confusing for learners seen as a cognitive advantage
seen as a problem for learning seen as a resource for learning
seen as the exception seen as a normal condition
Learners are/have...
empty vessels and/or cognitively capable
categorised as NS/NNS empowered as (emergent) bi/multilinguals
single, stable identities multiple, complex, dynamic identities
language learners language users and social practitioners
homogenous backgrounds diverse linguistic and life biographies
in a monolingual context in a multilingual world
a need to acquire new knowledge diverse funds of knowledge
Learning is (based on)...
stimulus, response, habit formation and/or multilingual language socialisation
a monolingual cognitive activity a multilingual cognitive activity
an individual activity a social practice
studying one language at the time developing complex linguistic repertoires
separate from the environment part of a complex eco-system
predictable unpredictable
teacher guided autonomous, democratic
an intralingual/monolingual activity a crosslingual/multilingual activity
discipline specific cross-curricular
a monolingual context a multilingual context
a near-native speaker goal a bi/multilingual goal
Teachers...
are language knowers and/or are language learners
disseminate knowledge facilitate language use
focus on language learning focus on whole person in society
pay little attention to local context are sensitive to local context
enforce monolingualism encourage judicious multilingualism
are categorised as NS/NNS are empowered as (emergent) bi/multilinguals
act as monolingual role models act as multilingual role models
have power share power
NS: native speaker; NNS: non-native speaker.

that monolingual and multilingual approaches may have at different levels, to

enable all stakeholders to engage in judicious, sensitive and conscious linguistic
practices to jointly make sense of the increasingly multilingual world, and
perhaps weaken the monolingual myths in the long term. This would require,
however, a reconceptualisation of teachers as multilingual role models, who
make visible their linguistic repertoires, including standard and non-standard
language varieties. Having said this, I would like to add a note of caution: a
multilingual approach to learning and teaching does not advocate a laissez-faire
attitude, where learners and teachers use any languages they like, as this may
neither be useful for learning nor empower learners (Moore 2013).
The ability to engage with others to make sense of the world and to solve
problems in a creative and multilingual way is bound to be an important skill
necessary to tackle global and local problems, and may offer an empowering
experience, especially if the entire language repertoire, and a more holistic identity,
is validated and considered a useful tool for learning and being. From this it
follows that any development of relevant multilingual pedagogies ought to be
based on joint reflections and revised understandings, and, as Pennycook (2004)
points out, to consciousness raising, which is the basis of social action and change.
In sum, this article shows that the multilingual turn forms part of a wider critical
and transdisciplinary movement in education. While it is relatively well theorised,
its translation into practice is challenging, due to widely held monolingually
informed attitudes. Multi-agency work is now required to develop greater con-
sciousness in mainstream practice. The framework (Table 6) is designed to con-
tribute to such a process, and I would be very pleased to hear in what way and to
what effect readers use this framework in their varied practices.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Stephen May who generously pro-

vided electronic copies of the chapters in his edited book and the respective
book proposal. I am also grateful to the peer reviewers, colleagues from the
Langscape group, as well as to Jean Conteh (University of Leeds), Hazel Lawson
(University of Exeter) and Ralph Openshaw for their invaluable feedback on
previous versions of this article.
References
Anderson, J. & Y.-C. Chung. 2014. Transforming learning, building identities, arts-based
creativity in the community languages classroom. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.),
The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges, 278–291.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Atkinson, D. 2011a. A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition: How mind,

body, and world work together in learning additional languages. In D. Atkinson (ed.),
Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 143–166. Abingdon: Routledge.
Atkinson, D. 2011b. Alternative approaches tot second language acquisition. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Auleear Owodally, A. M. 2014. Socialized into multilingualism: A case study of a Mauritian
pre-school. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education:
Opportunities and challenges, 17–40. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Blackledge, A., A. Creese & J. K. Takhi. 2014. Beyond multilingualism: heteroglossia in practice.
In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual education,
216. New York: Routledge.
Block, D. 2003. The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Block, D. 2014. Moving beyond “Lingualism”: Multilingual embodiment and multimodality in
SLA. In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual
education, 54–77. New York: Routledge.
Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: University Press.
Blommaert, J. & A. Backus. 2011. Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity.
Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, Paper 67.
Braun, V. & V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3(2). 77–101.
Canagarajah, A. S. 2013. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmpolitan relations.
Abindgon: Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. S. 2014. Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone.
In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education,
78–102. New York: Routledge.
Carrasco Perea, E. 2010. Intercompréhension(s): Repères, interrogations et perspectives. In
Sylvains les Moulins (ed.), Synergies Europe, 5. France: Gerflint.
Cenoz, J. 2012. Third language acquisition the encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken,
NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Chomsky, N. 1959. Review of Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language Awareness 35. 26–58.
Conteh, J., S. Begum & S. Riasat. 2014a. Multilingual pedagogy in primary settings: From the
margins to the mainstream. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages
education: Opportunities and challenges, 211–233. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Conteh, J., F. Copland & A. Creese. 2014b. Multilingual teachers’ resources in three different
contexts: Empowering learning. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in
languages education: Opportunities and challenges, 158–178. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Conteh, J. & G.Meier. (eds.). 2014. The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities
and challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/
La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 57(2). 402–423.
Cook, V. & D. Singleton. 2014. Key topics in second language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Council of Europe. 2001. The common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruickshank, K. 2014. Exploring the -lingual between Bi and mono: Young people and their
languages in an Australian context. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual
turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges, 41–63. Bristol: Multilingual

Matters.
Cummins, J. 1979. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual
children. Review of Educational Research 49(1979). 222–251.
Cummins, J. 2007. Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(2). 221–240.
Cummins, J., V. Bismilla, P. Chow, S. Cohen, F. Giampapa, L. Leoni & P. Sastri. 2006. ELL
students speak for themselves: Identity texts and literacy engagement in multilingual
classrooms. Curriculum Services Canada. Toronto.http://www.curriculum.org/secretariat/
files/ELLidentityTexts.pdf (accessed 3 August 2016).
Davies, A. & C. Elder. 2004. The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Duff, P. & S. Talmy. 2011. Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition:
Social, cultural, and lingusitic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (ed.),
Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 95–116. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ellis, N. C. 2006. Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED*. AILA Review
19. 100–121.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Firth, A. & J. Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in
SLA research. Modern Language Journal 81(3). 285–300.
Freeman, R. D. 1994. Language planning and identity planning: An emergent understanding.
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 10(1). 1–20.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Gajo, L. 2014. From normalization to didactization of multilingualism: European and
francophone research at the crossroads between linguistics and didactics. In J. Conteh &
G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and
challenges, 113–131. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
García, O. & N. Flores. 2014. Multilingualism and common core state standards in the United
States. In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual
education, 147–166. New York: Routledge.
García, O. & N. Kano. 2014. Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing English writing
of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in
languages education: Opportunities and challenges, 258–277. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
García, O. & C. Leiva. 2012. Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice.
In A. Creese & A. Blackledge (eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy. Dordrecht
(Netherlands): Springer.
Gass, S. & L. Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 3rd edn.
New York: Routledge
Gass, S. M. 2013. Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 4th edn. New York:
Routledge.
Gonzalez, N. 1994. The funds of knowledge for teaching project. Practicing Anthropology
17(3). 3–6.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Howatt, A. P. R. & H. G. Widdowson. 2004. A history of English language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hu, G. & S. L. MCKay. 2014. Multilingualism as portrayed in a Chinese English textbook.
In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities
and challenges, 64–87. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Jenkins, J. 2006. Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics 16(2). 137–162. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00111.x.
Kibler, A. K. & G. Valdés. 2016. Conceptualizing language learners: Socioinstitutional
mechanisms and their consequences. The Modern Language Journal 100(Supplement
2016). 96–116.
Krashen, S. D. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Kroll, J. F., J. W. Gullifer & E. Rossi. 2013. The multilingual lexicon: The cognitive and neural
basis of lexical comprehension and production in two or more languages. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 33. 102–127.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2005. Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lamb, T. 2001. Language policy and multilingualism in the UK. Language Learning Journal
Summer 23(Multilingualism and the UK). 4–12.
Lantolf, J. P. 2011. The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural
theory, second language acquisition, and articial L2 development. In D. Atkinson
(ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 24–47. Abindong:
Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. & G. Appel. 1994. Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian
approaches to second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds.), Vygotskian
approaches to second language research, 1–32. Norwood, NL: Aplex.
Lantolf, J. P. & M. E. Poehner. 2008. Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages.
London: Equinox.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2007. Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second language
acquisition. Modern Language Journal 91(Focus Issue). 773–787.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2011. A complexity theory approach to second language development/
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition,
48–72. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lasagabaster, D. & J. M. Sierra. 2007. Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than
similarities. ELT Journal 64(4). 367–375.
Leung, C. 2014. Communication and participatory involvement in linguistically diverse
classrooms. In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and
Bilingual education, 123–146. New York: Routledge.
Li, W. 2014. Who’s teaching whom? Co-learning in multilingual classrooms. In S. May (ed.),
The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual education, 167–190.
New York: Routledge.
Lowie, W., R. Plat & K. de Bot. 2014. Pink noise in language production: A nonlinear approach
to the multilingual lexicon. Ecological Psychology 26(3). 216–228.
May, S. (ed.) 2014a. The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education.
New York: Routledge.
May, S. 2014b. Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn.
In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education,
7–31. New York: Routledge.
McLaren, P. 2013. Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In J. Soler et al. (eds.),
Transforming practice: Critical issues in equity, diversity and education. Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
Mehisto, P., D. Marsh & M. J. Frigols. 2008. Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated
learning in Bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Meier, G. 2014a. Multilingualism and social cohesion: Two-way immersion education meets
diverse needs. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages
Meier, G. 2014b. Our mother tongue is plurlingualism: An orientation framework for integrated
multilingual curricula. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages
Mercado, C. I. & L. C. Moll. 1997. The study of funds of knowledge: Collaborative research in
Latino homes. CENTRO Journal of the Centre for Puerto Rican Studies IX(9). 26–42.
Meyer, O., D. Coyle, A. Halbach, K. Schuck & T. Ting. 2015. A pluriliteracies approach to content
and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge
construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum 28(1). 41–57.
Mondada, L. 2012. The dynamics of embodied participation and language choice in multilingual
meetings. Language in Society 41(2). 213–235. doi:10.2307/41487754.
Moore, P. J. 2013. An emergent perspective on the use of the first language in the
English-as-a-foreign-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 97(1). 239–253.
Myles, F. & R. Mitchell. 2004. Second language learning theories. London: Hodder Education.
Norton, B. 2014. Identity, literacy, and the multilingual classroom. In S. May (ed.), The
multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual education, 103–122. New
York: Routledge.
Norton, B. & C. McKinney. 2011. An identity approach to second language acquisition.
In D. Atkinson (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 73–94.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Norton, B. & K. Toohey. 2004. Critical pedagogies and language learning: An introduction.
In B. Norton & K. Toohey (eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning, 1–17.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. 2014. Ways forward for a Bi/Multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (ed.), The multilingual
turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education, 32–53. New York: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. 2004. Language policy and the ecological turn. Language Policy. 3(3). 213–239.
Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a local practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
Piccardo, E. & J. Aiden. 2014. Plurilingualism and empathy: Beyond instrumental language
learning. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education:
Opportunities and challenges, 234–257. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pienemann, M. 2008. A brief introduction to processability theory. In J.-U. Keßler (ed.),
Processability approaches to second language development and second language
learning. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pratt, M. L. 1991. The arts of the contact zone. Profession 91. 33–40.
Saussure, F. 1966. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sarroub, Loukia K. & Sa brina Quadros. 2014. Critical pedaogy in classroom discourse.
In Martha Bigelow & Johanna Ennser-Kananen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of
educational linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Scott, V. M. & M. J. de la Fuente. 2008. What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1
during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal 92(1).
100–113.
Sieloff Magnan, S. 2008. The unfulfilled promise of teaching for communicative competence:
Insights from sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (eds.), Sociocultural
theory and the teaching of second languages, 349–379. London: Equinox.
Skinner, B. F. 1957. Verbal behaviour. New York: Copley Publishing Group.

Stenner, P. 1993. Discoursing jealousy. In E. Burman & I. Parker (eds.), Discourse analytic
research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action, 94–132. London: Routledge.
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Towell, R. & R. Hawkins. 1994. Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological
perspective. In L. Van Lier (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning,
155–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Weber, J.-J. 2014. Flexible multilingual education: Putting children’s needs first. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Williams, C. H. 2000. Language revitalisation, policy and planning in Wales. Cardiff: University
of Wales Press.
Wright, S. 2004. Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalisation.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Young, A. 2014. Looking through the language lens: Monolingual taint or plurilingual tint?.
In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities
and challenges, 89–110. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Zuengler, J & E. R. Miller. 2006. Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA
worlds? TESOL Quarterly 40(1). 35–58.

10.1515 - Applirev 2016 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1515 - Applirev 2016 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Linguistics Review 2017; 8(1): 131–161

Gabriela Sylvia Meier*

Abstract: This study establishes the multilingual turn as part of a critical

Keywords: critical pedagogy, language learning, multilingualism, bilingualism,

*Corresponding author: Gabriela Sylvia Meier, Graduate School of Education, University of

2 Conceptualisations of language, learners

– Summarise the history and development of the three concepts

2.2 The learners

Early behaviourists conceptualised learners as empty vessels or trainable

2.3 Language learning

field, proposing more holistic and complex, critical and post-structuralist

Socio-cultural and post-structuralist understandings assume that language

paradigms: plurilingualism1 (Council of Europe 2001), third-language education

2.4 Summary of the literature

3 The present study

1 The term plurilingualism indicates personal bi/multilingual language competences as defined

language as constitutive of meaning and meaning as social” (Braun and Clarke

4.1 Conceptualisation of language

Table 1: Conceptualisation of language.

Themes and sub-themes No of chapters

4.1.1 Description of languages

Languages were described/labelled in three different ways: where they are

supra-regionally. Successional labels given to languages indicate that languages

school language has increased in recent years, thus encouraging a dialogue

4.1.2 Language and power

In the chapters I identified consistent concerns related to power. Twenty chap-

4.1.3 Multilingualism and alternative understandings

4.2 Conceptualisation of the learners

Table 2: Conceptualisation of the learner.

Themes and sub-themes No of chapters

4.2.1 Description of the learners

On the one hand, authors in 11 chapters labelled learners by their background,

4.2.2 Learners as individuals

Authors in eleven chapters understood learners as having individual, hetero-

Eighteen chapters referred to learners as unique human beings (Canagarajah

4.2.3 Learners as multilingual practitioners

4.2.4 Learners in multilingual society

While learners are seen as agents, as discussed above, authors in 12 chapters

4.3 Conceptualisation of language learning

Table 3: Conceptualisation of language learning.

Themes and sub-themes No of chapters

4.3.1 Theoretical perspectives

The authors in the sample refer to different perspectives, including cognitivist

pre-existing knowledge (Conteh et al. 2014) as suggested by advocates of funds-of-

4.3.2 Multilingual and alternative understandings

Multilingual competence based on Cummins’ interdependence hypothesis

4.4 Challenges related to the multilingual turn

widespread monolingual myths, hampering wider application, and five observed

4.4.1 The attitudinal challenge

Table 4: Monolingual myths.

Themes and sub-themes No of chapters

4.4.2 Pedagogic challenge

Table 5: Pedagogic considerations.

Lack of teacher guidance

The pedagogic considerations, featured in 12 chapters, point to power relations

through critical reflection on student-teachers’ own language ideologies, power

5 Discussion and conclusion

5.1 Conceptualisations associated with the multilingual turn

Jenkins 2006; Atkinson 2011b; Kumaravadivelu 2005). Language thus under-

refugee crises and terror threats, multilingualism may be seen by some as a

5.2 A framework for critical reflection

Above, I have shown that there is an over-arching critical, and arguably

Table 6: Framework for critical reflection.