towards a repertoire-building approach: multilingualism in ... · the diverse language resources...

The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in LANGUAGE AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION, 2017 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14708477.2017.1368149

Erika Kalocsányiová, Université du Luxembourg Contact: [email protected]

1

Towardsarepertoire-buildingapproach:multilingualisminlanguageclasses

forrefugeesinLuxembourg

Abstract:Thiscontributionexamineshowthediverselanguageresourcesthatteachers

andlearnersbringtotheclassroomcansupporttheprocessoflanguagelearning.It

drawsonarangeoflinguisticethnographicdatacollectedataFrenchlanguagecourse

thatwasattendedmostlybySyrianandIraqirefugeesinLuxembourg.Drawingonthe

analysisofmultilingualinteractionalpractices,thearticleshedslightonsomeofthe

opportunitiesforlearningthatemergedasaresultoftranslation,translanguagingand

receptivemultilingualism.Itdiscussestherelevanceofthesepracticesforbuildinga

repertoireofresourcesthatenablesforcedmigrantstocommunicateinmultilingual

contextssuchasLuxembourg.

Keywords:forcedmigration,multilingualisminLuxembourg,repertoirebuilding,

translanguaging,translation,receptivemultilingualism

Abstrait:Cetarticleexaminecommentlesdifférentesressourceslinguistiquesqueles

enseignantsetlesapprenantsapportentdanslaclassepeuventpromouvoirleprocessus

dápprentissagedúnelangue. Lesanalysessáppuientsurunensemblededonnées

ethnolinguistiquesrecueilliespendantdesleçonsdefrançaisauxquelsontparticipédes

réfugiéssyriensetirakiensàLuxembourg.Enanalysantleurspratiquesinteractionnelles

plurilingues,cetarticlesignalelespossibilitésdidactiquesfavoriséesparlespratiquesde

traduction,translanguagingetleplurilinguismeréceptif.Ilabordel’importancedeces

pratiquespourl´élaborationdúnrépertoirederessourcespermettantauxréfugiésde

communiquerdansuncontexteplurilinguecommeleLuxembourg.

Mots-clés:migrationforcée,multilinguismeauLuxembourg,élaborationdurépertoire,

translanguaging,traduction,plurilinguismeréceptif

1. Introduction

Contemporarylanguageeducationschemesforrefugeesandmigrantsaredominatedby

monolingualinstructionalpracticesthatareinconsistentwithcurrentunderstandingsbothof

howpeoplelearn(Cummins,2007;García,2009;Creese&Blackledge,2010;LeNevez,Hélot&

Ehrhart,2010)andofthefunctioningofthemultilingualmind(Jessner,2006;Cook,2007;

Canagarajah&Wurr,2011).Despitethepressingneedforeducationinitiativesinsupportof

refugeeintegration,relativelylittleresearchhasbeenconductedonlanguagelearningin

contextsofforcedmigration,andevenlessincircumstanceswheremultiplelanguagesareat

use.ThisarticleseekstofillthisgapbypresentingacasestudyfromLuxembourg.Drawingon



2

arangeoflinguisticethnographicdatacollectedataFrenchcourseforrefugees,itshowshow

thediverselanguageresourcesthatteachersandlearnersbringtotheclassroomsupportthe

processoflanguagelearning.Bystudyinghowindividualsbuildonthecodesandresources

accessibletothem,itaimstocontributetocurrenttheoreticaldiscussionsontheaffordances

ofmultilingualpedagogiesincontextsofmigrationandrefuge.Providingempiricaldataonthe

useoftranslation,translanguagingandreceptivemultilingualism,thearticlediscussesthe

relevanceofthesepracticesforlanguagelearning,especiallyinsocietiesthatarestructured

aroundhighlydiverseflowsofpeople.Itishopedthatthefindingsfromthisresearchwill

stimulatethedebateaboutrepertoirebuildingandtheneedtoalignmigrants’resourcesto

theirlocallysituatededucationalneeds.

2. MigrationandmultilingualisminLuxembourg

TheGrandDuchyofLuxembourgisacountryofimmigration.Almosttwothirdsofits

populationhaveadirectorindirectmigrationbackground,andcross-borderworkersaccount

foralmosthalfoftheentireworkforce(Statec,2016a).Increasedimmigrationmovementsare

mainlyattributabletoLuxembourg’ssubstantialeconomicsuccessoverthepastfewdecades.

Asaresult,theGrandDuchyisarguablyoneofthemostmultilingualcountriesintheworld.

SituatedontheRomance-Germaniclanguageborder,Luxembourghasalong-standing

traditionofmultilingualism,whichwasacknowledgedinthelanguagelawof1984.According

totheprovisionsofthislaw,Luxembourgishisthenationallanguage,Frenchthelanguageof

thelaw,andLuxembourgish,GermanandFrenchareallacknowledgedaslanguagesof

administration.Hence,multilingualisminLuxembourgisnotterritory-basedbutisreflectedin

differentpatternsoflanguageuse.ThisdistinguishestheGrandDuchyfromothermultilingual

countriesinEurope,suchasBelgiumorSwitzerland,wherelanguagelegislationisgovernedby

geographicdistribution.

Theabove-describedtriglossiclanguagesituationhasbeensubstantiallyreshapedby

increasedmigrationmovementssincethe1950s,mainlyfromPortugal,Italy,theBalkanStates

andtheCapeVerdeIslands.Localmultilingualismhasbeenfurtherenrichedbythelanguages

ofotherforeignnationalsresidingintheGrandDuchy.Accordingtothenationalofficeof

statistics(Statec,2016b),thecountrynowcountsmorethan170differentnationalities,

includingSyriansandIraqiswho,fleeingwarandpoliticalunrest,haveappliedforasylumin

Luxembourg[1].

Againstthisbackdrop,Luxembourgconstitutesanintriguingresearchsettingfor

exploringthepossibilitiesandcomplexitiesinherenttotheprocessoflanguagelearningin

multilingualsocieties.Infact,noLuxembourgerisbelievedtobemonolingual:movingfluidly



3

backandforthbetweenamultitudeoflanguagesisacommunicationmethodinitsownright

andmembersofthelocalsocietyarebelievedtoexcelinit.Officialgovernmentpoliciesin

Luxembourgcontinuallydrawupontherhetoricofmultilingualismtosupportclaimsaboutthe

country’sopennessandmulticulturalspirit.This(self-ascribed)openness,alongwiththelegal

recognitionofthreelanguages–Luxembourgish,GermanandFrench–isexpectedtofacilitate

theintegrationofforeignnationals.Nonetheless,thissituationmightappearpuzzlingtonew

arrivalsfromregionscharacterisedbya‘monolingualhabitus’(Gogolin,1997)andarather

limitedpresenceofLuxembourg’smainlanguages.Mannan,arefugeefromAleppo(Syria)who

soughtinternationalprotectioninLuxembourg,describedhissituationasdifficultand

unsettled:

It’sdifficulttolivehere.Wehavethreelanguages,threenewlanguages.It’sdifficulttolearn

threelanguagesatonce.BecauseofthatIlearnFrenchrightnow.TherestIdon’tknow.

Mannan’suncertaintyisunderstandableinlightofpresent-daylanguageideologicaldebates.

Ingeneral,newarrivalsarestronglyadvisedtoenrolinFrenchclasses,asitisbelievedto

improvetheiremployabilitychances.Mannanrecountsthisexpectation:

Itwasn’tmychoice,buteverybodyheresaysyoumustlearnFrenchifyouwantwork,ifyou

wanttostudy,ifyouwanttodoanything,youmustlearnFrench.

Atthesametime,ideologiessituatingLuxembourgishinthepositionofthe‘solelanguageof

integration’aregainingmoreprominence.Needlesstosay,Luxembourgishisthelanguage

resourcenewarrivalsareleastlikelytohaveintheircommunicativerepertoires.Inthis

respect,HornerandWeber(2008)discussthecoexistenceofnationalistandtrilingual

languageideologies.Theconflictingnatureoftheseideologiesgivesrisetoambivalent

messagesastowhatlanguagesandwhatidentitiesshouldbeofferedtonewcomers.Asa

result,newarrivalssuchasMannanoftensetambitiouslanguagelearninggoalstofitintothe

traditionaltrilingualparadigm:

Yesofcourse,I’minterested[inlearningotherlanguages]butIcan’tbecauseIneedtolearn

French,afterthatIwanttolearnLuxembourgish,andafterthatGerman.Thereisnoplacefor

PortugueseorItalian.

Mannan’spointofviewgivesasomehowambiguousstatustolanguageresourcesoutsidethe

recognisedtrilingualmodel,suchasPortugueseorItalian.Thisisperhapsnotsurprisinginview

ofthemainstreammediadiscoursesaroundlanguage,nationalityandintegration,whichimply

thatsocietalmultilingualismisproblematic,especiallywhenitbreaksawayfromthe

prescribedtrilingual-plus-Englishparadigm(Horner&Weber,2008;Horner,2015).Yet,



4

multilingualpracticesarewidespreadandattitudestowardsmultilingualsarerather

favourableasdemonstratedbypreviousresearch(Franziskus&Gilles,2012;deBres,2014).

ThespecificfeaturesofLuxembourg’slanguagesituationseeminglycreatefavourable

conditionsformultilingualpedagogies.Relativelylittleresearchhasbeenconductedon

languageeducationinitiativesinsupportoftheintegrationofforcedmigrants,andevenlessin

circumstancesasdiverseasLuxembourgoffers.Inviewofthis,thearticleexploreshow

teachersandlearnersembracemultilingualaffordancesinthecontextofaFrenchlanguage

courseforrefugees.Thetheoreticalframeworkfortheanalysisandthemethodological

complexitiesthatemergedduringtheresearchareexplainedinthefollowingsection.

3. Languagelearningincontextsofforcedmigration:theoreticalconsiderations

ThedominantdiscourseinmostEUcountriesunderlinestheideathatitisimmigrants’dutyto

learntherespectivenationallanguages,forintegration’ssake(VanAvermaet,2009).

Luxembourgisnoexception.Fornewarrivals,theacquisitionoflocallanguagesisundoubtedly

aformofpersonalenrichment.Incircumstancesofforcedmigration,however,totalkof

traditionalsecondorforeignlanguagelearningwouldbegrosslymisleading.Refugeesdonot

acquirethelanguagesofthemainstreamsocietyforthemerereasonofapproximatingnative

speakers’performances.Languagesformpartoftheireverydaylivedexperiencesandafailure

toadapttothenewlanguagesituationcancausealienationintermsofidentity.Owingtothe

rupturewiththecountryoforigin,feelingsoflinguisticinsecurityareoftenhighlysalient.

InlinewiththeargumentationputforwardbyBlommaertandBackus(2011),forced

migrants’repertoiresareseenasinventoriesofresourcesthathavebeenaccumulatedin

ordertooperatewithinthenormsandexpectationsthatgovernsociallife.Asthe

Luxembourgishexamplewellillustrates,multilingualmodesofcommunicationcanbepartof

thesenorms.Whenevernewlanguageresourcesareacquired,thischangesthebalanceofthe

individual’scommunicativerepertoire(Rymes,2014).Morespecifically,García(2009)writesof

recursivelanguageacquisition,wherethelanguagelearntatalaterstageshapesthe

competenceofthelanguageacquiredearlier,andbothmutuallyinfluenceeachothertomove

innewdirections.Althoughtheconceptwasintroducedprimarilytoexplainbilingual

education,itequallyappliestomultilingualenvironments.

Uponarrival,refugeesareofferedlanguageeducationschemes,theprimaryaimof

whichistopromotethedominantlanguagesofthereceivingsociety.Meanwhile,their

complexrepertoiresconsistingofotherlanguageresourcesareoftenneglected.Inourview,

thislineofactiondoesnotacknowledgethecomplexityoflanguagelearninginsocieties

wheremultiplelanguagesareatuseonadailybasis.Thisraisescrucialquestions:What



5

happensifthemultilingualrealitiesofteachersandlearnersareintroducedtotheclassroom?

Howcantheirdiverselanguageresourcessupporttheprocessoflearning?Thisarticleseeksto

answertheseandsimilarquestions.

AsarguedbyCanagarajahandWurr(2011),multilingualsbringtothelanguage

classroomresourcesandstrengthsthatmonolingualsmaynotpossess.Theymaintainthatitis

notasharedgrammarthatenablescommunication,butcommunicativepracticesand

strategiesthatareusedtonegotiatelanguagedifferences:‘thesestrategiesarenotaformof

knowledgeorcognitivecompetence,butaformofresourcefulnessthatspeakersemployin

theunpredictablecommunicativesituationstheyencounter’(Canagarajah&Wurr,2011,p.2).

Fromthisperspective,multilingualorientationtolanguageacquisitionisintertwinedwith

repertoirebuilding.Ratherthanaimingfortotalcompetenceinindividuallanguages,

multilingualspreferdevelopingarangeofcodesforarangeofpurposes.

Outofthenumerousmultilingualpracticesusedbyrefugees,thisarticlefocuseson

translation,translanguagingandreceptivemultilingualism,asthesehavebeenthemost

salientfeaturesinourresearchcontext.Theuseoflearners’firstlanguageshasbeenapointof

contentioninforeignlanguageeducation.AssummarisedbyCarreres(2006),proponentsof

audiolingualandcommunicativemethodsconsidertheuseofthemothertongue

counterproductiveintheprocessofacquiringanewlanguage.Itisbelievedtoholdlearners

backfromtakingtheleaptoexpressthemselvesinthetargetlanguage.Thissituationis

assumedtobefurthercomplicatedbytheintroductionofadditionallanguageresourcesthat

operateasthebridginglanguagebetweenteachersandlearnerswithdifferingmother

tongues.Somerecentthinkingonlanguagelearning(Byram&Hu,2013),however,stresses

thepotentialoftranslationasalanguageteachingtoolandcallsforareassessmentofitsrole

inlanguagepedagogy.Whilemuchvaluableworkhasbeendoneinrecentyears(Calis&

Dikilitas,2012),westilllackastrongempiricalfoundationforusingtranslationasaneffective

pedagogicaltool.Thewaysinwhichinformaltranslationscanbecomeaformofpeersupport

areofspecialrelevanceforthisresearch.

Thesecondmultilingualpracticeexaminedhereistranslanguaging(García,2009;

Creese&Blackledge,2010).InaccordancewithGarcíaandLiWei(2014),translanguagingis

understoodasadynamicmeaning-makingprocesswherebymultilingualspeakersgobeyond

theconventionaldivisionbetweenlanguagesandmodalities.ForGarcía(2009)a

translanguagingapproachtoteachingandlearninghasthepotentialtoliberatethevoicesof

language-minoritisedlearners.Alongside‘translanguaging’,anumberofothertermshave

beencoinedtodescribeemergingmultilingualpractices,suchas‘polylingualism’(Jørgensen,

2008),‘metrolingualism’(Otsuji&Pennycook,2010)and‘heteroglossia’(Bailey,2007).We



6

haveoptedfor‘translanguaging’asitisthemostwidelyusedconceptintheoretical

discussionssurroundingeducation.However,weareveryawareoftheextralayersand

dimensionsoftheothertermslistedabove.Hence,ouranalysisalsodrawsonOtsujiand

Pennycook’sunderstandingoffluidlinguisticidentitiesandJørgensen’sdefinitionof

polylingualismaswell:

Languageusersemploywhateverlinguisticfeaturesareattheirdisposaltoachievetheir

communicativeaimsasbesttheycan,regardlessofhowwelltheyknowtheinvolved

languages;thisentailsthatthelanguageusersmayknow–anduse–thefactthatsomeofthe

featuresareperceivedbysomespeakersasnotbelongingtogether.(Jørgensen,Karrebæk,

Madsen&Moller,2011,p.34)

Suchananalyticgazeenablesabetterunderstandingofhowpeopleselectdifferentresources

andwhatmotivatestheirchoices.Thisapproachbringsseveraladvantagesasitconceptualises

multilingualspeecheventsasaresponsetoprecise,locallysituatedcommunicativeneeds

(Lüdi,2006).Thetermresourcesitselfpresupposestheexistenceofanactivesubjectwhohas

amassedarepertoireofresourcesandwhoactivatesthisrepertoire,combiningitsdiverse

elementsaccordingtohis/herneeds,knowledgeandwhims(Lüdi&Py,2009).

Thethirdstrategythatallowsmultilinguallanguageuserstoaccomplishtheir

communicativetasksisreceptivemultilingualism.Agrowingnumberofstudiessuggestthat

receptivemultilingualismisnotlimitedtotypologicallycloselanguages.Onthecontrary,ithas

beendocumentedincontextsofmigrationandbetweenspeakersofdifferentlanguage

families(Rehbein,tenThije&Verschik,2011;Franziskus&Gilles,2012).Someresearch

suggeststhatitcanalsoserveasastartingpointforlanguagelearning(Vetter,2011).This

articlewillfocusonhighlycomplexcasesofreceptivemultilingualismwhereinteractantshave

veryfewresourcesineachother’slanguages.

4. Multilingualclassroomethnography

Thedatapresentedinthisarticlewerecollectedinanongoingdoctoralresearchproject[2].

Basedonlinguisticethnographiesundertakeninvarioussettingsoflanguagelearningand

socialisation,thePhDprojectstudiesthelinguisticintegrationtrajectoryofSyrianandIraqi

refugeeswhohavesoughtinternationalprotectioninLuxembourg.Allresearchactivitieswere

approvedbytheEthicsReviewPaneloftheUniversityofLuxembourgandtheNational

CommissionforDataProtectionoftheGrandDuchyofLuxembourg.Informedconsentwas

obtainedfromeachprojectparticipant.Theinformedconsentdocumentsalongwithageneral

outlineoftheprojectweremadeaccessibletotheparticipantsinbothEnglishandModern

StandardArabic.



7

Operatingasaresearcherinthismultilingualcontexthasbeenextremelychallenging.

Theresearcher’sfirstlanguageisHungarian,butshehaspreviouslyreliedmostlyonother

languages,includingSlovak,EnglishandSpanish,forstudy,workandresearch.Ofthe

languagesrelevantforthisproject,shehasknowledgeofEnglishandFrench.Shestarted

learningFrenchpriortoherarrivalinLuxembourgin2014.BeingaFrenchlanguagelearner

whileresearchinginFrenchhascausedsomeadditionaldifficulties,particularlywithregardto

datacollectionandanalysis.Toensurethecorrectrepresentationofthefindings,allexcerpts

presentedinthisarticlehavebeenvalidatedbylanguageexpertswithbackgroundinFrench

studies.TheresearcherhasalsocollaboratedwithtwonativespeakersofArabic:Malika,a

lecturerinTESOLwhohasaMaster’sdegreeintranslation,andYacine,agraduatestudentof

theUniversityofLuxembourg’sMaster’sprogrammeinLearningandCommunicationin

MultilingualandMulticulturalContexts.Askedabouttheirlinguisticresources,theydescribed

themselvesasspeakersofJordanianandMoroccanArabic,respectively.Bothconfirmedthat

theyunderstandmostoftheotherdialectsaswell.Astotheproject,theyhavebeeninvolved

intheinterviewingprocess,translationoftheinformedconsentdocuments,andthe

transcription,analysisandtranslationofaudio-recordedinteractions.Duringthefieldwork,the

researcheroftenreliedonapproximatetranslationsofferedbytheresearchparticipants.

ThiscontributionfocusesonpreliminaryfindingsfromaFrenchlanguagecoursefor

beginners.ThecoursehasbeenrunningsinceFebruary2016withsessionsofapproximately90

minutesheldtwiceaweek.Itistaughtbyvolunteersinacommunitycentreaffiliatedwitha

localchurchsituatedinaresidentialareaofLuxembourgCity.Thecoursereliesonmaterials

compiledbythecentre’steachersandaimstoprovideelementarylanguageknowledgein

French,equivalenttotheCEFRA1level[3].Afterinitialinterviewswiththecoursecoordinator

andvariouscollaborators,theresearchervisitedtwosessionsatthebeginningofthecoursein

February,threesessionsinMay,twosessionsinNovember2016andtwosessionsinthefirst

quarterof2017.Itshouldbenotedthatourconceptualisationoftheresearchcontextgoes

beyondthenarrowconfinesoftheclassroomasateaching–learningenvironmentwithstrict

spatialandtemporalboundaries.Thevolunteersandasylumapplicants–perhaps

inadvertentlyandoutofnecessity–createdanopenanddynamiclearningspacewhere

structuredlanguagelearningtasksarecarriedoutparalleltoandaspartofsocialinteraction,

meetingandexchanging,communityworkandeducationalcounselling.Mostofthedata

analysedherestemfromaudio-tapedinteractionsrecordedbytheresearcherinthiscomplex

learningenvironment,whichwillbereferredtoas‘theclassroom’hereafter.

Inlinewiththeprinciplesoflinguisticethnography(Copland&Creese,2015),these

interactionaldatawerecomplementedbyethnographicfieldwork,includingparticipant



8

observationandbiographicalinterviewswithbothlanguageteachersandasylumapplicants.

Ofthethreeteacherswhohavebeenrunningtheclasses,twoagreedtoparticipateinthe

study:Marie,aFrenchnationalandlanguageteacherbyeducationwhohasapart-timejobin

aFrenchschoolinLuxembourgCity,andMarianne,aBritishcitizenandFrench–English

bilingualwhohaslivedinLuxembourgforthelast10years.Furthermore,thedatafeaturedin

thisarticlecomefromthreeotherresearchparticipants:Patrick,anIraqiengineerwhohas

soughtasyluminLuxemburginAugust2015,aswellasMannanandRam,whoarrivedatthe

GrandDuchyfromSyriaatapproximatelythesametime[4].Theresearchparticipantswere

selectedthroughconveniencesampling.Althoughcomparabilitywasnotsought,the

participantsreflectsomeofthediversityoflinguisticprofiles,educationalbackgroundsand

migrationexperiencesthatrefugeeshaverecentlybroughttoLuxembourg[5].

Oneformalinterviewandvariousinformalinterviewswereundertakenwitheach

researchparticipantusingbothopen-endedandtargetedquestions.Theparticipantswere

giventhechoiceofdoingtheinterviewinEnglishorintheirlanguageofpreferencewith

interpretation[6].Thepurposeoftheinterviewswastogainanuancedunderstandingofthe

researchcontextandcapturetheparticipants’uniqueperspectivesonlinguisticintegrationin

Luxembourg.Inwritingthisarticle,thefocuswasfirstandforemostonnarrativesofclassroom

experiencesalongwiththelanguageresourcestheparticipantsreportedtohaveattheir

disposal.Theinformationofinterestwasextractedusingcontentanalysis.InlinewithPatton’s

definition(2002),theanalyticalprocessconsistedofasense-makingefforttoidentifycore

consistenciesandmeanings.Theinsightsthusobtainedprovedtobeavaluablesourceof

informationforthecontextualisationoftheaudio-recordedclassroomexchangesdiscussed

below.

Participantswereaudio-recordedduringtheirusualclassroomactivities.Weused

digitalrecordingdevices(anotebookandasmartphone)thatwereplacedunobtrusivelybut

closetotheresearchparticipants,recordingfromthemomentoftheirarrivalatthecentre

untiltheirdeparture.Followinganinitialanalysis,selectedfragmentsweretranscribedand

analysedusinginteractionalsociolinguistics,adiscourse-analyticalframeworkproposedby

Gumperz(2003).Itcombinesethnographicandcontextualinformationwithdetailedturn-by-

turnanalysisofcommunicativeexchangesinordertounderstandwhatparticipantsintendto

convey.Ouranalysisattemptsneithertodeterminethenumberoflanguagesinvolved,norto

categorisetheelementsasstrictlybelongingtooneortheotherlanguage.Nevertheless,to

adequatelyillustratehowresearchparticipantsdrawupontheirresources,wedoindicatein

theextractsbelowwhetherandhowthedifferentitemsareassociatedwithoneormore

languages[7].Thelanguagesaremarkedasfollows:Frenchisinregularfont,Englishinbold,



9

Portugueseunderlined,GermaninboldeditalicsandArabiciswritteninArabicscript[8].

Englishtranslationsareprovidedinitalics.Explanatorycommentsareindicatedincurly

brackets.ThetranscriptionconventionsfortheextractscanbefoundintheAppendix.

5. Howtobuildonmultilingualrepertoires?

Thisanalyticalsectionexploressomeofthemultilingualinteractionalpracticesthatteachers

andlearnersengagedintomakethemselvesunderstoodandachievetheirlanguagelearning

goals.TherecordingsandethnographicobservationsshowedthatFrench,EnglishandArabic

werethemostcommonlyusedlanguageresourcesintheclassroom[9].French,apartfrom

beingthetargetlanguageofthecourse,appearedtobeavaluablecommunicativeresourcein

themeaning-makingprocess,asshownintheexcerptsbelow.Duringtheinitialsessions

observedinFebruary2016,thetwolanguageteachers,MarieandMarianne,followed

differentpedagogicalstrategiesforsupportinglanguagelearninginthismultilingual

environment.Inherefforttoprovidemaximumlinguisticinput,Marieinsistedthatboth

teachersspeakpreferablyFrenchonly,whileMariannesawtheuseofEnglishasanabsolute

necessityatthebeginning.Anexplanationforthisdiscrepancybetweentheirviewsonhowto

approachamultilingualclassroomcouldbefoundintheirdifferentprofessionaltrajectories

andideologiesaboutlanguageteaching.Talkingaboutherexperience,Mariannealsonoted

thedifferenceandexplainedtheinitialclassroompracticesasfollows:

AtthebeginningitwasgoodwithmyEnglish,itreallyreallyhelped,thatIwashere,because

Mariedidn’twanttospeakEnglish.[…]AndthevernacularlanguagestillhastobeEnglish.But

otherwise,whentheyaremoreoftenhere,wedomuchlessEnglishnow.Wearetryingtodo

everythinginFrench.

ThepositioningofEnglishasvernacularlanguageisnotunusualincontextsofL2teachingfor

immigrants,particularlyinLuxembourg.Inourview,thestrategyoftranslatingintoEnglish

workedwellwithsomelearners,butprovedtobeinsufficientwithothers.Althoughboth

teachersconfirmedthatmostifnotalllearnerswithinthegrouphad‘someknowledge’of

English–accumulatedthroughformalschoolingand/orinformalchannelsoflearning–the

resourcestheyhadwerenotinallinstancessuitableformetalinguisticreflectionorthe

clarificationofexactmeanings.Forsomelearners,thecontentsandexplanationsweremore

accessibleinFrench,despitelimitationsoftheA1level,arguablyduetothelanguageexposure

theyhadexperiencedsincearrivinginLuxembourgand/ortheiruniquelanguagebiographies.

Forinstance,inhislearningprocess,RamoftenreferredtoPortugueseexpressionshehad

learnedfromhisnewneighboursinLuxembourg,whohappenedtobeLusophones.

Interestingly,partofthegroupsawMarianne’spresenceasanopportunitytoimprovetheir



10

English:paralleltotheirlearningtasksinFrench,theselearnersoftendiscussedwithher

questionsandconcernsrelatedtoEnglishvocabularyaswell.

GiventhatmostofthegroupcamefromArabic-speakingcountries,thepresenceof

Arabicateachstepofthelearningprocesswasnosurprise.Exceptfortheasylumapplicants

fromtheBalkans,Arabicwaseitherthelearners’mothertongueorthelanguageoftheir

formalschooling.Thisexplainswhytheoverwhelmingpartofexchangesbetweenthelearners

occurredinthislanguage,includingmetalinguisticreflections,translations,discussionsofhow

toaccomplishthetasksandconversationsbeyondthecoursecontents.Itwasmainlythemore

advancedlearners,particularlythelearnersfluentinEnglish,whoassumedtheroleof

mediators,providingtranslation,explanationorclarificationwhereneeded.AccordingtoRam,

wheneveraconceptwasnotunderstoodinFrench,thegroup‘pushedtheteachertosayitin

English’,andthosewhothenmanagedtograspitsmeaningtranslatedittoArabic,which

madethe‘processoflearningmuchmorefluidandmuchmorecomfortable’.

Astotheteachers,neitherMarienorMariannereportedanyknowledgeofArabic

besidessomewell-knownwordsandphrases.Nevertheless,acloserlookatthedatarevealed

severalinstancesinwhichMariedidhaveadequateresourcesandreceptivecompetenceto

followthenegotiationofmeaningsinArabicandconfirmthecorrectnessofthetranslation

agreedonbetweenthelearners.Whenaskedaboutthis,Marieexplainedthatshehad

formerlyworkedinthesuburbanareasofLilleandParis,teachingmostlypupilsfromNorth

Africa.ShealsorememberedsomewordsandexpressionsfromhertravelstoSyria,Jordan

andLebanon.ThisexampleechoesBlommaertandBackus’(2011)viewonrepertoires:

differentlearningmodes,includingbrieforinformalencounterswithlanguages,leadto

differentdegreesofknowledge.AsMarie’scasewellillustrates,evenverylimitedresources

havetheirplace,functionandaboveallpotentialwithinaspeaker’srepertoire.

Itisworthmentioningthatthecomparisonofdatacollectedthroughoutthecourse

revealedsomechangesinthepatternsofinteractionovertime.Atthebeginning,theteachers’

choiceswerelimitedtotheuseofFrenchand/orFrench–Englishtranslations(sporadically),

whilstthelearners’linguisticandculturalresourceswereintroducedgraduallytothe

classroom.Anincreasinglybetterunderstandingoftheasylumseekers’backgroundenabled

MarieandMariannetoadoptamorepersonalisedapproachthattookaccountofeach

learner’slanguagebiographyandbuiltonhis/herresources.Theclassenvironmentthus

becamemorecommunication-friendly,asillustratedbytheexamplesbelow.

InworkingwithMannanandtheotherlearnerswhohadagood(receptive)command

ofEnglish,French–Englishtranslationwasanefficientstrategytoachieveshared

understanding.Incontrast,theasylumapplicantswhoshowedmoreadvancedknowledgeof



11

thecoursecontentspreferredreformulationsandparaphrasinginFrench.Learnerswho

claimedtohavenoknowledgeofEnglishexceptforafewwordsandsetexpressions,asdid

Ram,forexample,reliedstronglyonexplanationsprovidedbytheirpeersinArabic.Those

membersofthegroupwhohadstrongreceptivecompetencesinFrenchand/orEnglishwere

usuallytheonesassumingtheroleofmediatorsbetweentheteachersandtherestofthe

group.Inourobservations,theselearnersfeltmoreempoweredandconfidentinother

situationsoflanguagelearningaswell:forexample,PatrickwasdescribedbyhisGerman

teacherashavingverygoodcommandofbothEnglishandFrench.Establishingcomparisons

betweenFrenchandthelearners’mothertongue/otherlanguagesintheirrepertoiresfurther

exemplifiestheplethoraofresourcespresentintheclassroom.Learnersandteachers

searchedregularlyforsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthedifferentlanguagecodesin

ordertoenhancethelearningprocess.TheextractbelowillustrateshowMarie(Mar),Ram

(Ra)andMannan(Man)negotiatedthemeaningoftheFrenchadjective‘humide’usingits

Englishequivalent:

Extract1:‘LamêmechoseinEnglish’

01 Mar En ce moment au Luxembourg le temps est HUMIDE. Right now in Luxembourg the weather is humid.

02 D’accord ? Alright?

03 Ra Eh ::: comment (xxx) 04 {stretch of unclear talk in Arabic} 05 Man [La même chose in English]

[The same as in English] 06 Mar oui oui humid (-) oui

yes yes humid (-) yes

French - regular font, English - bold, English translation- italics

Theuseofthevariouslanguageresourceswithintheclassroomwasnotasstructured

asitmightappear.Forinstance,Frenchwordsandexpressionsemergedinallinteractions,

regardlessofwhetherthemajorityofthecommunicationwastakingplaceinEnglish,Arabicor

otherlanguages.Thiswasmainlyduetothenatureoftheactivitiesobserved,thatis,

accomplishmentoftasksaimedatthedevelopmentofspokenandwrittenskillsinFrench.In

thefollowingexample,Marianne(Ma)washelpinganasylumapplicantfromSyria(Aa)to

completeanexerciseinwriting.Thetaskwastotransformtheexamplesentencesinto

questions.

Extract2:‘Sothequestionis’

01 Ma so (2.1) il est très sympatique so (2.1) he is very nice

02 so the question is



12

03 est (---) EST-CE QU’il est [très sympatique] is (---) is he [very nice]

04 Aa [très (xxx)] [very (xxx)]

05 Ma IS he nice?

06 yes he is very nice 07 (6.5) ((Aa writes down the response)) 08 très bien

very well 09 okay

French - regular font, English - bold, English translation- italics

Inthisshortsequence,MarianneclearlyusesEnglishtocommunicatewiththelearnerand

switchestoFrenchonlywhenreadingtheexamplesentence(line1)andgivingthecorrect

solution(line3).Afterwards,shecontinuesinEnglish,offeringatranslationofthephrasesthat

appearedintheexercise.Althoughsimilarexchangesshowsomefeaturesoftranslanguaging

practices,wedonotnecessarilyanalysethemassuch.Frenchlexicalitemshereseemtoserve

askeywordsborrowedfromthelinguisticinputteachersandlearnersworkwith.Similaritems

donotformpartofthelearners’‘inventory’ofresources,theyarenotyetentrenchedintheir

minds.

Theseinteractionalmechanismsdiffer,inourview,fromtheextractspresentedbelow,

whichareconsideredtobeexamplesoftheflexible(re)combinationofresourcesinthe

speakers’communicativerepertoires.Theseextractsformpartofasequencerecordedduring

asessioninMay2016.Thethreeresearchparticipantsinvolvedintheinteractionwere

Marianne,PatrickandRam.Asexplainedearlier,theinteractionalmechanismsareanalysed

bearinginmindtheoverallinterviewdataandthecontextualcluesfromtheresearcher’sfield

notes.Inthefirstextractbelow,Patrick(Pa)approachesMarianne(Ma)toseekheradviceon

howtoengageinsmalltalkwiththesecurityguardattherefugeehomehelivesin.He

introducesthetopicbyenactingthesituation:heimpersonatestheguardwhousuallygreets

himwitha‘Howareyoutoday?’inFrench.

Extract3:‘Commentallez-vous?’ 01 Pa The person at the security (---) 02 aujourd’hui aujourd’hui

today today 03 how are you how are you? 04 Ma Oui ::

Yes :: 05 Pa Mais I say (tu) (tu) ((pointing)) ((laughs))

But I say (you) (you) 06 Ma Ah : okay okay comment allez-vous ?

Ah : okay okay how are you?



13

07 d’accord d’accord (2.3) alright alright

08 Bon (-) alors (---) le plus facile tu peux dire Well the easiest thing you can say is

09 Je ne comprends pas I do not understand

10 Mais il ne faut pas dire Je ne pas bien. But you shouldn’t say not well

11 Pa Pas compris. Not understood.

12 Ma Je n’ai pas compris, je ne t’ai pas compris. I didn’t understand, I didn’t understand you.

French - regular font, English - bold, English translation - italics

Toformulatehisrequest,PatrickuseswordsthatareconventionallylabelledasEnglish(lines1

and3)andFrench(line2);however,inhisutterances,hemakesfluidshiftsbetweenthese

resources.Marianne’sresponsessignalunderstanding(oui,okay,d’accord),whichconfirms

thatthewayPatrickstructurestheinformationmakescompletesenseunderthespecific

circumstancesinwhichtheinteractionunfolds.Itcanbearguedthatthemultilingualmodewe

observehereisaneffectiveresponsetoPatrick’slocallysituatedcommunicativeneeds.

Obviously,Patrick’sgestures,mimicandmovementsarealsoimportantelementsofthe

meaning-makingprocess,suggestingthatarangeofverbalandnon-verbalresourcesfromhis

communicativerepertoireisbeingdeployed.

ItmustbenotedthatPatrickisoneoftheresearchparticipantswhohasaverygood

commandofEnglish.Asmostoftheinteractionsbetweenhimandtheresearcher(including

theinitialinterview)tookplaceinthislanguage,thereisnodoubtthathewouldhavehadthe

resourcestoexpresshimselfusinglexicalitemsandsyntacticstructuresthatfallintothe

categoryofstandardEnglish.Yet,hereheoptsfortranslanguagingasevidencedbythefluid

movesbetweendifferentsetsofbothlinguisticandnon-verbalresources.Thischoicecanbe

explainedinseveralways.Althoughtheformalpartoftheclassisoverandtherearethusno

expectationsofPatricktotalkinFrench,itseemsreasonabletoinferthathewishesto

continuewithhislanguagetraining.Atthemomentoftherecording,hisresourcesdonot(yet)

permithimtoformulatehisthoughtsin‘pure’French,sohedrawsuponadditionalresources

entrenchedinhismind.Byintroducingsomewords(lines2and5),however,hesuccessfully

leadsMariannetorespondtohiminFrench,offeringalistofusefulexpressions(lines9,10

and12)thatPatrickcouldapplytolethisinterlocutorsknowthathedoesnotunderstand

whatisbeingsaid.Thesmoothcourseoftheinteractionsuggeststhattranslanguaging

practicesdonotdisrupttheflowofcommunication:noneoftheresearchparticipantsmarks

themasnonstandardordeficientusages.Anotherexplanationforthisinteractionalstrategyis



14

toseePatrick’schoicetoemploywhateverresourcesareathisdisposalasanexpressionofhis

emergingidentityasamultilinguallanguageuser.Asstatedearlier,Luxembourgersare

claimedtoexcelatmovingfreelybetweenlanguages.ForPatrick,whoisanewcomerin

Luxembourg,similarinteractionalmechanismsthusseemlegitimate.Accordingtohiswords,

hehasrepeatedlyobservedtheminreal-lifelanguageuse.Theymightevenappeardesirable

inordertoapproximatewhatheperceivestobethenormofcommunicationintheGrand

Duchy.Hence,translanguagingnotonlydrawsonbutalsotransformslearners’communicative

repertoires.

Thisexplanationisinlinewiththepatternsthatwererepeatedlyobservedinthe

writtenmessagesPatrick(Pa)exchangedwiththeresearcher(Re)throughamessaging

applicationtoagreeonthedatesandactivitiesforethnographicobservation:

Example1:‘L’allemagne’

01 Pa ok 02 i will wait for you in hamilius

03 Re thank you :)

04 Pa i hope you get there in time

05 quand apret tu vient dite moi svp when after you come tell me pls

06 😀 07 Re ok, I’ll text you when I’m 10 min from Hamilius ;)

08 Pa sag mir , nachdem du hier bist tell me when you are here

09 👀 l’allemagne

👀 germany 10 Re 👍

French - regular font, English - bold, German - bolded italics,

English translation - italics

Inthisbriefwritteninteraction,Patrickfollowssimilartranslanguagingpractices(lines

4,5and8)asoutlinedabove.Theexchangetookplaceafewweeksafterhehadenrolledina

Germancourseforbeginnersandhewasalreadyincorporatingsomeofthenewly

accumulatedresourcesintohislanguageproduction(sagmir,nachdemduhierbist).Giventhe

structureandcomplexityofthephrase,Patrickmostlikelyusedmachinetranslationto

formulatehisthoughts.Nevertheless,thewordingofthemessagealreadyshowsapositive

attitudeandawishtoincludeGermanintohiscommunicativerepertoire.Thisisfurther

reinforcedinline9,wherehepointsoutthatheisnowmessaginginGermanaswell.As

shownhere,thelanguagesofthereceivingsocietyformanintegralpartofthelearner’s

everydayexperiencesandareusedforfunctionalpurposesfromthefirstdayonward.Patrick’s



15

deploymentofmultilingualcommunicationpracticesisalignedwiththeinitiallanguage

learninggoalshesetforhimself:

EverylanguageifyoujustlearntwentypercentIthinkyoucansurvive,notreallytorealizethe

wholelanguage,justalittlebit,Ithinkit’senough.

Hisapproach,despitebeingexplainedintermsofpercentagesofknowledge,resemblesthe

ideasofresourcefulnessandrepertoire-buildingputforwardbyCanagarajahandWurr(2011).

Asitwillbedemonstratedlater,heandsomeothermembersoftheclassnotonlydeploy

resourcesthatarelabelledasbelongingtoseparatelanguages,buttheyactivelydrawonthe

lexicalandstructuralfeaturestheselanguagesshare.

Returningnowtotheanalysisoftheaudio-recordedinteraction,thesubsequentpart

oftheexchangebetweenPatrickandMarianneshowsquestion–answerturnsonhowto

indicatenegationinFrench:

Extract4:‘Pascompris’

01 Pa Je facile pas compris ? I easy not understood ? {meaning: Can’t I simply say ‘pas compris’?}

02 Ma Hm :: ça c’est pour les bébés Hm :: that is for children

03 les bébés pas compris pas compris children say not understood not understood ((imitates a child’s voice)) ((laughs))

04 pas comme bébés (--) no no no no no not like children (--) no no no no no

05 <JE N’AI PAS COMPRIS> I did not understand

06 Pa No compris ? No understood

07 Ma Ah : c’est pire ((laugh)) Ah this is worse

08 ça c’est pour l’espagnol it’s Spanish

French - regular font, English translation - italics

Afterhavingbeengivenexamplesforhowtoexplaintotherefugeehome’ssecurityguardthat

hedoesnotunderstandhim(jenecomprendspas,jen’aipascompris),Patrickputsforward

differentpropositionsheassumesconveytheverysamemeaningasMarianne’ssuggestions:

pascompris(line1),nocompris(line6).Hispropositionsareconsidered‘incorrect’according

toestablishedconventions,aspointedoutbyMariannewhensheascribes‘pascompris’tothe

speechofinfantsandindexes‘nocompris’asbelongingtotheSpanishlanguage.Itis

noticeablethatMarianne’sturnsherearecharacterisedbyexpressivegesturingandlanguage



16

use(lines3,4and7)aswellasaslowerpaceofdeliveryandmarkedstress(line5).These

salientfeaturescanbeinterpretedasMarianne’sattempttoadjusttoPatrickreducingthe

communicativedifferencebetweenthem.Atthispoint,Patrickhasaratherlimitedsetof

resourcesinFrench,butheisactivelyusinghisnewlyacquiredknowledgetoachievehis

communicativeaim.ItisworthnotingthatnativespeakersofFrenchwouldprobablyconsider

mostoftheutterancesthatPatrick,RamorMannanproduceas‘incorrect’[10].Althoughthe

researchparticipantsareawareofthisfact,theystillfeelempoweredtoemploythese

resources.Thissuggeststhattheirusesoflanguagearenotperceivedasdeficientbytheclass.

ItwasnotuncommonforPatricktoengageinexchangessimilartoExtract4.During

boththeclassesandtheinterview,heshowedstrongmetalinguisticawarenessandreflective

thinkingaboutlearning.Forinstance,whendescribingthepatternsofclassroominteraction,

hepointedoutthatMariannewashismainsourceoflinguisticinput,andhecommentedon

howthedeploymentofdifferentlanguageresourceshelpedhimtomakehimselfunderstood:

IdependonmadamMarianne,shespeakswithme,Ijustlistentoher,listentoher,andIask

herinEnglishwhatisthemeaningofthis,whatisthemeaningofthat?Tellmethis,this,this

[…]IcanspeakEnglishandFrenchabouttenpercent,it’snotthatmuchbutIcancommunicate

atleast...

ThetypologicalproximityofthelanguagesspokeninLuxembourghasbeenarecurringtopicin

hisdiscourseaswell.InPatrick’sview,thecommonstructuralandfunctionalpropertiesthese

languagessharewilltoalargeextentfacilitatehislanguagelearningprocess.Thisiswell

illustratedbythefollowingquote:

ForthelanguageshereI’vefoundoutthatGerman,FrenchandEnglishareneartoeachother,

ifyoulearnEnglishyoucanlearnFrenchandifyoulearnEnglishyoucanalsolearnGerman.

BecauselotofthingsyoufindintheFrenchlanguageyou’llfindineach[…]I’vefoundlotof

thingsthatIcouldnotfindinanothercountry,theyspeakPortuguesehere,alsoPortugueseis

neartoFrench,alot,it’sreallyconnected.Youseemaybethelanguagesdevelopbecauseof

thepeoplewhospeaktoomanylanguages.

SimilarreflectionsarepresentinMannan’sandRam’saccountsofthelanguagelearning

challengestheyarefacinginLuxembourg’smultilingualenvironment.Anexampleofhowthe

learnersstrivetobuildonthetypologicalproximityofthelanguagesintheirrepertoiresis

showninExtract6.

AftercloselyfollowingMarianneandPatrick’sexchange,Ram(Ra)intervenesinthe

conversationsuggestinganalternativewayofrespondingtotheguardinquestion.

Extract5:‘Pouvez-vousparlerplusdoucement?’



17

01 Ra Eh:: pouvez-vous eh: parler doucement ? Eh:: could you eh: speak slowly?

02 Ma Oui: très bien (--) pouvez-vous parler doucement ? Yes: very good (--) could you speak slowly?

03 PLUS DOUCEMENT More slowly

04 Ra Plus doucement More slowly

French - regular font, English translation - italics

Theexpressionheuses,pouvez-vousparler(plus)doucement,isaphrasethegrouplearneda

fewsessionspriortotheclasswhentherecordingwasmade.Thephrasewasmostlikely

automatised;however,thefactthatRam’spropositionispertinenttothediscussionsuggests

thathealreadyacquiredthelanguageresources,allowinghimtofollowtheconversationthat

tookplacebetweenMarianneandPatrickbefore.Itisclearevidenceofhislearningprocess.

Similarcircumstancesarebestdescribedassimplifiedreceptivemultilingualism.OnceRam

formulateshisthoughtsspontaneously,heswitchesbacktoArabic,asshowninthenext

extract.HereRam(Ra),Patrick(Pa)andMarianne(Ma)startco-constructingthephrase‘Could

youpleaserepeatitagain?’,whichisthelogicalcontinuationoftheimaginedconversation

withthesecurityguard.

Extract6:‘Porfavor’

01 Ma Parler (---) [pouvez-vous] Speak (---) [could you]

02 Ra [Pouvez-vous ::] [Could you::]

یعني من فضلك por favor بالبرتغالي یعني 03in Portugese por favor which means please

04 Ma s’il vous plait please

05 Ra ھاإّنك تعود إّنك ترجع تعیدھا مّرة ثانیة إعمل معروف أّنك تعید repetir Repetir means you need to say it again, say it again make me a favour and say it another time

Ra مّرة ثانیة another time

06 Pa (xxx)

07 Ra یھ yeah

08 parler (--) pouvez-vous من فضلك ترجع تعیدھا مرة ثانیة speak (--) could you please repeat it again

09 Pa repetir repeat

10 Ra انك ترجع تعیدھا مرة ثانیة you should repeat it again

من فضلك انك ترجع تعیدھا مرة ثانیة 11repeat it again please



18

12 Pa per favor

13 Ma Por favor (-) s’il vous plait Please (-) please

French - regular font, Arabic - Arabic script, Portuguese - underlined, English translation - italics

Asshowninline2,Rambeginshissentencewithpouvez-vous,copyingthestructureofthe

questionhelearnedduringtheprevioussessions(Pouvez-vousparlerplusdoucement?).When

hehitsanimpasseandhisresourcesdonotallowhimtocontinue(lines3and8),heswitches

fluidlytoArabictoexplainthewordsheissearchingfor.Whatiscompellingaboutthisextract

ishowRamdrawsonhisknowledgeofPortuguese.First,hedefinesinArabicthemeaningof

porfavor(line3),thePortugueseequivalentof‘please’.Presumably,heexpectstheFrench

expressiontobeofthesameLatinorigin.Althoughhisassumptionisnotcorrect,the

introductionofPortugueselanguageresourcesfacilitatesthemeaning-makingprocessasthey

enableMariannetoprovideanimmediatetranslation(line4):s’ilvousplait.Ramintroduces

anotherPortuguese-soundingword,repetir(line5),whichisreasonablycloseinformand

pronunciationtoitsFrenchequivalent:‘répéter’.Patrickpicksupbothwords(lines9and12),

despitethefactthatPortuguesedoesnotformpartofhiscommunicativerepertoire.Whenhe

returnstotheconceptofporfavor,pronouncedas/perfavor/,Mariannerealisesthather

previoustranslationwentunnoticedandrepeatsit,thistimemoreexplicitly(line13).The

conversationcontinuesinasimilarfashionuntilthegroupformulatesthecompletephrase.As

wehaveseen,interactantsoccasionallyuselanguageresourcesthatdonotformpartoftheir

interlocutors’activerepertoire.This,however,doesnotnecessarilyobstructorimpedethe

flowoftheexchange;quitetothecontrary,mutualunderstandingisachievedafterfewturns.

Asaresult,bothExtracts5and6documentreducedformsofwhathasbeendescribedas

receptivemultilingualism.

6. Discussion

Whilerecognisingthelimitationsofthisstudy,webelievetohaveprovidedsufficient

argumentstomaintainthattheintroductionofadditionallanguagestotheclassroomnotonly

transformedtheinteractionalmechanisms,creatingamoreparticipatoryandempowering

environment,butalsofacilitatedtheaccomplishmentoflearningtasks.Permittingthelearners

tousetheirfirstlanguage(s)/otherlanguagesfromtheirrepertoireenabledthemtoverify

theirunderstanding,organisetheirideasandchoosemoreprecisephrasingstoexplaintheir

thoughtstotheteachersandclass.Thus,informaltranslationsbecameavehicleforlearning,

asevidencedbythemanyinstancesoflearnersdrawingoneachother’sknowledge.Similarly,

thearticleprovidedanuancedviewofhowreceptivemultilingualismandtranslanguaging



19

weredeployedtoenhancemutualunderstanding.Foroutsiders,thewayinterlocutors

selectedandcombineddifferentresourcesmightseemchaotic,butitwastheverythingthat

allowedsomelearnerstogetinvolvedintheclassroomexchangesinthefirstplace.Thefact

thatthesemultilingualinteractionswereperceivedaslegitimateusesoflanguageshowsa

shiftawayfromadeficitmodeloflearnersandlearning.

Thegroupseemedtoembracetheaffordancesofmultilingualclassroompractices

withrelativeease.Thismightbeexplainedtosomeextentbythelanguagesituationlearners

andteachersexperienceonadailybasis:theuseofmultiplelanguageswithinasinglespeech

eventisrathercommoninLuxembourg.Inourview,thisfamiliaritywithmultilingualmodesof

communicationtranslatedintoclassroompracticetoacertainextent.Nonetheless,itwasstill

surprisinghowoftenteachersandlearnersdrewuponelementsfromlanguagestheyhadno

extensivecompetencein.Inthissense,theintroductionofmultiplelanguagescreateda

learningspacethathelpedthegrouptoseethelocallanguagesasnewfunctionalresourcesin

theirgrowingrepertoires.Thisinsightisofspecialimportanceincontextsofforcedmigration,

wherelearnersneedtobecomeusersofthelanguagestheyarelearningfromthefirstday

onward.Hence,thiscontributioncanbeseenasafirststeptowardsdefiningarepertoire-

buildingapproachthatwouldequiprefugeeswithadequateresourcestosuccessfullynavigate

locallifeinsocietieswheremultiplelanguagesareatuse.

Toconclude,thecommunicativeexchangesdocumentedinthisarticleallowedusto

makevisiblethediverseresourcesthatteachersandlearnersbroughttotheclassroom.The

examplesshownheredemonstratedhowmultilingualpracticessuchastranslation,

translanguagingandreceptivemultilingualismsupportedthemeaning-makingprocess,evenin

thosecaseswheretheinteractantshadveryfewresourcesineachother’slanguages.In

numerousinstances,thesepracticesprovidedanexcellentstartingpointforlanguagelearning,

beitintheformofmetalinguisticreflection,clarificationofexactmeanings,utilisationof

newlyacquiredskillsorlearnersmakingtheirvoicesheard.Whilethefindingsneedtobe

interpretedinlightofthesmallscaleofthestudy,theydoshedlightonsomeofthe

opportunitiesthatemergewithamultilingualorientation.Furtherresearchisneededto

investigatetowhatextentthetheorisationpresentedhereholdstrueinothercontextsand

moreadvancedlevels.Anotherpromisingresearchavenuecouldbetoexplorewhetherand

howmultilingualpedagogiescometobeacceptedandlegitimatedacrossavarietyof

educationalsettings.Thereisgrowingsupportforapproachesthatconsiderlanguageasa

resourceandpromotetheuseofcommunicativerepertoires:ausefulstepforwardwouldbe

toexaminethepossibleimplicationsforlanguagetestingandassessment,especiallyin

contextsofforcedmigration.



20

Endnotes

1.Luxembourg’slanguagesituationisnotdescribedindetailhere.Foracomprehensiveoverview,see

HornerandWeber(2008).

2.‘Researcher’herereferstotheauthorofthearticle.

3.CEFRlevelA1isthelowestlevelofgenerativelanguageuse:thepointatwhichlearnerscaninteract

inasimpleway,askandanswersimplequestionsaboutthemselves,andrespondtosimple

statementsinareasofimmediateneed.

4.Thecentre’steachers,MarieandMarianne,expressedawishtohavetheircontributionsrecognised

withtheirrealnames.Theasylumapplicantsoptedforpseudonymityandweagreedonaname

witheachofthemduringtheconsentprocess.

5.Atthebeginningofthecourse,13learnerswereenrolled,butclassattendancewasratherirregular.

Theasylumseekershadfrequentappointmentswithlawyers,socialworkersandauthorities,

whichpreventedthemfromattendingthesessionsasoftenastheywouldhavewishedto.The

irregularattendancehadmajorconsequencesfortheselectionofresearchparticipants:the

researchermanagedtoestablishtrustwithandrecruitonlythoselearnerswhocouldattendthe

classeswithhigherregularity.

6.Englishwasthemainlanguageofcommunicationwithmostoftheparticipants:Marianneisan

Englishnativespeaker;Marie,PatrickandMannanfeltcomfortableexpressingtheirviewsrelying

mostlyonEnglishlanguageresources.AlthoughquestionswereaskedinEnglish,Mariewas

offeredtheoptiontorespondinFrench,andMannanoftendrewonthehelpofhiscousin,who

wasalsopresentduringtheinterview:heexplainedtheresearcher’squestionsinArabicwhere

necessaryandtranslatedforMannanwhenhehaddifficultiesinexpressinghimselfinEnglish.

RamwasinterviewedinArabicwiththehelpofaresearchassistant,Yacine,whoassumedtherole

ofEnglish–Arabicinterpreter.Astothemode,consecutiveinterpretingwasagreeduponwiththe

interviewparticipants.AccordingtoYacine,therewereonlyafewinstanceswheredialectal

differencesbecamesalient;inthesecases,mutualunderstandingwasachievedthrough

paraphrasinginArabic.Translationsoftwareandmultimodalaids(pictures,maps,newspaper

articlesandvideos)wereusedonoccasionaswell,inparticularwhentheresearchparticipants

foundithardtoexpresstheirideasusingverbalresourcesonly.Animportantsourceofdatawas

informalinterviewsandbriefdiscussionswithresearchparticipants.Theseoccurredmostlyin

EnglishandFrench.ThequotationsincludedinthearticlewereallformulatedinEnglishbythe

researchparticipantsand/orthepersoninterpreting.Upontheparticipants’request,fillerwords,

falsestartsandirregulargrammaticalfeatureshavebeenremoved.

7.Intheprocessoftranscribing,weencountereddifficultiesindecidinghowtolabelcertainfeatures.

Forinstance,inExtract3line6,‘okay’couldhavebeenmarkedeitherasEnglishorFrench.Since

therestoftheutteranceisanalysedasFrench,wedecidedtoleavethewordinregularfontand



21

treatitasanitembelongingtotheFrenchlexicon.Thus,not-switchingisthedefaultoptioninthe

representationofthedataset.Thesamelogichasbeenfollowedinsimilarcases.InExtract6line

5,theword‘repetir’alsocreatessomeconfusion:onemightarguethattheresearchparticipant

hadinmindtheFrenchverbrépéter’oreventheEnglishequivalent‘repeat’.Thepronunciation

wasambiguous;hence,thedecisiontocategorisetheitemasaPortuguese-soundingwordwas

basedoncontextualclues.Someitemsweredifficulttoattributetoanylanguage.InExtract3line

5,PatrickpronouncessomewordsthatresembletheFrenchpersonalpronoun‘tu’,andwe

analysedthemassuch.Nevertheless,thesoundshepronouncedcouldhavebelongedtoa

differentlanguagesystemaswell.‘Perfavor’(Extract6line12)isaCatalanexpression;however,

bearinginmindthelanguagebiographiesoftheresearchparticipants,itwaslabelledasa

Portugueseitempronouncedwithanalteredpronunciation.

8.TheArabicsegmentsoftheexcerptsincludedinthisarticleweretranscribedandtranslatedinto

EnglishbyMalika.Inherview,thedialectsspokenbythetworesearchparticipants(Patrickand

Ram),whosevoicesareheardintherecording,areveryclosetoherJordaniandialect.The

transcriptionwasdonekeepinginmindthedialectalfeaturesofthevarietyspokenbythese

researchparticipants.ThetranscriptswerealsoproofreadforcorrectnessbytheotherArabic-

speakingprojectcollaborator.

9.AsaresultofthepresenceoflearnersfromAfghanistan,KosovoandMontenegro,otherlanguage

resourceswerealsointroducedtotheclassroom,thoughverysporadically.Noothermemberof

thegroupspokeorunderstoodthe(first)languagesoftheselearners;sothemainmediumof

communicationbetweenthemandtherestoftheclasswasmostlyEnglish.

10.Theextractscontainnumerouswordsandsyntacticconstructsthatwouldtraditionallybe

categorisedasincorrectorasbelongingtoa‘broken’variety.TheEnglishtranslationsare

approximationsaimedatrepresentingthesamestructuralfeaturesastheoriginalutterances.

Acknowledgements

Theauthorthankstheteachersandlearnerswhoseparticipationmadethisstudypossible.

TheauthorgratefullyacknowledgestheassistanceandsupportofSabineEhrhart,Malika

Shatnawi,NataliaBîlici,YacineChemssi,JuliadeBres,DorteLønsmannandMarkusRheindorf.

Disclosurestatement

Nopotentialconflictofinterestwasreportedbytheauthor.



22

References

Bailey,B.(2007).HeteroglossiaandBoundaries.InM.Heller(ed.),Bilingualism:asocial

approach(pp.257-276),Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Blommaert,J.&Backus,A.(2011).Repertoiresrevisited:‘Knowinglanguage’insuperdiversity,

WorkingPapersinUrbanLanguage&Literacies,67,1-26.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/Research-

Centres/ldc/publications/workingpapers/the-papers/67.pdf

Byram,M.&Hu,A.(eds.)(2013).RoutledgeEncyclopediaofLanguageTeachingandLearning.

Abingdon:Routledge.

Calis,E.&Dikilitas,K.(2012).TheUseofTranslationinEFLClassesasL2LearningPractice,

Procedia–SocialandBehavioralSciences,46,5079-5084.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.389

Canagarajah,A.S.&Wurr,A.J.(2011).MultilingualCommunicationandLanguageAcquisition:

NewResearchDirections,TheReadingMatrix,11(1),1-15.

Carreres,A.(2006).Strangebedfellows:Translationandlanguageteaching.Theteachingof

translationintoL2inmodernlanguagesdegrees:Usesandlimitations.In6th

SymposiumonTranslation,TerminologyandInterpretationinCubaandCanada–

December2006.http://www.cttic.org/ACTI/2006/papers/Carreres.pdf

Copland,F.&Creese,A.(2015).LinguisticEthnography.Collecting,AnalysingandPresenting

Data.London:SAGEPublications.

Cook,V.(2007).ThegoalsofELT:Reproducingnative-speakersorpromotingmulticompetence

amongsecondlanguageusers?InJ.CumminsandC.Davison(eds.),International

handbookofEnglishlanguageeducation1(pp.237-248),Norwell:Springer

Creese,A.&Blackledge,A.(2010).TranslanguagingintheBilingualClassroom.APedagogyfor

LearningandTeaching,TheModernLanguageJournal,94(1),103-115.doi:

10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x

Cummins,J.(2007).Rethinkingmonolingualinstructionalstrategiesinmultilingualclassrooms;

CanadianJournalofAppliedLinguistics,10(2),221-240.

deBres,J.(2014).Competinglanguageideologiesaboutsocietalmultilingualismamongcross-

borderworkersinLuxembourg,InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,

227,119-137.doi:10.1515/ijsl-2013-0091

Franziskus,A.&Gilles,P.(2012).‘Etlepräisdirectetikett?’Non-overlappingrepertoiresin

workplacecommunicationinLuxembourg,Sociolinguistica,26(1),58-71.

doi:10.1515/soci.2012.26.1.58



23

García,O.(2009).Bilingualeducationinthe21stcentury:Aglobalperspective.Oxford:Wiley-

Blackwell.

García,O.&LiWei(2014).Translanguaging:Language,BilingualismandEducation,

Basingstoke:Palgrave.

Gogolin,I.(1997).The“monolingualhabitus”asthecommonfeatureinteachinginthe

languageofthemajorityindifferentcountries,PerLinguam,13(2),38-49.

doi:10.5785/13-2-187

Gumperz,J.(2003).Interactionalsociolinguistics.Apersonalperspective.In:D.Schiffrin,D.

Tannen&H.Hamilton(eds.),TheHandbookofDiscourseAnalysis(pp.215-228),

Malden:Blackwell.

Jessner,U.(2006).Linguisticawarenessinmultilinguals:Englishasthirdlanguage.Edinburgh:

EdinburghUniversityPress.

Horner,K.(2015).LanguageregimesandactsofcitizenshipinmultilingualLuxembourg.

JournalofLanguageandPolitics,14(3),359-381.

Horner,K.&Weber,J.J.(2008).ThelanguagesituationinLuxembourg.CurrentIssuesin

LanguagePlanning,9(1),69-128.

Jørgensen,N.(2008).PolylingualLanguagingAroundandAmongChildrenandAdolescents,

InternationalJournalofMultilingualism,5(3),161-176.doi:

10.1080/14790710802387562

Jørgensen,N.,Karrebæk,M.S.,Madsen,L.M.&Møller,J.S.(2011).Polylanguagingin

Superdiversity,Diversities,13(2),22-37.

LeNevez,A.,Hélot,Ch.&Ehrhart,S.(2010).Negotiatingplurilingualismintheclassroom.InA.

LeNevez,Ch.Hélot&S.Ehrhart(eds.),PlurilinguismeetFormationdesEnseignants:

Uneapprochecritique(pp.5-21).Bern:PeterLang.

Lüdi,G.(2006).Multilingualrepertoiresandtheconsequencesforlinguistictheory.InK.Bührig

&J.DtenThije(eds.),BeyondMisunderstanding:Linguisticanalysisofintercultural

communication(pp.11-42).JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.DOI:

10.1075/pbns.144.03lud

Lüdi,G.&Py,B.(2009).Tobeornottobe…aplurilingualspeaker.InternationalJournalof

Multilingualism,6(2),154-167.doi:10.1080/14790710902846715

Otsuji,E.&Pennycook,A.(2010).Metrolingualism:fixity,fluidityandlanguageinflux.

InternationalJournalofMultilingualism,7(3),240-254.doi:

10.1080/14790710903414331



24

Rehbein,J.,TenThije,J.D.&Verschik,A.(2011).Linguareceptiva(LaRa)-remarksonthe

quintessenceofreceptivemultilingualism,InternationalJournalofBilingualism,16(3),

248–264.doi:10.1177/1367006911426466

Rymes,B.(2014).CommunicatingBeyondLanguage.EverydayEncounterswithDiversity,

London:Routledge.

Patton,M.Q.(2002).QualitativeResearchandEvaluationMethods.ThousandOaks:SAGE.

Statec(2016a).LeLuxembourgenchiffres.Luxembourg:Statec.

http://www.statistiques.public.lu/catalogue-publications/luxembourg-en-

chiffres/2016/luxembourg-figures.pdf

Statec(2016b).Populationparnationalitésdétaillées2011-2016.Luxembourg:Statec.

http://www.statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=12859&

IF_Language=fra&MainTheme=2

VanAvermaet,P.(2009).FortressEurope?Languagepolicyregimesforimmigrationand

citizenship.InC.Mar-Molinero&P.Stevenson(eds.),LanguageIdeologies,Policies

andPractice:LanguageandtheFutureofEurope(pp.15-43).Basingstoke:Palgrave

Macmillan.

Vetter,E.(2011).Exploitingreceptivemultilingualismininstitutionallanguagelearning:The

caseofItalianintheAustriansecondaryschoolsystem,InternationalJournalof

Bilingualism,16(3),348-365.doi:10.1177/1367006911426385



25

APPENDIX

TranscriptionConventions

(-) (--) (---) silencesupto1second

(1.0) silencesinseconds

[ ] overlappingspeech

((laugh)) paralinguisticfeaturesandsituationaldescription

(hello) stretchofuncertaintranscription

(xxx) stretchesofinaudible/uncleartalk

? risingintonationorquestion

yes. fallingfinalintonation

oui::: oneormorecolonsindicatelengtheningofthe

precedingsound;eachadditionalcolonrepresentsa

lengtheningofonebeat

NO largecapitalsindicateloudvolume

[…] ellipsis

< por favor> <…>indicatessloweddowndeliveryrelativetothe

surroundingtalk

towards a repertoire-building approach: multilingualism in ... · the diverse language resources...

Documents