Page 216 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 216
positive youth development in contexts
in the social hierarchy of languages between the weaker language and the
more dominant one. In education, the dominant language is the language
of instruction (i.e., the language of schooling), which is usually also the lan-
guage of school management. In many situations, the language of instruc-
tion is also the national language or an official regional language (i.e., the
majority language). There are also languages with the dominant connota-
tion that are a part of school curricula as additional languages (i.e., foreign
languages – modern and ancient) and are recognised as socially more pres-
tigious (Lambert, 1974) by the society and community due to various dif-
ferently motivated ends. The weaker language/s, on the other hand, is/are
usually the language/s of domestic communication (i.e., languages used at
home) as well as the language/s acquired in early childhood.
Within translanguaging practices, the weaker language formally at-
tains an equal (social) position as one of the constitutive languages in ed-
ucation and is explicitly designated and perceived as an asset (of the indi-
vidual and community) and not as a weakness, burden or impediment to
the pedagogical process and its actors. This circumstance holds profound
social justice implications for the education of bilingual students. Whereas
monolingual students are usually allowed the full use of their linguistic
repertoire in assessment and learning, bilinguals are seldom permitted to
do so, thereby keeping them silent and unengaged in teaching and assess-
ment activities (Garcia & Lin 2016, p. 6).
In this contribution, we want to reflect on the language context with-
in the PYD perspective mainly in terms of the societal and individual di-
mensions of multilingualism; thus, we use the terms multilingualism and
multilingual individuals generically while referring to the use of two or
more languages (including bilingualism).5 While referring to the specific
language competence of individual or educational/school approaches and
5 We are aware that many different terminologies about the languages that people
speak in different social situations establish relationships between individual lan-
guages a nd reflect value views on languages a nd language education. One of the
most common terminologies is L1, L2, L3 ... (i.e., first, second, third language) and
denotes a sequential order of acquisition terminology but becomes problematic in si-
multaneous bilingual or trilingual acquisition cases. Dewaele (2010) proposes a ter-
minology of L1 (the language of the first contact) and LX languages (languages of
the multilinguals learnt after an L1); others suggest »additional languages« for those
that are not connected to the initial socialisation of the speaker (Douglas Fir Group,
2016) or even reject the notion of L1 and L2 with the idea of the speaker’s linguis-
tic repertoire that consists of different features F(n) and belongs to the speaker’s one
(and not two) language system (Garcia & Wei 2014). In the article, we use the LI, L2
… LX notions while referring to the initial and additional languages.
216
in the social hierarchy of languages between the weaker language and the
more dominant one. In education, the dominant language is the language
of instruction (i.e., the language of schooling), which is usually also the lan-
guage of school management. In many situations, the language of instruc-
tion is also the national language or an official regional language (i.e., the
majority language). There are also languages with the dominant connota-
tion that are a part of school curricula as additional languages (i.e., foreign
languages – modern and ancient) and are recognised as socially more pres-
tigious (Lambert, 1974) by the society and community due to various dif-
ferently motivated ends. The weaker language/s, on the other hand, is/are
usually the language/s of domestic communication (i.e., languages used at
home) as well as the language/s acquired in early childhood.
Within translanguaging practices, the weaker language formally at-
tains an equal (social) position as one of the constitutive languages in ed-
ucation and is explicitly designated and perceived as an asset (of the indi-
vidual and community) and not as a weakness, burden or impediment to
the pedagogical process and its actors. This circumstance holds profound
social justice implications for the education of bilingual students. Whereas
monolingual students are usually allowed the full use of their linguistic
repertoire in assessment and learning, bilinguals are seldom permitted to
do so, thereby keeping them silent and unengaged in teaching and assess-
ment activities (Garcia & Lin 2016, p. 6).
In this contribution, we want to reflect on the language context with-
in the PYD perspective mainly in terms of the societal and individual di-
mensions of multilingualism; thus, we use the terms multilingualism and
multilingual individuals generically while referring to the use of two or
more languages (including bilingualism).5 While referring to the specific
language competence of individual or educational/school approaches and
5 We are aware that many different terminologies about the languages that people
speak in different social situations establish relationships between individual lan-
guages a nd reflect value views on languages a nd language education. One of the
most common terminologies is L1, L2, L3 ... (i.e., first, second, third language) and
denotes a sequential order of acquisition terminology but becomes problematic in si-
multaneous bilingual or trilingual acquisition cases. Dewaele (2010) proposes a ter-
minology of L1 (the language of the first contact) and LX languages (languages of
the multilinguals learnt after an L1); others suggest »additional languages« for those
that are not connected to the initial socialisation of the speaker (Douglas Fir Group,
2016) or even reject the notion of L1 and L2 with the idea of the speaker’s linguis-
tic repertoire that consists of different features F(n) and belongs to the speaker’s one
(and not two) language system (Garcia & Wei 2014). In the article, we use the LI, L2
… LX notions while referring to the initial and additional languages.
216
