Page 298 - Karmen Pižorn, Alja Lipavic Oštir in Janja Žmavc, ur. • Obrazi več-/raznojezičnosti. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut, 2022. Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes 44
P. 298
lism refer not to language use but to the properties and internal oper-
ations of the plurilingual mind. Proponents of what Cummins (in press)
calls Unitary Translanguaging Theory further claim that because bilin-
guals possess a unitary linguistic system, languages as traditionally con-
ceived – English, Hungarian, Japanese – are social constructs (“named lan-
guages”) that lack linguistic or cognitive reality. This argument flies in the
face of a large body of psycholinguistic research (Singleton, 2016), and it
is vulnerable to the charge of internal contradiction. If plurilinguals pos-
sess a unitary linguistic system and “named languages” have no cognitive
reality, what meaning can the term “translanguaging” itself possibly pos-
sess? The educational underachievement of minoritized students has long
been associated with societal power relations (Cummins, 1986), and ac-
cording to Unitary Translanguaging Theory, “named languages”, espe-
cially their standard varieties, are the principal instruments of oppression.
Scoil Bhríde’s teachers have never doubted the reality of “named languag-
es”, however, and have always treated English, Irish, French and EAL pu-
pils’ home languages as discrete entities. Their educational goal is to fos-
ter in their pupils the highest possible levels of literate proficiency in all the
languages in their repertoire; not to do so would be a betrayal of their pro-
fessional duty. They empower their pupils by encouraging them to use their
home languages in the classroom and engaging them in a learning pro-
cess that is grounded in dialogue. García (2018, p. 833) has claimed that the
Council of Europe’s concept of plurilingualism “ignores power imbalanc-
es between speakers of different languages”. Scoil Bhríde’s experience, how-
ever, suggests that the effective implementation of plurilingual education
depends precisely on ensuring an appropriate balance of power between
teacher and learners and among learners.
3.4 Language learning as socialization
Crosslinguistic Translanguaging Theory and the Council of Europe’s con-
cept of plurilingualism both imply an educational dynamic in which new
languages are learnt on the basis of and in relation to the language(s) learn-
ers already know. When classroom discourse is dialogic in the sense we
have defined and engages with similarities and differences between the
languages in the learners’ collective repertoire, language learning, learning
through language, and learning about language are integrated into a sin-
gle complex process; and the process is fed by pupils’ production and shar-
ing of texts in multiple languages. But the question remains, how does Scoil
298
ations of the plurilingual mind. Proponents of what Cummins (in press)
calls Unitary Translanguaging Theory further claim that because bilin-
guals possess a unitary linguistic system, languages as traditionally con-
ceived – English, Hungarian, Japanese – are social constructs (“named lan-
guages”) that lack linguistic or cognitive reality. This argument flies in the
face of a large body of psycholinguistic research (Singleton, 2016), and it
is vulnerable to the charge of internal contradiction. If plurilinguals pos-
sess a unitary linguistic system and “named languages” have no cognitive
reality, what meaning can the term “translanguaging” itself possibly pos-
sess? The educational underachievement of minoritized students has long
been associated with societal power relations (Cummins, 1986), and ac-
cording to Unitary Translanguaging Theory, “named languages”, espe-
cially their standard varieties, are the principal instruments of oppression.
Scoil Bhríde’s teachers have never doubted the reality of “named languag-
es”, however, and have always treated English, Irish, French and EAL pu-
pils’ home languages as discrete entities. Their educational goal is to fos-
ter in their pupils the highest possible levels of literate proficiency in all the
languages in their repertoire; not to do so would be a betrayal of their pro-
fessional duty. They empower their pupils by encouraging them to use their
home languages in the classroom and engaging them in a learning pro-
cess that is grounded in dialogue. García (2018, p. 833) has claimed that the
Council of Europe’s concept of plurilingualism “ignores power imbalanc-
es between speakers of different languages”. Scoil Bhríde’s experience, how-
ever, suggests that the effective implementation of plurilingual education
depends precisely on ensuring an appropriate balance of power between
teacher and learners and among learners.
3.4 Language learning as socialization
Crosslinguistic Translanguaging Theory and the Council of Europe’s con-
cept of plurilingualism both imply an educational dynamic in which new
languages are learnt on the basis of and in relation to the language(s) learn-
ers already know. When classroom discourse is dialogic in the sense we
have defined and engages with similarities and differences between the
languages in the learners’ collective repertoire, language learning, learning
through language, and learning about language are integrated into a sin-
gle complex process; and the process is fed by pupils’ production and shar-
ing of texts in multiple languages. But the question remains, how does Scoil
298
