Multilingualism and Multicompetence: A Conceptual View

Multilingualism and Multicompetence: A Conceptual View RITA FRANCESCHINI Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Language Study Unit 39100 Bozen-Bolzano South Tyrol, Italy Email: rita.franceschini@unibz.it The overall aim of this article is to argue that the functioning of every language system is based on a potential multilingual competence. The empirical basis for this is now broad enough to gain a comprehensive view on the overall competence of a multilingual individual. Moreover, increasing theoretical reflection has conferred an increasingly independent profile in the field of multilingualism research. In the main part of this article, a definition of multilingualism is proposed and related to the term “multicompetence.” The proposed definition of multilingualism, emerging from sociolinguistically rooted studies, distinguishes not only the classical social, institutional, and individual dimensions of observation but includes a new interaction dimension as well. The term “multicompetence” is then discussed in its historical development form on which psycholinguistics oriented studies. The European LINEE project tries to enlarge the concept of multicompetence with the aim of making it suitable for a sociolinguistic embedding. This usage-based approach is presented and further claims for more conceptual reflections in the field of multilingualism are made. THE TERM “MULTILINGUALISM” HAS established itself over the past two decades in linguistics. It is widely used and describes the various forms of social, institutional, and individual ways that we go about using more than one language. Included are not only varieties such as national languages but also regional languages, minority languages, migrant languages, sign languages, and, in the broadest sense, dialects. The area of research is extensive and seems to be increasingly expanding; it is now time to clarify the definition of multilingualism and multicompetence. This contribution has a conceptual vein; nevertheless, it is grounded on direct empirical research, worked out mainly in the European research network LINEE (Languages in a Network of European Excellence).1 The main aim of the present article is to combine the concept of multilingualism, which is more rooted in The Modern Language Journal, 95, iii, (2011) DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01202.x 0026-7902/11/344–355 $1.50/0  C 2011 The Modern Language Journal sociolinguistics, with the term multicompetence, which originally arose within a psycholinguistic context. Before the second section, a few premises on the approach and an outline of the change in perspective that has favored the emergence of research into multilingualism should be provided. In the second section, a definition of multilingualism is proposed and discussed, as is the concept of multicompetence. Then an extension of the concept of multicompetence will be presented, which has been developed within the research network LINEE. It will be shown that this extended understanding of multicompetence allows a coherent incorporation into the sociolinguistic framework. PREMISES If, with hindsight, one tries to create a definition for the term multilingualism, one has to inevitably examine its multiple status and the meanings connected with it: On the one hand, multilingualism describes an intrinsically social Rita Franceschini 345 way of life and cultural practice, which comes into being via the use of language in interaction and its access through cognitive processing; on the other hand, there is an actual sociopolitically driven interest connected with the term, alongside huge public attention to this topic over the last few decades. The complete decoupling of these sides is not possible, nor does it make sense. There are therefore three premises, which are provided in the following subsections. peared to be nearly nonexistent or a disturbing factor. Of course, multilingualism existed in spite of it all. Nowadays, it can be clearly said that research has often idealized away the existence of multilingualism, along with all multilingual practices. With another look, we literally “dis-cover” multilingualism under other premises as if it were new, yet it is rooted in history (see Franceschini, in press). Multilingualism Is Doubly Natural The Current Social Interest in Multilingualism Is Part of a Change in Perspective If we think of a person as a social being, then it is obvious that contact with other people and, in particular, language contact is likely to happen. The naturalness and inevitability of language contact—in the sense of its “unmarkedness”— is demonstrated by the fact that it can only be hindered with great effort. People contact is “socially natural,” fundamental, and indispensable for the development of language skills. Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that language skills are biologically part of every individual and can be developed in many ways. Therefore, multilingualism demonstrates a doubly natural phenomenon: The social and cultural shaping of multilingualism is in its own way just as “natural” as the biological basis. The Historic Foundation of Multilingualism The European cultural area, perhaps not as deeply as others, has been multilingual for centuries, even though this has not been noticed and has eluded scientific observation for a long time.2 Reasons for this issue could lie in a period romanticizing the nation state, with origins in the 17th and 18th centuries, during which the unity of the people under one language was the prevailing way of thinking (occasionally it still is) and which then indirectly influenced the blossoming humanities. Linguistic theories developed in the 19th and 20th centuries arose from the prevailing tendency toward language unity, and, therefore, in our opinion, unnatural premises, such as homogeneity and separateness. Multilingual practices were parallel and ongoing in all these periods, as they were necessary for cultural transfer and the development of trade (Adams, 2003). These practices were, from time to time, so obscured, suppressed, and (via the prevailing monolingual mentality) so blotted out that they escaped the notice of researchers at the time. From this view, research into multilingualism could not (and still occasionally cannot) legitimately be undertaken, as it ap- Multilingualism as a positive phenomenon has entered the public eye more and more over the last few decades and has received targeted promotion. To give an example, the European Union has set itself the goal of promoting two languages in addition to the first language using various measures.3 European citizens should be able to become trilingual in the future. Despite all resolutions, the implementation of this philosophy is hampered by a somehow “diglossic” view in Europe using and learning English as a preferred second language. The diffusion of the term multilingualism is connected with an ongoing change in perspective in society. This has been largely brought on by the following: 1. An increased sensibility toward diversity and thus a departure from assumptions of homogeneity; 2. The evidence of the variety of language phenomena based on increased waves of migration over the past 50 years. In research, the term multilingualism is nowadays of the utmost importance in forming a comprehensive bracketing of interests, which over the past few decades have been driven forward with various methodologies (Li Wei & Moyer, 2008). Multilingualism is not a completely new research topic. The term sometimes stands for an extended view of the earlier research into bilingualism and second language acquistion (SLA; De Angelis, 2007). This extended view is part of a long tradition of research into bilingualism and today concerns various disciplines in linguistics, such as sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics, research into language acquisition (L1, L2, Ln) and language contact especially, as well as translation studies, and it has repercussions for foreign language teaching (for an overview, see Auer & Li Wei, 2007). 346 A DEFINITION OF MULTILINGUALISM WITH A FOURTH DIMENSION If an expression has to be defined that has come to fruition in science, as well as in daily use, then the various connotations connected with it are either to be decoupled or have to flow into the definition. Due to the premises presented here, the latter way is taken and an attempt to integrate the social relevance of multilingualism in its definition is made. Taking these premises into account, it appears necessary to combine scientific requirements, historic appropriateness, and a social view to develop the term multilingualism further. Due to the aforementioned considerations, a dynamic, usage-based, and culturally rooted definition of multilingualism is proposed (see also Franceschini, 2009, pp. 33–34). The novelty of this approach can be seen in the introduction of a particular dimension, which pays more attention to multilingual behavior in groups and will be labeled “discursive multilingualism.” Definition of Multilingualism Multilingualism conveys the ability of societies, institutions, groups, and individuals to have regular use of more than one language in their everyday lives over space and time. Language is impartially understood as a variety that a group admits to using as a habitual communication code (regional languages and dialects are also included, such as sign languages). In observing multilingual practices, it is possible to distinguish societal, institutional, discursive, and individual multilingualism. Multilingualism is based on the fundamental human ability to be able to communicate in several languages and it describes a phenomenon embedded in cultural developments. Therefore, it is marked by high cultural sensitivity. “Language” is understood here as a variety that a group adopts as a habitual way for communication. A group (an institution or society) can also habitually use several varieties. Dialects (as area varieties) are included here as important identifying codes. Like other varieties, they are part of the multilingual repertoire. In the formulation of the definition of multilingualism, the identification of the habitual variety used is deliberately given an “emic” component (a language group is taken seriously in its “right to self-determination” with respect to its code[s]) and thereby includes identity aspects and attitudes as well. Language attitudes are The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) collectively historically shaped and can also be politically co-determined (one thinks of, e.g., the south Slavic region with its new or retro definitions of varieties and languages). Attitudes are known as powerful variables that co-determine the development of multilingual language use (e.g., negative attitudes can hamper language acquisition, power relations can influence individual opinions, and so on). Therefore, attitudes also have to be seen as central (Jenkins, 2008). With such an emic point of view on language varieties, language experts put their ready-made scholastic knowledge to one side up to a certain point (but they do not give it up!) to allow for the fact that things that can be seen as being similar from a structural or typological point of view can, in a communication culture, be perceived as being completely different. Discussion of Aspects of the Definition In the discussion about bilingualism, normally three levels—not four, as proposed here—have been distinguished: social, institutional, and individual (see, e.g., Lüdi, 1996a, 1996b). The first level was born out of a macro view of multilingualism: Societies such as the Swiss or the Belgian are defined as bilingual or multilingual because of the existence of consistent historical language groups. At an institutional level, almost implicitly, the practices of institutions as bodies (as expressed in official documents of companies, for instance) or taking place in institutions (e.g., doctor–patient communication in hospitals) are placed together. At an individual level, people’s language competences and abilities are in the foreground. In the proposed definition, we are following this basic structure. It is succinct, even almost canonized. Nevertheless, it is not quite satisfactory on closer examination: There is an admittedly unavoidable overlap of qualitatively differing perspectives. Do the three distinctions point to the origin of the data in and from institutions? Is a view along the lines of a difference according to macro/meso/micro levels intended? In addition, methodological approaches have an unequal weight. Therefore, statistical, macrosociological methods are obviously being applied more often when observing societal multilingualism against microanalyses, used mainly on the discursive dimension proposed here.4 Despite these concerns, the division appears to make sense if the accompanying overlaps are monitored. However, it is more appropriate to speak of dimensions of multilingualism rather than of levels, which softens the illusory Rita Franceschini separation effect and allows combinations. In this sense, the four proposed dimensions are conceived of as positions when observing multilingual practices, like footing-points (the wording is inspired by Erving Goffman’s terms). The Fourth Dimension In the proposed definition, an additional fourth dimension concerning the investigation of both oral and written discourse is now made explicit. With discursive mutilingualism, the characteristics of bilingual and multilingual interactions in groups or dyads are in the foreground. This dimension can neither be placed in the dimension of “institution,” where it sometimes was placed, nor in the dimension of individual multilingualism. In contrast with the latter dimension, these analyses do not entail the competences or abilities of an individual but examine multilingual practice along with the construction of sense in dialogue. One thinks of the numerous globally documented studies on codeswitching, of conversations between native speakers and nonnative speakers, of the use of lingue franche, ethnolects, and the like. They are not easy to force into one of the three dimensions. One has to consider that in this dimension, the data come from mostly informal contexts. Even though these contexts can be macrosocially embedded, in the end the phenomenon cannot be adequately described in any of the other dimensions. The discursive dimension today displays an independent, now established point of view (in written and oral forms), which justifies an independent dimension of observation in addition to the other three. It puts interaction at the center and follows the common development of sense and form. The results and the degree of development of this approach suggest the need to make allowances for their qualitatively different view via an explicit nomination in the definition, as is proposed in the aforementioned definition. COMPETENCE AND MULTICOMPETENCE In addition to the overarching term “multilingualism,” a main conceptual problem concerns the term “competence.” The central question that many have asked is: Which competence term suits multilingual speakers and how should their language use be modeled?5 The term “competence” had, and still has, a central position in generativism, designating, 347 in mentalist terms, interiorized linguistic knowledge. Competence in Chomskian terms is thus concerned with the formal system of an ideal speaker-hearer. The term was also developed in parallel with sociolinguistics, for which the individual is conceived as a performing person involved in concrete, situationally embedded actions. From this view, it is in social interaction that competence in a language or in several languages can be best captured. Competence, in generativist terms, would then be only a restricted part of it. In the sociolinguistic paradigm of studies we follow here, the usage of variable forms to enact different functions is seen as a pervasive and nonerasable characteristic of language. The term “communicative competence” (Hymes, 1972), then, was developed to cover concrete usage in different situations, showing that the knowledge of grammatical rules alone does not make a person a competent (or native) speaker in the real world. Communicative competence can easily comprehend different and typologically distant varieties. In this way, the term is open to include multilingual competencies. These can be seen as an enlargement of the range of varieties a person can activate from his or her repertoire, and a repertoire, then, can be conceived of as the sum of experiences a person has (Hall, Cheng, & Carlson, 2006). In the wide field of SLA (developed in both previously mentioned paradigms), the necessity to explain the acquisition of several languages (in parallel or subsequently) and the growth of language abilites (in formal and/or informal settings) was central for many studies concerned with bilingual and multilingual competencies. In this respect, the concept of “interlanguages” was helpful to see how the systems of learners develop into more and more complex states by integrating ongoing new experiences (a leading influence was Larry Selinker). Interlanguages received an autonomous status, essentially because of the consistent regularities found in these varieties. In this paradigm of studies, language learners or acquirers are not just seen as failing to achieve the target language. They give this impression only when compared with idealized native speakers (as was the case in early studies in this field). Thus, the insights into the complex language structures of interlanguages eliminated an outdated view of language constructions. The way was opened for the observation of practices of different second-language (L2 or Ln) users. 348 Under these premises, the question about which competence term suits multilingual speakers and their social practice best arises in renewed terms. Competence has now to capture the flexible usage of several varieties, also between those that are considered different languages. This brings to mind the great work of the last decades on codeswitching, codemixing, and related phenomena (see Auer, 1999b; Muysken, 2000; Myers Scotton, 1993). It became more and more evident that bi- and multilingual speakers share characteristics that distinguish them from monolinguals, for example, codeswitching and translation. Also, transfer studies, at the beginning, mostly concerned with transfer from the first language (L1) to the L2, began to discover reverse influences from the third language (L3) to the L2 and the L1 (Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2001a, 2001b; Cook, 2003b). Today, it is evident that a highly debated term like “competence” or “communicative competence” has to cover multilingual usage and has to cope with the underlying dimensions as well as the cognitive ones (Franceschini, Zappatore, & Nitsch, 2003; Grosjean, Li, Münte, & RodriguezFornells, 2003) that this implies. One of the most promising concepts in this respect was multicompetence, brought out in the early 1990s and introduced first by Vivian Cook. A closer look at the development of the term, which will be examined in the next subsection, cannot avoid following the positions of its inventor more closely. This should not disregard the work in SLA and language contact studies, which formed the fruitful ground from which the term “multicompetence” grew. On the Term Multicompetence: Five Development Steps It is interesting to observe how the term “multicompetence” was developed in psycholinguisticand cognitive-directed branches of SLA in parallel to the emergence of a clearer idea of multilingualism in sociolinguistics. The term “multicompetence” was first made public in the early 1990s (Cook, 1992) in the formulation: “the compound state of a mind with two grammars” (Cook, 1991, p. 112). According to Cook, in the beginning, the term was used more out of convenience (Cook, 2003a). The concept of “interlanguage” had been established since the 1970s to describe the language competence of learners in their L2, but there was still no term to capture the competence of both—L1 together with L2. “Multicompetence” then described a type of “supersystem.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) The introduction of the term “multicompetence” began to bring up numerous questions: How can speakers fluently change from one language into another, like in codeswitching? How can they shut out one language while they are using another? How do they manage the two different phonological and pragmatic systems? On a cognitive level, does one access a common representation with the L1 when using the L2, or various separate ones, or are these all blended together? How can contrasting parameters be contained in one and the same person, or in their competence? Cook was subsequently one of the very convinced defenders increasingly committed to a departure from a view of the L2 system of the learner, which regards the learner of the L2 as invariably imperfect and never achieving perfection in the target language. As the L2 learner is mostly (consciously or subconsciously) compared with a native speaker,6 he or she will inevitably always come away from this comparison as constantly falling short of perfection, as an eternal learner, akin to Sisyphus. The competence of an L2 user should not be measured with that of a native speaker but should compare L2 competence with L2 competence. Hereby Cook (1997) criticized a prevailing methodological tradition in L2 research and, in doing so, explicitly highlighted the approach of Wolfgang Klein and Clive Perdue’s research group as being more than adequate.7 This European Science Foundation project was concerned with developmental steps gone through by individual learners (Klein & Perdue, 1992). Generalizable operation principles that the various learner varieties have in common were worked out. Interlanguages are treated as systems in their own right, even if they are not languages of a community. Overall, in the development of the term multicompetence, one can roughly identify five different stages, while a sixth is in the making: 1. In the first phase, as expressed earlier, “multicompetence” appears as an argument against Universal Grammar–oriented research into SLA, which ignores the problem of two coexisting grammars in one and the same mind (Cook, 1991). This first definition, “the compound state of a mind with two grammars,” caused misunderstandings due to the Chomskyan term “grammar,” however.8 To make it clear that it is not syntax in its narrowest sense that is meant, the definition was reformulated to the present-day one: “knowledge of two languages in one mind” (Cook, 2005a, p. 2). 349 Rita Franceschini A noteworthy substitution of the term “knowledge” with “coexistence” is found in the following definition: “Multicompetence refers to the coexistence of more than one language in the same mind” (Cook, 2005b, p. 1).9 It is also notable that from a formulation that refers to two languages, here “more than one” is used. The criticism with respect to the use of the native speaker as the only norm against which L2 competence should be measured appeared in the early 1980s and was reinforced later. A plea is made for “multicompetence in its own right,” as in the formulation of Cook (2005a, p. 3). To avoid unwelcome connotations, there is increasing talk of “language users” instead of “language learners,”10 and so with time, the reference to the native speaker as the locus of the language has become nearly irrelevant (Cook, 2005a, p. 3). 2. After this definition stage, there is, as a further development of the work, a broadening of perspective in which the transfer process is seen as a mutual influence between the L1 and L2 in both directions, as reverse transfer (Cook, 2003a). In a similar vein to Grosjean and Py (1991), Vivian Cook also emphasizes that “the L1 in the mind of an L2 user was by no means the same as the L1 in the mind of a monolingual native speaker” (Cook, 2005a, p. 4). Differences arise to the advantage of L2 users, such as the development of reading skills in their L1, written composition of essays in the L1, general diversified mental skills, analogical thinking (reasoning) and creativity, and so on (see the pioneers in this respect: Cook, 2005a, p. 4; Lambert, Tucker, & d’Anglejan, 1973). 3. In the 1990s, further interest in the cognitive dimensions of bilingual competences arose. The question was posed as to how language, thinking, and cultural influences were interconnected under the conditions of bilingualism and multilingualism. As perception is affected when learning another language, thought processes also seem to be affected during the acquisition of other languages. It is assumed that a changed perception in interaction with the newly acquired language is set up—learning languages changes thinking. Cook attached particular potential for development to this area of bilingual cognition research, which is based on work from the 1990s (see, e.g., Cook, 2005a). 4. In the course of these studies on multicompetence, it has become clear that the concept of the L2 user stands at the core as “any person who uses another language than his or her first language (L1), that is to say, the one learnt first as a child” (Cook, 2002, p. 1). The concept was, as briefly described earlier, initially created more for programmatic reasons so that one could confront the view that L2 learners were perpetual lifelong learners and instead give them equal status, just like that of a native speaker. According to the definition, by the consistent use of the term “L2 user,” every other language that the learner has not acquired as an L1 can be meant. A further internal differentiation (or differences between an L2 and an L3 and a fourth language acquired later) is not dealt with in the framework of Cook’s work. 5. The thought process of expanding multicompetence as a term to describe a basic ability of every person (i.e., as the “potential state of any human mind”; Cook, 2003a, s.d.), can be seen as the last development. What is of interest to us in this whole discussion about multicompetence is the fact that the competence term has significantly been broadened and increasingly incorporates the practical side of language usage. Today, when using the term “multicompetence,” there is no need for the particular demarcation dispute of generativism, as in the first phase described here. Research into the broad area of language acquisition and its accompanying practices has established itself in its own right, with more self-assurance. It is clear that multilingual use requires thorough analysis and will be more complex than we have been able to grasp through current theories. All in all, appearing to emerge from the last stage is the fact that the connection with sociolinguistic concepts is possible and, therefore, the concept of multicompetence is becoming compatible with the aforementioned definition of multilingualism. Criticism of the Term “Multicompetence” In the last subsection we followed the development of the term on the line of Cook’s writings. However, the ongoing discussion was richer than that (see, e.g., Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2003; Edwards & Dewaele, 2007; Genesee, 2002; Hufeisen & Lindemann, 1998; Kecskes, 1998), and the concept and its use received consistent criticism. The main criticisms are of two kinds. The first pertains to the lack of social embeddedness. One has to bear in mind that multicompetence was originally born out of a psycholinguistic and more generativist perspective, with some enlargements 350 in the course of its development, as was discussed previously. Still, the traces of a mentalist view are there, in accordance with the overall interest in formal aspects of the language system, even if, for example, bilingual acquisition is the object of analysis. Following naturally from the previously reported discussion, this lack of social embeddedness can be overcome in enlarging the range of the concept. This enlargement presupposes a sociolinguistic approach (e.g., a position that is anchored in language use and is not restricted to a mentalist interest). The second criticism is more fundamental and is convincingly exposed in Hall et al. (2006). The position can be subsumed under the heading of “radical usage-based position.” It considers multilingualism as a case of the underlying characteristics of the variability of language (Franceschini, 2003). In the terms of Hall et al. (2006), the language knowledge of multilingualism turns out to be “the inherent nature of all language knowledge” because all language knowledge is “socially contingent and dynamic” (p. 229). Therefore, multilingualism is only a special case of variable use, languages being separated ideologically, but not psycholinguistically (Hall et al., 2006). The authors put forward three main critiques to multicompetence-driven research: to assume that the L1 and the L2 knowledge are distinct and discrete systems; to assume that there are qualitative differences between monocompetence and multicompetence; and to assume homogeneous knowledge across speakers and contexts (although speakers and contexts vary across age, gender, social class, region, communicative habitus, etc.). Behind these assumptions, the monolingual speaker nevertheless reappears and is used, even involuntarily, as a valuable yardstick. Elaborating on this point, Hall et al. (2006, p. 224) argued that it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between multicompetence and monocompetence. A monolingual can be as dynamic and variable in his or her use of a language and can be in this theoretical sense also multicompetent in his or her own language, as a multilingual is. The two are just exploiting the inherent characteristic of language (variability) on the wider or smaller scale of languages they can use. Additionally, dynamism is not a characteristic inherent only in multilingualism—not only multilingual use is flexible and variable. The differences between multilinguals and monolinguals are, in Hall et al.’s (2006) terms, “not on number of languages, but on amount The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) and diversity of experience and use” (p. 229). To refer to highly skilled individuals, the authors suggest the term “multicontextual communicative expert” (p. 233). These individuals are highly experienced in a variety of communicative domains and have experiences in reacting in multiple communicative contexts. As we can see, the authors take a strong usagebased view on language knowledge, with its activity-sensitive nature. The basic language structure is based in concrete, historical contexts of language use (Hall et al., 2006, pp. 226–227). The differences among speakers are then to be seen not in the different number of languages they may use but on the “amount and diversity of experiences and use” (Hall et al., 2006, p. 229). Multilingual speakers have more varied communicative experiences. In a similar vein, the LINEE project, working on highly multilingual contexts, aims to gain a sociolinguistic foundation of the concept of multicompetence, which will be discussed in the following subsection. The aim here is not to discuss the concrete results of the project, but to present the conceptual steps made. The Broadening of the Definition of Multicompetence in the LINEE Project In the European LINEE project, the term “multicompetence” was taken up and adapted to a sociolinguistic point of view, mainly in the specific thematic area “Multilingualism and Education.” This area aims to gain a comprehensive view of multilingualism, such as is displayed in modern situations within and outside the world of formal education (see Cenoz & Gorter, 2005; Mitchell & Myles, 2004). The conceptual work aimed “to clarify the shift from bi- to multilingualism by analyzing the historical and acquisitional dimensions, with a focus on multicompetence as a key concept for linguistic diversity in a knowledge-based society” (Mitchell, 2008, Project Annex 6.2.6). The use of the term “multicompetence” in this context is due to the need to take into account the results we have already seen, which point to the potential profit that speakers growing up with several languages can gain. In LINEE, the ambition is to create a framework for multicompetence, which captures multilingualism as a culturally, historically, and dynamically determined means of communication. This trend is happening against the backdrop of the various European language situations, which are being studied in the project. Multicompetence Rita Franceschini 351 should help to explain the intertwining of individual competencies and everyday use. In the end, we can say that the LINEE research group extends the original views of multicompetence to sociolinguistics and education and achieves the following working definition (Franceschini, 2008; Mitchell, 2008): portant cornerstones, whereas the original term, “multicompetence,” specifies the group and individual dimensions of multilingualism and joins this up with the competence term. Thereby, the definition of multicompetence in the LINEE project takes on a bridging function. It makes the following connections: Multicompetence, i.e., the knowledge of more than one language in the mind, is part of the individual capacity of a person and develops in interaction with his or her social or educational environment. Multicompetent individuals make use of their linguistic knowledge when interacting within a range of linguistic settings, including both multilingual and monolingual situations. Multicompetence, or multilingual competence, is thus at the same time a tool and a state and relates to the complex, flexible, integrative, and adaptable behavior which multilingual individuals display. A multicompetent person is therefore an individual with knowledge of an extended and integrated linguistic repertoire who is able to use the appropriate linguistic variety for the appropriate occasion. 1. The connection between the multicompetence of an individual with the social embedding in which these competences are experienced; 2. The connection between the different multilingual language skills in the variable competence of a speaker; 3. The connection between this communicative competence and the usages concrete communication encounters. Multicompetence in this sense arises from the individual level and from the interactional practice, as can be seen in the above definition. This strand of thought takes advantage— broadly speaking—of the interactionist and neo-Vygotskian works (see Dausendschön-Gay, 2003; Dausendschön-Gay & Krafft, 1994; for an overview, Martinez & Pekarek Doehler, 2000). All in all, in LINEE, the dynamic view prevails. With reference to Dewaele and Pavlenko (2003), multicompetence is perceived not as an end state, but rather as a dynamic, evolving system. In addition, in LINEE the concept of multicompetence is strongly embedded in the sociolinguistic context, including beliefs and practices, and therefore captures various other aspects (socio-situational, educational, pedagogical) of multicompetence beyond a strictly speaking SLArootedness. The working definition goes back to a usage-based view of language knowledge such as that of the recent functional–typological approaches of Bybee and Hopper (2001) in a similar way as already discussed in the preceding subsection. The definition of multicompetence elaborated during the work on real data in the LINEE project, which cannot be exposed in detail here (but see www.linee.info/), shows that the term “multicompetence” is compatible with the definition of multilingualism that was discussed here at the start. We can see “multilingualism” as a type of umbrella term. The definition of multilingualism provides the superior framework determining the most im- In this way, we reach a richer view of the specific competences put in action in multilingual encounters. NOT A CONCLUSION BUT AN OUTLOOK: THE CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGES OF MULTILINGUALISM In this article, only two concepts have been scrutinized in some detail: multilingualism and multicompetence. As can be followed by the broadened definition in the terms used in LINEE, being a multicompetent speaker does not simply mean counting several languages or using languages fluently, nor having a general communicative competence. Multicompetence means having developed a cultural sensitivity toward various different language situations. Multilingualism and multicompetence are central to the ongoing research activities in different disciplines, which are becoming more and more sensitive to multilingual phenomena. This situation is of great interest and is fruitful not only for empirical research, which is already vast, but also for the stimulus it offers for finding specific research methods and ways of thinking. Skeptical minds may consider multilingualism as an epiphenomenon. Nevertheless, it introduces a healthy discussion to linguistics, not just sociolinguistics (Franceschini, 2005). It helps to deconstruct assumptions like homogeneity and highlights the naturalness of contact situations. Thus, the consideration of multilingualism has an important side effect—it prepares the terrain for an inclusion of variability as a fundamental characteristic of language, continuing to deepen the way started in the sociolinguistic field. Language varies across languages as it varies in the language, where it was first studied. The same holds true for dynamism. 352 It is as if multilingualism has a lens effect for many researchers, being a magnifying glass uncovering the linguistic dynamism across languages. In fact, each language development and use is dynamic, but multilingualism shows it in a way one cannot easily elude. Alongside the discussion of the two terms— multilingualism and multicompetence—it can be observed that a part of psycholinguistics has become more socially interested and a part of sociolinguistics goes for the more cognitive side. In fact, a cognitive sociolinguistics is on the way up (Geeraerts, Kristiansen, & Peirsman, 2010) and offers important insights. An inclusion of different views is necessary because multilingualism is a phenomenon that combines experiences of different people in specific societies. It concerns the development of knowledge and is observable in social interaction and discourse. Multilingualism is therefore complex in its foundation (social and cognitive) and in its practice. A separation into clear-cut disciplines in analyzing multilingual phenomena seems obsolete, particularly when it comes to power relationships, which goes along with the different status of a language in a specific society (Simpson & Mayr, 2010; Wodak, 2009). Multilingualism is a cross-cutting topic that has enormous potential for transforming the future of linguistics. For these reasons, multilingualism inspires us (apparently much more than other topics) to leave behind long-established assumptions, such as forced homogeneity, fixed structures, independence from cultural embedding, and so on. It prepares the way to search for frames in which timerelated, process-based, analytical tools and complexity are taken into account as central points (Franceschini, 2003). Over the last few years, the idea of placing the language system on the foundations of a potential multilingual competence has become more tangible, as shown, for instance, by Lourdes Ortega’s powerful presentation at the American Association of Applied Linguistics meeting in March 2010 (see also Ortega, 2009). We need initiatives that will also open up across disciplines. At present, the most suitable initiatives appear to be ones that address the complexity and dynamics of the systems, and in this regard, more than promising proposals are still on the way (e.g., de Bot, 2008; de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Herdina & Jessner, 2002; LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008; Mühlhäusler 2003; Ortega, 2009; Wildgen, 1999). These reflections and models are of great importance. Without any effort, a methodological and theoretical level of the term “multilingualism” could become empty The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) of content or vague and runs the risk of becoming merely a passing fashion—a shell of a word encompassing everything under which everyone understands something different. The majority of modern linguistics is born out of the spirit of monolingualism and has, as a reduction of complexity, brought about many assumptions. Confronted with multilingualism, the values seem to be turning around. The basic competence of a speaker is open toward multilingualism if he or she can experience it over the course of his or her life. Assuming the naturally occurring potential within multilingualism, one cannot help analyzing some of the basic assumptions of linguistics, both whether language ability is primarily seen as being a cognitive competence or as a social practice. Multilingualism, in our definition, includes both, and therefore also multicompetence. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many members of the LINEE network have taken part in the fruitful discussion on the term “multicompetence” in various meetings and written exchanges: Rosita Schjerve-Rindler, Eva Vetter, Ros Mitchell, Jennifer Jenkins, Elena Ioannidou, Silvia Dal Negro, Gessica De Angelis, Gerda Videsott, Don Peckham, Anna Fenyvesi, Katalin Petneki, Werner Wiater, Paul Videsott, Cristina de Grandi, Eszter Szabó-Gilinger, and many more. Thanks go to them all. The responsibility for the positions taken up here together with all fallacies is nonetheless not to be attributed to them. NOTES 1 LINEE was founded as a Network of Excellence within the VI Framework programme (2006–2010) of the European Union, project number: CIT4–2006-28388. The Language Study Unit of the University of Bolzano is one of the nine partners, in addition to the Universities of Bern, Southampton, Prague, Szeged, Munich, Vienna, and Zagreb. For more details, see www.linee.info/. 2 The broad reception of Adams’s works on multilingualism in antiquity is an indication of an increasing interest in research about the historic dimensions of multilingualism (see Adams, 2003; Adams, Janse, & Swain, 2005; Franceschini, in press). 3 See the document “Commission of the European Communities” (2007) written by the “High Level Group on Multilingualism.” Franceschini (2009) presented research perspectives in the area of multilingualism, in which the recommendations put forward to the European Commission are gone into in more depth. 4 On combinatorics just an allusive reference: Data from individual language production can also be evaluated statistically and ethnographic approaches can be taken on a social level (which would otherwise employ Rita Franceschini microanaylsis) (see Deppermann, 1999/2001; Lamnek, 2010). 5 This is not the place to discuss these models individually, as this contribution is deliberately limited to the definition of multilingualism and multicompetence. It would be worthwhile to conduct a comparative discussion of the extension of de Bot’s (1992) extension of Levelt’s “Speaking Model” and the dynamic systems approach in de Bot (2008) and de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor (2007), together with Grosjean’s (2001) proposals on Bilingual Language Modes. Furthermore, it would be interesting to compare Green (1998), Lüdi (2004), and Herdina and Jessner (2002), as well as to take into account the views of Thomason and Kaufman (1988), DeGraff (1999), Wildgen (1999), and Tomasello (2000) and to consider the prominently led discussion on the practice of codeswitching and codemixing (see, e.g., Auer, 1999a, 1999b; Milroy & Muysken, 1995; Muysken, 2000; Myers Scotton, 1993). A special dynamic approach is convincingly argued in Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008). 6 A native speaker is defined by Cook as “a monolingual person who still speaks the language they learnt in childhood” (Cook, 2001, p. 12). 7 The reference is to the long-term “Heidelberg research project on pidgin German” (see HPD, 1975) and the “Second language acquisition by adult immigrants” project (see, e.g., Klein & Perdue, 1992, on the latter). 8 As already indicated, Universal Grammar has to explain how a single “language faculty” can contain more than one standard for one parameter. 9 This is mainly about Cook (2005a and 2005b); the first is published on Vivian Cook’s homepage. In his textbook Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (Cook, 2001), the second definition can be found again, which remains the most widely cited: “the knowledge of more than one language in the same mind” (p. 12). 10 Both terms maintain their authority. The first is created out of the necessity for a definition. The concise definitions are, according to Cook (2001, p. 12): “an L2 user uses the second language for real-life purposes; an L2 learner is acquiring a second language rather then using it.” The L2 is stated with reference to the UNESCO definition as “a language acquired by a person in addition to his mother tongue” (Cook, 2001, p. 12). REFERENCES Adams, J. N. (2003). Bilingualism and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, J. N., Janse, M., & Swain, S. (Eds.). (2005). Bilingualism in ancient society: Language contact and the written text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Auer, P. (1999a). From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3/4, 309–332. Auer, P. (Ed.). (1999b). Code-switching in conversation. Language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge. 353 Auer, P., & Li, Wei. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). DATE: Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2005). Trilingual education in Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001a). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001b). Looking beyond second language acquisition: Studies in tri- and multilingualism. Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg Verlag. Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Final report, High Level Group on multilingualism. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved September 6, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/ policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty of the stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research, 7 , 103–117. Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning , 42, 557–591. Cook, V. J. (1997). Monolingual bias in second language acquisition research. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 35–50. Cook, V. J. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching . London: Arnold. Cook, V. J. (2002). Portraits of the L2 user . Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. J. (2003a). The changing L1 in the L2 User’s Mind. In V.J. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 1–18). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. J. (Ed.). (2003b). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. J. (s.d.). Background to the L2 User Perspective. Retrieved September 6, 2011, from http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/ Multicompetence/MCopener.htm 4 pp Cook, V. J. (2005a). Multi-competence: Black Hole or Wormhole? (Draft of write-up of SLRF paper, 2005). Retrieved September 6, 2011, from http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings /Papers/SLRF.htm Cook, V. J. (2005b). Multi-competence: Black Hole or Wormhole? Retrieved from www.tc.colmbia. edu/academic/tesol/SLRF2005/vivianCook.pdf Dausendschön-Gay, U. (2003). Producing and learning to produce utterances in social interaction. Eurosla Yearbook, 3, 207–228. Dausendschön-Gay, U., & Krafft, U. (1994). Analyse conversationnelle et recherche sur l’acquisition [Conversational analysis and research on acquisition]. In B. Py (Ed.), L’acquisition d’une langue seconde. Quelques développements théoriques récents [Acquisition of a second language: Some recent 354 theoretical developments]. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliqué, 59 , 127–158. De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “Speaking Model” adapted. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–24. de Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. Modern Language Journal , 92, 166–178. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism, 10, 7–55. DeGraff, M. (Ed.). (1999). Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Deppermann, A. (2001). Gespräche analysieren: Eine Einführung in konversationsanalytische Methoden [Analysing conversations: An introduction to methods in conversational analysis]. Opladen, Germany: Leske und Budrich. (Original work published 1999) Dewaele, J.M., & Pavlenko, A. (2003). Productivity and lexical diversity in native and non-native speech: A study of cross-cultural effects. In V.J. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 120– 141). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Edwards, M., & Dewaele, J. M. (2007). Trilingual conversations: A window into multicompetence. Internation Journal of Multilingualism, 11, 221–141. Franceschini, R. (2003). Modellbildung über die Mehrsprachigkeit hinaus: für eine Linguistik der Potentialität (LP) [Model creation beyond multilingualism: For a linguistics of potentiality (LP)]. In L. Mondada & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), Plurilinguisme—Mehrsprachigkeit—Plurilingualism. Enjeux identitaires, socio-culturels et éducatifs, Festschrift für Georges Lüdi [Plurilingualism: Topics on identity, sociocultural and educational settings: Writings in honor of Georges Lüdi] (pp. 247–259). Tübingen, Germany: Francke Verlag. Franceschini, R. (2005). Weshalb brauchen Linguisten mehrsprachige Sprecher? [Why do linguists need multilingual speakers?] In G. Berruto (Ed.), Plurlinguisme et politique européenne [Multilingualism and European policy]. Revue française de linguistique appliquée, IX /2, 105–124. Franceschini, R. (2008). Research area report, Thematic Area C: Multilingualism and education (D9). Retrieved September 6, 2011, from www.linee.info: AreaReport_C_D9_080808.pdf Franceschini, R. (2009). The genesis and development of research in multilingualism: Perspectives for future research. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The exploration of multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition (pp. 27–61). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Franceschini, R. (in press). The history of multilingualism. In C. Chapelle (Gen. Ed.), The encyclopedia of The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011) applied linguistics, J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Vol. Ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Franceschini, R., Zappatore, D., & Nitsch, C. (2003). Lexicon in the brain: What neurobiology has to say about languages. In J. Cenoz, U. Jessner, & B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 153–166). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.). (2010). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Genesee, F. (2002). Portrait of the bilingual child. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 167– 196). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell. Grosjean, F., Li, P., Münte, T., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2003). Imaging bilinguals: When the neurosciences meet the language sciences. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6 , 159–165. Grosjean, F., & Py, B. (1991). La restructuration d’une première langue: l’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues [The restructuration of a first language: The integration of variants of contact in the competence of bilingual migrants]. La linguistique, 27 , 35–60. Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27 , 220–240. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic model of multilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic perspective. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. HPD. (1975). Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt ‘PidginDeutsch,’ Sprache und Kommunikation ausländischer Arbeiter. Analysen, Berichte, Materialien [The Heidelberger Research Project on ‘Pidgin German,’ Language and communication of foreign workers. Analysis, reports, materials]. Kronberg Ts.: Scriptor. Hufeisen, B., & Lindemann, B. (Eds.). (1998). Tertiärsprachen. Theorien, Modelle, Methoden [Third language: Theories, models, methods]. Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). London: Penguin. Jenkins, J. (2008). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kecskes, I. (1998). The state of L1 knowledge in foreign language learners. Word, 49 , 321–340. Klein, W., & Perdue, C. [in cooperation with M. Carroll, J. Coenen, J. Deulofeu, T. Huebner, & A. Trévise]. (1992). Utterance Structures (Developing Grammars Again). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lambert, W.E., Tucker, G. R., & d’Anglejan, A. (1973). Cognitive and attitudinal consequences of bilingual schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology 85, 141–159. 355 Rita Franceschini Lamnek, S. [in collaboration with C. Krell]. (2010). Qualitative Sozialforschung [Qualitative social research] (Vol. 2). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz, Psychologie Verlags-Union. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Li, Wei, & Moyer, M. (Ed.). (2008). The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism. New York: Wiley. Lüdi, G. (1996a). 30. Mehrsprachigkeit [Multilingualism]. In H. Goebl, P. N. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. Wölck (Eds.), Kontaktlinguistik, Contact Linguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (Vol. I, pp. 233–245). Berlin: de Gruyter. Lüdi, G. (1996b). 37. Migration und Mehrsprachigkeit. In H. Goebl, P. N. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. Wölck (Eds.). Kontaktlinguistik, Contact Linguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (Vol. I, pp. 320–327). Berlin: de Gruyter. Lüdi, G. (2004). Pour une linguistique de la compétence du locuteur plurilingue [A linguistic model of the competence of the plurilingual speaker]. Revue française de linguistique appliquée, 9 , 125–135. Martinez, P., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2000). La notion de contact de langues en didactique [The notion of language contact in didactics]. Notions en questions, 4. Fontenay-Saint Cloud, France: Editions ENS. Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (Eds.). (1995). One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, R. (2008). LINEE—Final Report WP8 (internal paper). In R. Franceschini (Ed.), Research area report, Thematic Area C: Multilingualism and education (D9). Retrieved September 6, 2011, from www.linee.info: AreaReport_C_D9_080808.pdf Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. London: Hodder Arnold. Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). A course in ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge. Muysken, P. C. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of codemixing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structures in code-switching . Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education. Simpson, P., & Mayr, A. (2010). Language and power . London: Routledge. Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tomasello, M. (2000). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wildgen, W. (1999). De la grammaire au discours: Une approche morphodynamique [On grammar in discourse: A morphodynamic approach]. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Forthcoming in The Modern Language Journal, 95.4 Ernesto Macaro & Lynn Erler. “Decoding ability in French as a foreign language and language learning motivation” Jennifer Leeman, Lisa Rabin, & Esperanza Román-Mendoza. “Identity and social activism in heritage language education” Carolyn Pytlyk. “Shared orthography: Do shared written symbols influence the perception of L2 sounds?” Naoko Taguchi. “Pragmatic development as a dynamic, complex process: General patterns and case histories” Keiko Samimy, Soonhyang Kim, Jeong-Ah Lee, & Masataka Kasai. “A participative inquiry in a TESOL program: Development of three NNES graduate students’ legitimate peripheral participation to fuller participation” Xingsong Shi. “Negotiating power and access to second language resources: A study on short-term Chinese MBA students in America” David Kellogg & Seonmi Song. “Word meaning as a palimpsest: A defense of sociocultural theory” Kyoko Masuda. “Acquiring interactional competence in a study-abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional participle ‘ne’” Paul Lyddon. “The efficacy of corrective feedback and textual enhancement in promoting the acquisition of grammatical redundancies”