English Teaching, Language(s) Education and the Post-Monolingual Condition – A Symposium

Submitted by: Bill Green
Abstract: Organiser: Bill Green (Charles Sturt University, Australia)
Discussant: Wayne Sawyer (Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia)

Symposium Overview
This symposium aims to bring together three areas of concern – English, language(s), education – in the specific context of L1 education and language education more generally. It does this with reference in the first instance to Australian schooling, although the matter clearly has a much wider relevance and significance, given the global implications of what is called here the multilingual challenge. ‘English’ is to be understood as referring to what can be called the English subjects, on the one hand – both subject English and English language teaching (ESL, EFL, etc.), as well as education in and through English (i.e. the English language). On the other hand, it refers to the L1 subjects, with English as a distinctive school-subject, or subject English, similar in kind and function to other such long-established subject-areas – French, German, Danish, (Brazilian) Portuguese, Indonesian, etc. Furthermore, these subjects tend to occupy central positions within the systems of public schooling that have arisen in close association with the nation-states. Historically and conceptually monolingual, however, they are increasingly under challenge by new conditions of language diversity and social mobility. Language becomes increasingly a matter of contention, therefore, and needs to be explicitly engaged now in terms of difference and multiplicity – hence, our emphasis here on ‘language(s)’. As Gogolin (2021) puts it: “The question [is] how to deal with multilingualism in public education systems”. To which can be added: What does this mean for the L1 subjects, in particular, and for L1 education?

The symposium comprises three presentations, each addressing in different ways English education, language(s) and Australian schooling. The first takes recent work on the ‘(post-)national’ L1 subjects (Green & Erixon, 2020) as its focus, highlighting the significance of monolingualism in this context and exploring accordingly the relevance of what has been called the post-monolingual condition (Yildiz, 2012). The second takes as its focus the notion of ‘translanguaging’, as one way of coming to terms with multilingualism as an increasingly necessary and explicit reference-point for global-national education and societies. The third presents a view of language as practice to highlight notions of ethics and hospitality in language(s) education.

-Paper 1

English Teaching, L1 Education and the Post-Monolingual Condition

Bill Green (Charles Sturt University, Australia)

Recent work on the L1 subjects highlights significant shaping ideas and themes including ‘globalisation’, ‘technologisation’, ‘educationalisation’, and ‘pluriculturalism’ (Green & Erixon, 2020), to which can be added an increasing focus on sustainability and climate change. Furthermore, the L1 subjects have been understood historically in terms of language and literature as an organising dyad; though more recently this framework has been widened to include literacy, as a third term. Finally, the relatively recent shift from ‘mother tongue’ to ‘L1’ as a reference-point remains under-theorised. These are all matters still to be adequately investigated. It is therefore pertinent to ask at this point: To what extent are the L1 subjects still appropriately understood as language education? To what extent do they still serve the purpose of language learning and awareness, notwithstanding their historical association with the ‘mother-tongue’? Are these subjects still fit for that purpose?

This paper focuses on subject ‘English’ in Australia. It addresses the ‘language’ question in English teaching – a problematical issue par excellence in the field, certainly in a context where there is little policy emphasis or interest in the idea of learning languages other than English, and Australian education remains dominated by “English-only structures” (Slaughter & Cross, 2021, p. 57) and “English monolingualism” (p. 43). How is language to be understood as a (reflexive) object of knowledge? How is this realised in English classrooms, and in subject English more generally? In this regard, is ‘grammar’ – traditionally a major focus of language study – sufficient, or even appropriate? Moreover, to what extent are such questions and debates yet a further manifestation of what has been called the monolingual paradigm (Gogolin, 2021)?

In this context, the idea of “the post-monolingual condition” (Yildiz, 2012) is introduced as an important reference-point for inquiry regarding L1 subjects. Links between the nation-state and national languages and cultures are explored, and the role and significance in this regard of public education systems, established in the formative period of the long 19th century (Tröhler, 2016). The challenge here is one of rethinking English in Australia beyond monolingualism.

Keywords: L1 education, subject English, monolingualism, languages(s), nation-state

References
Gogolin, Ingrid (2021). “Multilingualism: A Threat to Public Education or a Resource in Public Education? – European Histories and Realities”, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 297–310.
Green, Bill & Erixon, Per-Olof (Eds.] (2020). Rethinking L1 Education in a Global Era: Understanding the (Post-)National L1 Subjects in New and Difficult Times, Dordrecht: Springer.
Slaughter, Yvette & Cross, Russell (2021). “Challenging the Monolingual Mindset: Understanding Plurilingual Pedagogies in English as an Additional Language (EAL) Classrooms”, Language Teaching Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 39-60.
Tröhler, Daniel (2016). “Curriculum History or the Educational Construction of Europe in the Long Nineteenth Century”, European Educational Research Journal, 2016, Vol. 15, No. 3, 279–297.
Yildiz (2012). Beyond the Mother Tongue: The Postmonolingual Condition, New York: Fordham University Press.

-Paper 2

Translanguaging and the English Classroom: An Australian Perspective

Marianne Turner (Monash University, Australia)

An historical and ongoing monolingual orientation to language in education in Australia, as in other settings, has a powerful influence on both the teaching of content and students’ sense of belonging and engagement at school. The maintenance and revitalisation of Indigenous languages and the increasing number of (emergent) bi/multilingual immigrant students in Australia highlight the need to explore a broader conceptualisation that fits with different ways of knowing and ‘doing’ language. However, it is also important to understand this linguistic diversity in a wider frame of monolingualism. In 2021, 22.8% of the Australian population reported using another language at home (ABS, 2022), which indicates that more than three quarters of the population only speak English.

In this paper, the post-monolingual condition (Yildiz, 2012) will be explored with reference to translanguaging, or the ways in which people leverage their linguistic repertoire across different linguistic ‘boxes’ (Makalela, 2015). This can include dialects, styles and registers: translanguaging takes a process-oriented embodied view of language (Lemke & Lin, 2022). Although commonly associated with the language practices of (emergent) bi/multilingual students, translanguaging as a theoretical perspective also includes language practices associated with one language (Turner & Tour, 2023). This is particularly useful for thinking about the range and diversity of students’ linguistic profiles in a country such as Australia, and for working towards the developing of all students’ linguistic resources.

After a discussion on translanguaging and its applicability to all students in the Australian context, the paper will offer examples of application to English classrooms. Primary English classrooms will be the principal focus, with implications for secondary classrooms. Rather than contain the perspective to English language learners and students who speak another language at home, application will extend to monolingual (i.e. in English) students. If we are to rethink English in Australia beyond monolingualism in a way that is not considered to be peripheral to the core business of schooling, it follows that we need to include the majority of students who do not have exposure to languages other than English in their everyday lives.
Key words: translanguaging, linguistic diversity, language variation, Australia, multilingualism

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2022). Cultural Diversity of Australia. Retrieved 5 May 2023 from https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/cultural-diversity-australia
Lemke, J.L. & Lin, A.M.Y. (2022). “Translanguaging and Flows: Towards an Alternative Conceptual Model, Educational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1515/eduling-2022-0001
Makalela, L. (2015). “Moving out of Linguistic Boxes: The Effects of Translanguaging Strategies for Multilingual Classrooms”, Language and Education, 29(3): 200-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.994524
Turner, M. & Tour, K. (2023). “Literacies in the English Classroom: Leveraging and Extending the Linguistic Repertoires of All Students”, The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-023-00045-3].
Yildiz, Y. (2012). Beyond the Mother Tongue: The Postmonolingual Condition, New York: Fordham University Press.

-Paper 3

Language as Practice: Heteroglossia and Ethics in English Teaching and Language(s) Education

Alex Kostogriz (Monash University, Australia)

English language education in Australia has been shaped by the ideology of one-to-one
correspondence between territory, language and nation. The ideology of monolingual nationalism has served, historically, as a powerful tool for shaping and consolidating national identity, while the increasing diversification of Australia has brought multilingualism, mobility and hybridity to the fore (Kostogriz & Doecke, 2008). Given complex links between nationhood and language, cultural-linguistic diversity is central to socially just language policies and education. This paper challenges the monolingual ideology of language education by using Bakhtin’s heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1981). In doing so, it turns to language as practice, or languaging as a heterolingual practice, referencing multiple languages, dialects and socio-cultural discourses within diverse communities. This practice-ontological turn highlights the primordial coexistence of the multiple in meaning-making and a constant struggle between legitimate and less legitimate or dominant and peripheral.

From the practice-ontological perspective on language, heteroglossia puts particular demands on teachers. In the first instance, this concerns an ethical demand to recognise difference and to include diverse voices and cultural perspectives into the curriculum and sites of learning and teaching in order for education to be socially just. Secondly, this concerns a set of political demands on teacher practices to be responsive and inclusive in order to promote dialogue and such general capabilities as intercultural and ethical understanding (ACARA, n.d). These demands, however, present a challenge for many teachers as they often grapple with uncertainty about whether to promote a single national language to assimilate diversity or to implement culturally and linguistically responsive education to ensure equity and social cohesion. The paper presents the findings of Teacher capabilities in conditions of superdiversity project to reveal this tension experienced by teachers in diverse classrooms.

The paper concludes with the discussion of responsive education as hospitality that teachers extend to diverse students. Building on the Derridian concept of hospitality (Derrida, 2000), this notion is reframed in terms of teacher capabilities to create classroom environments as spaces of radical openness towards difference. Such a perspective on teacher capabilities encourages the fostering of an ethics of care for diversity, prompting teachers to create opportunities for intercultural dialogue and to empower students as active participants in the production of meanings and knowledge. Providing a hospitable education that is attuned to diversity, educators can forge inclusive and ethically grounded learning spaces where students are invited to actively participate in meaning-making processes, develop intercultural understanding and engage critically with diverse perspectives.

Keywords: language as practice, heteroglossia, teacher capabilities, hospitality, ethics

References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (n.d.). General capabilities (version 8.4) retrieved 20 November, from: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays, Ed. M. Holquist. Trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. University of Texas Press.
Derrida, J. (2000). Of hospitality. R. Bowlby (Trans.). Stanford University Press.
Kostogriz, A. & Doecke, B. (2008). “English and its Others: Towards an Ethics of Transculturation”, Changing English, 15(3). 259-274 DOI: 10.1080/13586840802364194.