Patterns of language in polyglossic urban areas and multilingual ...International Journal of the...

0165–2516/10/0205–0055 Int’l. J. Soc. Lang. 205 (2010), pp. 55–78©WalterdeGruyter DOI10.1515/IJSL.2010.039

Patterns of language in polyglossic urban areas and multilingual regions and

institutions: a Swiss case study

GEORGES LÜDI, KATHARINA HÖCHLE and PATCHAREERAT YANAPRASART

Abstract

Growing mobility of important parts of the world’s population has led to a massive increase in multilingualism in post-modern societies and a lasting change from homoglossic to polyglossic communities with important “deter-ritorialised” linguistic minorities, mostly plurilingual to a variable degree. Ideologies and practices of communication in old and new multilingual con-texts vary largely. The “solutions” for overcoming potential problems go from using a linguafranca (often English), inventing pidgin like emergent varieties, choosing the language of one of the interlocutors known ( partially) by the others (namely in the case of immigrants), insisting on receptive competences (everybody uses his or her own language, e. g. in officially multilingual institu-tions), to various forms of mixed speech and, of course, to interpretation and translation processes. Drawing on extensive field work in bilingual institutions and multilingual companies in Europe, particularly in Switzerland, we p ropose to discuss various ways of mobilizing multilingual repertoires in situations of cross-linguistic and intercultural communication. The analyzed data will mainly consist of dyadic and polyadic oral interactions. It will also include written texts and signs that are part of the linguistic landscape. Our work is grounded in the assumption that multilingualism is no longer considered a marginal phenomenon, only of interest to specialists, but instead a character-istic of the majority of human beings.

Keywords: plurilingualism; multilingual competence; linguistic resource; polyglossic communities.

1. Fromhomoglossictopolyglossicimagesofhumansociety?

Fromtheirbeginningshumansocietieshavebeenplurilingual.Butthepreva-lentimageoflinguisticdiversitywasthatofapatchworkofratherhomogeneous

Brought to you by | Universitaetsbibliothek BaselAuthenticated

Download Date | 10/18/17 3:17 PM

56 G. Lüdi et al.

languagecommunitiesthatwereincontactperipherally,throughtraderelationsandexogamousmarriages,butwere fundamentallymonolingual. Inmodernurban contexts, such communities penetrate each other in new andoriginalways.However,theusualrepresentationsoflanguagesincontactcontinuetobeshapedbymonolingualtraditionsanddonottotallymatchthedemographicdistributionoflanguages.Thebackgroundofthese“monolingualideologies”isaveryoldone.Itis

foundedonthereceivedwisdomthatmonolingualismrepresentsanoriginalstate,intendedbyGodand/orpoliticallylegitimisedbyhumanbeings.ToanextentthisstereotypecanbefoundintheBible(e.g.intheimageofthetowerofBabel[Genesis11,6 –7])andinGreekphilosophy,startingwithAristotle.From theFrenchRevolution (Barère1794;Grégoire1794) toWorldWar I,nationalsentimentsstarttobetreatedasreligiousconcerns,undertheinfluenceofRomanticideas(Herder1891[1794];Fichte1808,etc.);theyarediscussedwithmetaphorsborrowedfromreligioushistory,andbuildthemythofthe“na-tion”as reflected in a common language.Theprocessof standardizationof“nationallanguages”wasdeterminedby,andatthesametimeinfluenced,dis-courseslike“onenation,onelanguage”.Withinthisframework,individualbilingualismwasperceivedasdangerous

inmanyways:amenacetothesingularcultureattachedtoeachlanguage,andto discourse-transmitted knowledge of all varieties. Bilinguals, particularlyearly bilinguals, would have their cognitive and social identity threatened.Similarlylanguagecontactwasmistrusted,eveninareasknownfortheirbi-lingualismsuchasAlsaceorSwitzerland.Ifstudiesinmultilingualismwereundertaken,theydependedonamonolingual,theoreticalinfrastructure(Lüdi2006;LüdiandPy2009).Multilingualismrepresented,sotosay,aduplicationofmonolingualism.Inthefollowingpages,wewillquestiontheseassumptions,notjustbycomparingthemwithactualpractices,butalsowiththediscourseofnumerous intervieweesontheirpractices.Whichother,new,representationsemergefromtheseexperiences?Howdowehavetomodifytheoreticalmodelsinordertoexplaintheseexperiences—andwhatcouldbetheconsequencesfornewformsoflanguagemanagementandpolicy?

2. Monolingualanswerstothechallengeofcommunicationinanincreasingglobalizedworld?

WheninternationaltouristswanttobuyatrainticketatBasel’smainstation,theydonotneedtousetheirGermantravelphrasebook.TheycanaddresstheclerkinEnglishandwillgetananswerinthesamelanguage,asshowninthefollowingexample:1



A Swiss case study 57

(1)Employé gueteTagClient goodmorningIwant(going)totheMilano.Employé toMilano?Client yes.=Employé =onwhichday?(..)whatdayareyoutravelling?=Client =today.Employé today.andwhattimeroughly?(1)atwhattime?(2)whattimeareyouleaving?Client ehnine.Employé nineo’clock(.)now?(..)soyouneedaticketforthenineofour.

ThemaximforthemostlyplurilingualclerkworkingatBasel’smainstationis:if you can, speak thenational languageusedby the client;with foreigners,speakEnglish.Thisruleofthumbiswidelyacceptedinthetourismindustry,inSwitzerland,andworldwide(Duchêne2009).Itisgroundedintheexperi-encethatEnglishisbyfarthemostfrequentlylearnedL2.Thisinvolvestheassumptionthatthebestwaytosolvetheworld’scommunicativeproblemsistouseEnglish2 as lingua franca, i.e. asvehicular languagebetweenpeoplewhodonotconsiderEnglishtheirfirstlanguage.

Englishasalingua francaisnothingmorethanausefultool:itisa“languageforcom-munication”....AndbecauseofthevarietyoffunctionalusesofglobalEnglish,En-glish has also a great potential for promoting international understanding. (JulianeHouse,Guardian Weekly,April19,2001)

Thisopinionisveryfrequentlyheardininterviewswithleadersofopinionin-terviewed in theDYLANproject throughoutEurope.Currently,ELF is thedominantlanguageofinternationalbusiness,scienceandtechnology;forex-ample,internationalcompaniesincreasinglyuseEnglishastheircorporatelan-guage(e.g.Vollstedt2002;Louhiala-Salminenetal.2005;Charles2007).Forinstance,thisisthecaseforPharmaAandB,twoleadingpharmaceuticalcom-paniesbasedinBasel.AstheheadofoneofPharmaA’sresearchlabsputit,“allreports,allofficialdocuments,thestudyplan,etc.havetobeinEnglish”.Furthermore, the importance of competences in English to the recruitmentpolicyandpromotionpolicyisobvious(Lüdietal.[Forthcoming] forPharmaAandBerchtold[2009]forPharmaB).AmeetingoftheeditorialboardofPharmaA’sinternalmagazine(whichis

publishedinthreelanguages:German,FrenchandEnglish)startedinGermanbecauseallofitsmembersareGermanspeaking,exceptforonepersonwhospeaks itwellasL2.Butwhen theheadof thecommunicationsdepartmentjoinshisteam,everyoneatthemeetingswitchestoEnglish:



58 G. Lüdi et al.

(2)SM: [alsojetzt(.)diediemodischefarbkonstellationjetzt reinausdergraphischenspracheher(ist)sicherlichirgendwie sonklinischesblausotürkisgrünblausowasgewesendaswärchicgewesenmit

dembraunjetztrein(.)nuralsoauchvon(.)vondergraphiksprachedie(.)mirjetztzumindest so bekannt ist dassman halt braun (.) dassman dasmit hellen tönenmischt+mit+((thedooropensandPWenters))blau[tönen(.)

?: [a:?: [(h)(h)[(h)((laughters))SM: [andnowitsgetting(.)[(h)PW: [thelanguageintruder [onceagainSM: [switchinenglisch(h)(h)[(h)?: [(h)PW: fortheirbenefit=? =(they)only[gotstartedSM: [(xxx)dievon[vonderuni=PW: [sorryaboutthat(again)JK: =ahjä[jäSM: [beobacht[malBK?: [thatsgreatJK: [jä(h)PW: [yeahwellitshowsprofile?: (h)[(h)CF: [(xxx)am(.)Christophyousaidwehavetousewhite(..)whosayswehaveto

usewhitewe?(.)

Atfirstglance,thisinteractionexemplifiesthepredominanceofEnglish.Onecouldargue,however,thatitshowsthediversityoflanguagechoices,depend-ingofcourse,onthemakeupofspeakerspresentintheinteraction.Infact,themeetingcanbesaidtobebilingual(eventrilingualifwetakeintoaccountthatthe informal startwas in SwissGerman) andwhatwe just observedwas aparticipant-relatedchangeofthelanguagechoice.So,inaway,bothexamplesgivenheretoforeillustratethatELFischoseninspecificsettingsonly(foreignclient,foreignboss)andagreedbythosepresentasalocallynegotiatedalterna-tivetootherformsofcommunication.Thisinterpretationisgroundedinnewconceptionsof“multilingualcompe-

tences”.Theyareviewedless in termsofformal(syntactic)knowledgeandmoreasasetoflinguisticresourcesavailabletomembersofacommunityforsocially significant interaction.The totalityof these resourcesconstitute thelinguisticrepertoireofapersonoracommunity(Gal1986),notinan“addi-tive”sense(themultilingualpersonasakindofcombinationofvariousmono-




lingualcomponents),butinaholisticview(Grosjean1985,2001;LüdiandPy2003[1986])whichvaluestheintegrationofpartialcompetences(CouncilofEurope2001).3Butthenotionofcompetenceitselfhasundergoneprofoundchangesinthecourseofthe20thcentury.The“Hymesianrevolution”recog-nizedthepluralnatureofcommunicativecapacitiesandallowedforaccountsof the discursive and pragmatic dimensions of language use. However, forHymesandhissuccessors(forexample,CanaleandSwain1980), thefocusremainson theobservablecompetenceof the learnerandon theknow-howdepositedinhisorherbrain.Therewereseveralintentstomovebeyondtheseapproacheswhichtendedtomisjudgethesituationalsensitivityofcompetences(regardlessofwhetherthiscompetenceislinguisticorpragmatic)andthecom-plexityoftheprocessesinwhichtheseareimplemented,aspartofthepracticalactivitiesoflearners,usersandtheirinterlocutors.Aninteractionistinterpreta-tionofcompetence,bycontrast,isbaseduponacontextualizedandcollectiveconceptionofactivitiesandofhumancognition,whilefocusingonthecentralrolethatpracticalcommunication(and,therefore,socialaction)playsintheirformatting.Thisperspectivedeconstructs,inaradicalmanner,anyindividual-izing,decontextualizedandisolatingdefinitionoflinguisticandcommunica-tivecompetences.Researchonlanguageacquisitionconfirmsthehighdegreeofunpredictabilityandcomplexdynamicsofface-to-facecommunicationinauthenticinteraction(Pekarek1999).Atthesametimeitshedsnewlightonthewaysnative,andnon-native,speakersofalanguagetakemutualprofitfromtheirentirerepertoiresusingtheirrespectivefirstlanguagesandothersupportlanguages(Bono2008;BonoandStratilaki2009).Accordingtothisconcept,the elaboration and the mobilization of competences are configured in thecourseofpracticalactivitiesthatarelinkedtospecificsocioculturalcontextsand to particular forms of action, interaction and intersubjectivity (PekarekDoehler2005;Lüdi2004,2006,2007d;Berthoud2008).HavingconcentratedonexamplesofinternalcommunicationatworkinSwitzerland,wewillnowaskourselvesinwhichwaytheuseofmonolingual models(onlyonenationallanguageor,progressively,theexclusiveuseofEnglish)or,onthecontrary,plurilingual models like,forexample, the“Swissmodel”ofreceptivebilin-gualism(everyonespeakshisorherlanguageandunderstandstheother,i.e.mobilizesexclusivelypassivecompetencesintheother’slanguage4)—prevailinreallifeor,better,howtheseidealtypesarereflectedindailycontacts.Infact,weformulatethehypothesisthat,inasituationofshared,evenasymmetricbilingualism,otherformsofcommunicationwillemerge.Weproposetoana-lyzekeyexamplesaspartofasearchforempiricalevidencewithoutanyclaimforstatisticalrelevance.



60 G. Lüdi et al.

3. Aplurilingual“linguisticlandscape”

Beforecontinuing,however,withtheanalysisofexamplesoforalinteraction,weproposetohavealookatthewaysplurilingualismmanifestsitselfinthewritten public space. Indeed, as a consequence of massive demographicchanges,theurbanlinguisticlandscape5(“cityscape”)ofmanyEuropeancitiesis characterizedbyagrowingpresenceof “other languages”, i.e. languagesthatarenottraditionallyusedintherespectivearea.InBasel,aSwisscitylo-cated at theFrench andGermanborder andofficiallymonolingualGermanspeaking,wecanfindsignsofmore than50 languages inuse,among themGerman,English,French, Italian,Romanche,Spanish,Portuguese,Russian,Chinese, Japanese, Turkish,Arabic, Tibetan, Serbian,Albanian, Tamil, etc.Certainlythemoststrikingfactisthepresenceinmanyshopwindows,bill-boards,etc.,ofsignscombiningelementsofvarious languages.Sometimes,thesamemessageistranslatedintodifferentlanguages,forthebenefitoftour-ists.Butthesequencesindifferentlanguagesmostlyperformcomplementaryfunctions.ThecombinationusedmostoftenisthatofGermanandEnglish:– Kids & Co — Mode für Kinder– Johann Wanner — Weihnachtsbaumschmuckausstattungsgeschäft — devote yourself to glamour– Last Season — Schmuck & Uhren Outlet der Chronometrie Spinnler + Schweizer AG– Stichkabinett — René Tschirren Modern Arts– WoMenArt — Schmuck für Frau und Mann; great waves schmuck-atelier– Coiffure Black and White — Damen + Herren — Hair & Kosmetik– Marcel’s Toy — & Antik-Shop;

OtherexamplescombineGermanandItalian:– La libreria — italienische Buchhandlung;

GermanandSwedish:– Bitte keine Reklame in diesen Briefkasten! — Reklam, nej tack!

SwissGermanandFrench:– Le confiseur — Aebischer — Spaleschoggi

SwissGermanandEnglish:– London Tea — Teehuus Basel; Susan’s Wohlfühlhuus;

OthercombinationsshowGermanandPortuguese,GermanandTurkish,Ger-manandThai,EnglishandChinese,etc.Sometimes,threeormorelanguagesarecombined,forexampleGerman,SpanishandEnglish:– tapas, vino y más — spalenburg — restaurant • take-away • catering;




Italian,English,French:– Rosario’s Lo Spuntino — Wine Bar Vinotheque

German,EnglishandTibetanorGerman,EnglishandFrench(seeFigures1and2):

ThatEnglishisthelanguageusedmostfrequentlyafterGermanisnotexcep-tional;itissomethingcommonlyobservedinmanycitiesoftheworld(seethepublicationsinNote6).Inaddition,Englishisthemostfrequentworkinglan-guageinBasel(35.9%)afterGerman(97.3%),andbeforeFrench(30.6%)andItalian(14.2%).6Obviously,thelinguisticlandscapedoesnotreflectthedistri-butionofthelanguagesintheactualpopulation(lessthan2%forEnglishasL1,2.5%forFrenchand5%forItalian,7>11%“otherlanguages”),butaspe-cificplurilingual self-perceptionof thepeopleofBaselwhich isverymuchlinkedtoplurilingualismatworkandinthefamily.Thelanguagesofimmigra-tionarevisible,butunder-represented(andmostlycombinedwithGerman),becausethelingua francaamongmigrantsfromdifferentoriginsisnormally

Figure1. Trilingual hairdresser’s shop window in Basel

Figure2. Trilingual inscription on the door of a Tibetan shop in Basel



62 G. Lüdi et al.

Germanandbecausethepublicpresenceofalanguageismoredeterminedbyitsposition in theprevalent languagevaluesystemthanby itsdemographicstrength; thisalsoexplains thehighvisibilityofEnglishwhich is,however,mostlycombinedwithGerman,whereEnglishconnotestheglamourofglobal-izationwhileGerman ensures the understanding.Nevertheless, Basel’s lin-guisticlandscapeismostintriguinglypolyglossic.Ontheonehand,itconfirmsthe hypothesis that plurilinguals exploit the deictic, referential, connotativeandidentitarianpotentialoftheirvarietiesinanoptimalwayinpublicliteracyasinotherdomainsofusage.Mobilizingthewholerangeoftheirresourceswhilstconformingtothevalueofeachvariety,theydonotsticktoonelan-guageatoneparticulartime,butinterweaveelementsofdifferentlanguagesmostcreatively.Butontheotherhand,italsomeansthatthelivesofpeoplespeaking different languages do not run on separate tracks, never actuallymeeting.Themultilingual linguistic landscaperaises theirawarenessofoneanother.Firstlythismeanstheimmigrants’capabilityofnegotiatingtheirwayaroundpublicspacesinGermanisanindicatoroftheir—atleastpassive—knowledgeofthelocallanguage.8Secondly,however,thelocalpopulationde-velopsagrowingfamiliaritywithotherlanguagesandscripts,recognizing,forinstance,Russian,ArabicorThai,evenwithoutunderstandingthemessage.InthecaseoflanguageswhichhaveLatincharacters,theymayevenidentifyin-dividualwords(forexampleinthevocabularyofgastronomywhichisbecom-ingmoreandmoreinternational)anddevelopstrategiesforreadingcompre-hension.Inotherwords,awalkthroughthecityofBaselcanprovidesimilarresults,althoughinanunguided,“wild”way,tolanguageawarenessteachingaideswhichhavethegoalofdevelopinglessethnocentriclanguageattitudesandmoretolerancetowardstheworld’slinguisticdiversity.However, if we hypothesize that a plurilingual competence is a distinct

feature,akindoftrademark,ofmodernurbanpopulations,thenwewillhavetofindsignsofthis,asidefromthelinguisticlandscape,inotherobservableforms of language behavior. This will be the topic of the following twochapters.

4. Intercomprehensionbetweenvariouslanguages(theso-called“Swissmodel”)

Ourthirdexamplecomesfromaverydifferentcontext:institutionalcommuni-cation inacomputerizedstaffexercisecarriedoutbyaSwissarmybrigadegroupandanalyzedinaresearchprojectoftheNationalProgramofResearch56(AltermattandHeiniger2008).Thebrigadeconsistsoftroopscomingfromdifferentlanguageregions;abouthalfofthestaffofficersareGermanspeakingandItalianspeakingrespectively.SomehaveFrenchastheirL1.Inthecom-




plex,communicativespaceoftheexercisethatsimulatesexternalcommunica-tionwithmilitaryandcivilianinstances,aswellasinternalcommunicationinad-hocworkinggroups,formalmeetingsandofficialreports,officerswithdif-ferentL1participateindifferentdyadicandpolyadic,communicativeeventsinordertoresolveacommon,militarytask.Inthissetting,theChief-of-staff(SC)ofthebrigadeplaysanimportantrole

as theconduitbetween thedifferentcellsandworkinggroups,hisprincipaltaskbeingthefiltering,processingandoralpassingoverofinformation.SCisaColonelandregularofficerfromtheTicino.HisL1isItalianandheisalsoreasonablyfluentinGermanandFrench(histwootherworkinglanguages),aswellasinItaliandialectandSwissGerman.HealsospeaksEnglish.In(3),heinteractswiththeheadofacellcalled“instruction”(G7),whose

L1isItalian,andwhohasagoodknowledgeofstandardGermanandFrenchand some English.Also present is a young general staff officer (Gst Of=Julien)whosedominantlanguageisFrench.Priortothismeeting,G7andGstOfhavepreparedaPowerPointpresentation,inGerman,forthefinalanalysisoftheexercisewhichistobereleasedbySC.

(3)01 G7: AH(.)VOILÀ(2)alloraquestoèil(..)dertitel?02 auchvielleicht.+(3)+l’abbiamoelaborato03 assiamea:&((GstOfshowsthetitle))04 &julienha?(..)luieglixxxatoreeuh:quindila05 qualità>dergeleistetenarbeitenwährend+xxx+ ((incomprehensiblesequenceinItalian))06 imHINblick?!aufdennächstenaktionsführungs-07 prozess?comedelcomandante?<(..)euhconun08 <ampelsystem!>euhcomeilrosso<kannstdubitte09 hieraufdemdreieckroteh:(.)drücken?°bitte°(.)10 voilàrothier(.)siehstdudervigni-vignette>+xxx+° ((incomprehensiblesequenceinGerman))11 GstOf: ahja12 (..)13 G7: >inmodochevedono!<(.)rossovuoldire(.)14 handlungsbedarfmassiverhandlungsbedarf?(.)gelb15 teilweisenochhandlungsbedarfgrünkeinhandlungsbedarf.16 >questoèunpezzochec’èl’ideainmodochevenga17 coloratala( pinta)<=18 SC: =poihanno[usatoxxx]19 G7: [negli/FGG/s]sonoiduetrechehannofattotuttoil20 führungsprozesscontuttimezzimasonogliunici21 dueche[xxx?]tac!andiamosottostärken?schwächen?



64 G. Lüdi et al.

22 et&23 SC: [okay?]24 G7 &puisàdroite°washabenwirhierhinten?°(.)25 >ausbildungbedarfzeitbedarf<sinddiepunktedie26 gefragtsin[d]oder?(1)vedi?(.)°nachdem(zu)ehnach27 der&28 SC: [eh:]29 G7 &(gegebenenfarbe)°30 SC: unacolonnainpiùconhandlungsbedarfallgemeines.31 G7: <handlungsbedarfallgemeines?okay?> (T_CH_Br_SC_061025_4_SC_G7_GstOf_1_02'06'00-02'14'50/Z.1-28)

Howdoes the choice of languagework in this context? Firstly, the serviceregulations (Dienstreglement) require the superior authority to use the lan-guageofthesubordinates(Spolsky[2009]callsthis“thesergeant’sproblem”).Secondly, amongofficersandparticularly in thebrigade’sheadquarters, thelanguageinuseispragmaticallynegotiated,withtheinternalcustomsofstaffplayinganimportantroleandthestaffmembers’personalpreferencesincorpo-rated.Thirdly,thereareguidelinesimposedbytheheadoftheexercisewhichcombineasymbolicrecognitionofmultilingualismwithitsfactualreductionto“thelanguageofthisexerciseis(Standard)German”(thelanguageofthecomputerprogram!)IninterviewsledwiththecommanderandtheChief-of-staffofthebrigade,

onemaxim is adhered to namely that a staff which is linguisticallymixedshouldchooseonecommon“dominant”languageinordertofacilitatecom-munication.DuringtheexercisetheimpactofGermanis,ofcourse,observ-able.Butmembersoflanguageminoritiesalsosucceedincreatingfreespacesfortheuseofotherlanguages.Thetranscribedsequencegivesagoodexampleofthis.Thatthepresentation

waspreparedinGermanreflectstheguidelines.Whencommentingonthepre-sentation,SCandG7useItalianasthepreferredlanguageinthisdyad.Thus,G7 comments on the working process (e.g. l’abbiamo elaborato assieme),givesfurtherexplanations(e.g.euh come il rosso),noticesofintention(e.g.in modo che vedono),justifications(e.g.questo è un pezzo . . . la pinta),etc.inItalian.Bothofthemaddressthemselvesdirectlyinthesamelanguage.GstOfissupposedtounderstandItalian.ThelanguagechoiceinthepairG7–GstOflacksstability;theyalternatebetweenGermanandFrench(e.g.ah voilàandet puis à droite).Lateronintheexercise(inapassagenottranscribedhere),GstOfwilladdressSCinFrench,whichcorresponds to theirhabitual languagechoice.Throughout thediscussion, technical termsare inGerman.NotonlydoesthisreflectthedominanceofGermanintheguidelines,butalsothatnotallSwissmilitaryterminologyexistsinItalian.




Generallyspeaking,SC,probablythemostmultilingualmemberofthestaff,employs his multiple repertoire most flexibly and successfully, smoothlychangingfromItaliantoGermanandFrenchandviceversaaccordingtothesettingwhilstrelyingonthe—atleastpassive—trilingualismofallmembersofhisstaff.Furthermore,heinsistsinaninterviewthatalltheoralandwrittendocumentsforthesubordinatebattalionsaretobetranslatedintotheirrespec-tivelanguages.InterestinglyEnglishistotallyabsentfromallformsofcom-municationobservedduringtheexercise.AsSCexplainsintheinterviewthisalsohappensforideologicalreasons“becausewealreadyhavefourlanguagesinSwitzerland”.Thechoiceoflanguageduringtheexerciseisinconsistent,asonecanexpect

inthecaseofmultilingualspeech(LüdiandPy2003[1986]).Thethreeindi-viduals make very pragmatic use of all the communicative resources theyshare.“Germanonly”couldalsobeanalternativeasshowninmoreformalcontexts.Butnormativerepresentationsofeithermonolingual languageusage,orof the“Swissmodel”,are totallyabsent.At thesame timewegetafirstglimpseofexistingpowerrelationsbetweenSCandhiscollaborators.Com-municationdoesnot,ofcourse,occurina“neutralspace”;multilingualspeakersexploit their repertoire in order to press themaximum gain out from theirchoiceoflanguage.EvenifSC’spreferredlanguagechoiceisusuallyItalian,heneverimposesitontheothers,butrepeatedlychoosestheother’slanguage.Thusitisevidentthatmultilingualformsofspeechcanbeveryrewardinginasymbolicsensewhereitisthecaseof“practicalgoal-orientedco-operation”(Council ofEurope2001). In order tomeasure the success of this commu-nicativeeventwedonothavetoassessthequalityofthelanguage(s)spoken,butwedohavetoanswerthequestionofwhetherthegoaloftheinteractionhas been achieved.An analysis of the mutual reactions of the interactingspeakerstotheirongoingconversationshowsthat,intheirperception,itcer-tainlyhasbeenachieved.Thisisalsotrueofthefinalevaluationofthewholeexercise.

5. Multi-addressedplurilingualspeechinabusinessmeeting

OurfourthexampleisagainfromtheDYLANdatabase.ItwasrecordedinameetingofthoseresponsibleforHumanResourcesinvariouslocalbranchesofabigdepartmentstoreoperatingnationwide(Department Store A).Ayoungmarketingassistant,Hn,ispresentinganewconceptforclothinginthework-place,akindofuniform.Hisdominant language isGerman,as it is for themajorityoftheaudience.ButseveralofthosepresentattheHRmeetingrepre-sentbranchesintheFrenchandItalianspeakingpartsofthecountryandthere



66 G. Lüdi et al.

alsohadbeenpreviouscomplaintsaboutmeetingsbeingheldexclusivelyinGerman.AP,thetrilingual(Italian,French,German)headofhumanresourceshadalsoinsistedonacertainamountofFrenchbeingspokenatthemeeting.

(4)127 Hn: ok(6)gut!(1)weiterefragenzudiesemthema?(3)dann128 nur(.)waszusätzlichhierseinwirddaswissensiewahr-129 scheinlichjetztauchschon(.)alsowirhaben(.)zurunter-130 stützunghabenwirfünfundzwanzigprozentzusätzlich(.)131 rabatt.rayoneinundzwanzigmessieursdamesdreiund-132 zwanzigaccessoiresdiewurdenjetztdefiniertwelche:133 kategoriendasheisstallesbekleidungstrümpfesocken(.)134 inderherrenkonfektionkeine!unterwäschekeinepyjamas135 (.)sportbekleidung(.)daswärs.einundzwanzigdreiund-136 zwanzigä:haccessoiresfünfzehn(.)u:ndsport(drei-und137 zweiundsechzig)138 TT: s-se[chzehn]139 Rs [schuhe](ist)sechzehn140 Hn: sechzehn!auch(4)141 AP: d’ailleursaujourd’huimonsieurmouttet(xxx)aenvoyé142 uneunepetite(.)pagedirectiveadministrative143 Hn: mitdenkategorien144 AP: oùähoùc’estc’estoùilyaencoreunrésumédesrayon145 desdesgroupesdemarchandisejenesaisplusquidonne146 ä:hledroitpouravoirdes(xxx)doncquelquesdétailsà147 régler(xxx)(jevaisfaire)passerlecirculaire148 Hn: alsojedermitarbeiterbekommt(2)soeinblatthächaque149 ä:h(1)collaborateurreçoitunepage(.)aveclestrichcode150 aveclejäaveclecodeladerrière(.)çaseraitintéress-äh151 importantquele:lapersonneno-notesontnomlà-dessus(.)152 c‘estpasnot-c‘estpasnotémaisc‘estdansleinternegericht-153 linien(.)quelapersonnenotesonnometcommeçac‘est154 vraimentper!sonnaliséähasoessötteifachdrmitarbeiter155 söttimitnamedrufstohebäwilldiecetruclàile:stisch156 gültig°gültig[commentdit-on]°?157 MG: [valable]158 Hn: valablemercipourdeuxmois.septembreoctobre.also159 bisjetztischgültigseptämber[oktober]&160 JP: [donconpeutl’utiliser]plusieursfois161 Hn: &ouiouiimmerwieder(verwandbar)(oder;oui)?162 MG: (onpeuttoujoursl‘utiliser)163 Hn: jusqu‘autrenteetunoctobreaprès(plus)




Themaindifferencebetweenthisandtheprecedingexamplesisthatthisisnottakenfroma“normal”conversation,butfromapresentationtoalargeaudi-ence,inacommunicativeeventthatcorrespondstotheso-calledpresentation mode.Thisdoesnotmean,however,amonologuebyHnbecausehe isfre-quentlyinterruptedbyotherparticipants’withwordsofsupport(l.157)andcomments (l. 138 –147).Thepresentation ismultimodal,Hnmakinguseofvisualandmaterialresources(forexamplel.148s.“soeinblatt”/“unepage”),somedistributedinadvancetoallmembersoftheaudience.Itisalsoplurilin-gual.Incorrespondencewiththemaximforinternalcommunicationbetweentheheadquartersandthebranches(“usethelanguageofthebranch’slanguageregion”)thematerialwasdistributed,inadvance,inthethreeofficiallanguages(German,FrenchandItalian).Hndecidesalsotomakehispresentationbilin-gualinGermanandFrenchdespitethefactthatallmembersoftheaudiencearesupposedtounderstandbothlanguages.Indeed,therecruitmentpolicyofDepartmentStoreAdemandsat leastreceptivebilingualismfromall itsHRmanagers.DrawingonthisfactHndoesnotemploybothlanguageswithequalfrequency (the presence of French is somewhat symbolic). Some short se-quencesaretranslated,butitisfarfrombeingeveryutterance.FortherestofthetimehefreelyswitchesfromGermantoFrenchandviceversa.SpeakingmuchbetterGerman thanFrench (ascanbe seen inhis syntaxand the fre-quencyofsequencesofcollaborative lexicalworksuchas in lines156–158andl.160s.)hechoosesamodewhichisatthesametime“exolinguistic”,i.e.characterizedbyasymmetricalcompetences(usuallybetweennativeandnonnativespeakers)andtheuseofspecifictechniquestoavoidorovercomestum-blingblocks(Lüdi2003),and“bilingual”,forexample,whenhereliesonGer-mantechnicalwords(likestrichcodeinl.149),butalsomoregenerallywhenhe switches to French (for example l. 131, 148). Generally speaking theexolinguistic-bilingualmodeofspeakingreflectstheasymmetryofHn’scom-petences,butatthesametimerespectsthereciprocal,proportionalandrecep-tivebilingualismofhisaudience.ThusotherparticipantsfeelfreetouseFrenchtoo(APinl.141and144,JPinl.160).

6. AteammeetinginaresearchlaboratoryatPharmaA

Finallyletusturntotheanalysisofateammeetinginasmallresearchlabora-tory.Theparticipantswere: JamalH., theheadof the lab (his repertoireoflanguages comprisesArabic, French,English,Dutch and a bit ofGerman),MaraS.,aHungarianlabassistantspeakingHungarian,RussianandGerman,twoGermanspeakinglabassistants/technicianswitharathergoodcommandofEnglish,SibylleG.,MarianneL.,andNinaS.,acolleaguefromanotherlab.



68 G. Lüdi et al.

Wewillconcentrateonthreeextracts.Thefirstonecomesrightatthebegin-ningofthemeeting,whenJamalH.assignsMarianneL.thefirsttask,namelythepresentationofanexperienceprotocol(writteninGerman):

(5)19 JH: so(..)yaehwestartbecauseninayouare20 leavingyouwanttoleave=21 NS: =yes=22 JH: =infifteenminutessowestartwiththis23 protocol24 NS: mmh25 JH: ifyouhavefeedback(...)whowantsmaybe26 marianneyoucansummarizeingermanyawhat’s27 ehyoudid28 ML: mmh29 JH: andwhatyouexpect30 ML: mmh(...)alsowirhabenjetztdasrpmi31 protokoll(.)aufgemöbelt(.)aufdatiert(.)und32 zwarhabenwirdiesenfaktor(.)diesen33 verdünnungs-ehfakt-correctionfactornoch34 reingegeben=35 NS: =mmh=36 ML: =wegendemmediumdasmannochbeigibtim37 vergleichzudems938 NS: mmhok

Inthesecondextract,severalminuteslater,thediscussiononthe“correctionfactor”continues:

176 NS: soithinkwecanwritelikethiswithehmüssenmit177 einemfaktorvonehm=178 JH: einkommadrei179 NS: undehaufgerechnetistkeindeutscheswortmultipliziert180 JH: mmh181 NS: jarecourcesisnotforthecalculationtherightword182 asomultipliziertwerdenumdiegewünschtekonzen-183 trationzuerreichenunddannwürdichdensatzdazu-184 macheneinfachumzu&185 JH: =mmh=186 NS: &erklären(..)wieesdannzudenauchverschiedenen187 abkürzungenhierkommtweischsonencorrection188 factordasbeinhaltetsalzfaktorundsubstanzgehalt(.)189 unddannebendieserverdünnungsfaktor=




190 ML: =josalzgit’sjonüm191 JH: maybethen192 NS: =andthenandthenthecalculationJa193 JH: thenherethatshouldbethesame(.)yousayyouex-194 plainedbetweenbracketsittakesäh(.)yeahonething195 youcoulddo(.)eitheryoudothisnullkomma-fünfsechs196 millilitermediumwithouts9thenwehaveonecorrection197 factordilutionfactor(.)oryouwanttokeepwiths9198 differenceorwithouts9wediscussed(.)becauseifyou199 wanttodoadifferencethenyouwillhavetwocorrection200 factors

Inathirdextracttakentowardstheendofthemeeting,JamalH.looksaheadtotheworkofthecomingweeksandsuddenlyaddressesMaraS.:

1239 JH: [thenit’sverygood]it’sreally1240 reallygoodbecausethenmara1241 MS: ((elle sursaute))wasmüssenwir?1242 JH: keinproblemmaraha::hatehmicrokernxxxdrei1243 odervier?(.)dannwirbrauchtnichtsmehr1244 gendatabisseptemberoderoktober

Inaninterviewafterthemeeting,wepresentedJamalH.withthisrecordingandaskedhimtocommentonthelanguagechoices.Firstheaffirmedthedom-inanceofEnglishintheworkplaceatPharmaA,butsecondlyacknowledgedthepresenceofotherlanguages(inhislabGerman,inLabAFrench).Hereanexampleofhis representationsof the languageuse inhis lab inhisownwording:

Touslesrapportsdoiventêtreenanglais.Toutdocumentofficiel,lestudyplan,doitêtreenanglais.Letravailexpérimental,çapeutêtreenallemandouanglais.Ilyacequenousappelonsrawdata,lesdonnéesbrutes,c’estenallemand.Lesworkingdocuments,lesdocumentsavec lesquels elles [sc les laborantines] travaillent, sont enallemand,etça,c’estunpeutoléréparcequ’onestenSuisse.C’estunmélange.Parfoisc’estin-téressant,maisjenemerendspascomptequandjeparleetparfoisilyaunmélangelinguistique

[AllthereportsmustbeinEnglish.Everyofficialdocument,thestudyplan,mustbeinEnglish.ExperimentscanbeinGermanorEnglish.Theyarewhatwecallrawdata,it’sinGerman.TheworkingdocumentswithwhichtheassistantsworkareinGerman,andthisiskindoftoleratedbecauseweareinSwitzerland.It’samixture.Sometimesit’sinteresting,butI’mnotawareanymorewhenIspeakandsometimesit’samixtureoflanguages.]



70 G. Lüdi et al.

Theanalysisofthequotedextractsfullyconfirmsthisstatement.Twoparam-etersdetermineourinterpretation:(a)theparticipantsdonotshareacommonL1,thustheinteractionisagainexolinguistic;( b) theydonotrestrict them-selves tooneof the languages in their repertoires,but employ twoof themsimultaneously. The interaction is bilingual and thus we are able to ob-serveinstancesofexolinguistic-bilingualspeech9.AlongwiththeconceptualframeworkofDYLAN,weinsistlessonthediscursivefunctionsofthecode-switching(asGumperz[1982],Auer[1998]orMyersScotton[1993]didforendolinguistic-bilingualsituations;seeLüdi[2005]foranoverview)thanonconceptslikeefficiencyandfairness(GazzolaandGrin2007;Grin2008).Inthe extracts quoted, one can, for example, askoneselfwhy JamalH. askedMarianneL.tospeakGerman(l.26),whyMarianneL.chosetheEnglishterm“correctionfactor”whilstspeakingGerman(l.33),whyNinaS.switchedtoGerman(l.176),whyJamalH.turnedtoGerman(l.178,l.195)anddecidedtoaddressMaraS.inthislanguage(l.1242s.).Withoutbeingabletogointodetails, letusmentionhereacoupleof tensions thatmake languagechoiceunpredictable:Englishasthedominantlanguageofthecompany(andofscience)weighs

heavilyonterminologicalchoices,evenwhenotherlanguagesarespoken.ThereformulationbyMarianneL.(l.32s.)indicatesthattheEnglishterminaGer-mansentenceistherightword.Thischoiceislatercorroboratedbyothermem-bersoftheteamwhoreusethesametechnicalterm.Examplesofthisphenom-enonarenumerousandcanbeexplainedintermsofsemantictransparencyandcognitiveeconomy.Theparticipantrelatedcode-switchingofJamalH.whenaddressingMaraS.

(l.1241s.)isamarkofhisstrategyofaccommodatingthoseamonghissub-ordinatesforwhomhedeemsitnecessary.Hehimselfstrengthensthisexpla-nationwhenhesays:

Maranecomprendpasassezl’anglaisetjesaisqueMariannes’exprimemieuxenal-lemandqu’enanglais.Pourmoi,leplusimportantc’estqu’ELLESs’entendentetsecomprennentsurleschangementsqu’ilsvontfaireàceprotocole,parcequec’estundocumentqu’ELLESutilisentchaquejourpourtravailler.

[Maradoesn’tunderstandenoughEnglishandIknowthatMariannespeaksbetterGer-manthanEnglish.Forme,itismostimportantthatTHEYgetalongwitheachotherandunderstandthechangestheywillapplytothisprotocol,becauseit’sadocumentTHEYusedailyintheirwork.]

Forhim,itisamatterofmaintainingarelationshipofconfidence.HehasbeenworkingwithMara S. for a long time and recognizes quicklywhether sheunderstandshimornot:




Sijesaisqu’unepersonneparleallemand,j’essaiedeparlerl’allemand.J’utilisemonbagagelinguistiqueetsijenetrouvepaslesmots,jesauteenanglais,ouvice-versaousijevoisqu’ellecomprendl’anglais,jenechangepasenallemand.C’estuneadapta-tion,parlantavecelle,jeregardecommeelleréagit,parcequeavecletemps,jerecon-naisquandellecomprendetquandellenecomprendpas.Sielleditqu’ellen’apascompris,jeledisenallemand.

[IfIknowthatsomebodyspeaksGerman,I try tospeakGerman.ImakeuseofmylinguisticluggageandifIdon’tfindthewords,IjumptoEnglish,orvice-versaorifIsee that sheunderstandsEnglish, Idon’t switch toGerman. It’sanaccommodation,speakingwithher,Iobservehowshereacts,becausebyandby,Irecognizewhensheunderstandsandwhenshedoesn’tunderstand.Ifshetellsmeshedidn’tunderstand,IsayitinGerman.]

ToleratingorevenimposingGerman,thepreferredlanguageofhissubordi-natesinwhichheisnotreallyproficient,canbeexplainedbyhisconcernforbeingefficientandproductive.Inanotherpartofthecollaborativeassessmentofourrecordings,heelaboratesonthisdimensionofefficiency:

Elledoitcomprendrelemessagedansletempslepluscourtpossible.Çanesertàriendeparlerenanglaisetpuisjedoisréexpliquer,redireet(attendreqqnàtraduire),doncj’essaiedefairetraducteurenmêmetemps.Donclà,c’estvraimentpourfaciliter,c’est-à-direpourquetoutlemondesesenteàl’aise,toutlemondecomprenne,toutlemondesur le même niveau, et puis voilà, efficacité ça veut dire vraiment immédiatementlorsqu’onafinilaréuniontoutlemondeconnaîtdéjàlemessage.

[Sheneedstounderstandthemessageintheshortesttimepossible.It’suselesstospeakEnglishand thenIhave toexplain itagain, to tell itagain, towait forsomebody totranslate,soItrytobeatranslatormyself.Sohere,itisreallytofacilitatethings,thatistomakeeveryonefeelatease,everyoneunderstands,everyoneatthesamelevel,andthatisit,efficiencymeansinfact,immediately,whenameetingisfinished,everyonealreadyknowsthemessage.]

TheexperienceprotocoltobediscussedinthismeetingiswritteninGerman.TheattemptsatcorrectionthusgenerateaconflictbetweenthelanguageoftheprotocolandthepreferredlanguageofJamalH.ThisexplainshisuseofGer-man(l.178, l.195),butalsothelanguagechoiceofNinaS.(l.176)beforeaccommodatingherselftothelanguageofhercolleague.Theseexamplesconfirmthefactthatpartiallysharedplurilingualrepertoires

areperceivedbytheparticipantsasresourcestobeusedaccordingtothesitu-ation, i.e. ina“situatedway”(Mondada2001;PekarekDoehler2005;Lüdi2007d)andascontributingtoconfigureresearchactivitiesindyadicandpoly-adicinteractionsintheworkplace.Theparticipants’linguisticprofiles(i.e.theconfiguration of their linguistic competences or rather of the representation



72 G. Lüdi et al.

theyhaveoftheirrespectivecompetences)andtheirsharedknowledgeaboutschemesofactiondeterminingtypesoftasks(e.g.thediscussionandcorrec-tionofanexperiencerecord)lead,inLabB,toavariablelanguagechoiceandtoplurilingualspeech,allof this,ofcourse, takingintoaccountsocialrules(hierarchy, politeness), the participants’ unequal linguistic means, acceptedcustoms and the degree ofmonitoring that takes place (Lüdi and Py 2003[1986]).Let us quote for a last time Jamal H. who explains the reasons for his

behavior:

Parcequ’auquotidien,onneserendpascomptecommentonjongleavecleslangues.Lebutc’estvraimentdepasser lemessageetd’êtreefficace.Onn’apas le tempsàperdre.Etlàc’estclairlacommunication,lalanguec’estprimordial.

[Becauseindailylife,youdon’trealizehowyoujugglewiththelanguages.Thegoalistopassoverthemessageandtobeefficient.Wedon’thavetimetolose.Andhere,it’sclear,thecommunication,thelanguageismostimportant.]

7. Perspectives

Averyflexibleuseofmultilingualresourcesatworkhasbeenreportedfre-quently inEuropeanresearch(Kleinberger2003,2004;Mondada2004;Ka-meyamaandMeyer2007;etc.).ThiswasnotforthepurposeofcriticizingthecommunicativemaximunderlyingthemodelofEnglishaslingua franca,butratherofshowingwhichalternativesareusedintheworkplaceinamultilin-gualenvironment.Inaddition,importantdifferenceshavebeenobservedbe-tweenthelanguagechoicesprescribedbythecompanies’managementandthemodalitieschosenbyparticipantsinauthenticinteraction(Kleinberger2003;Lüdietal.forthcoming).Onecouldofcoursearguethatalternativeformsofbehaviorareonlypos-

sible in countries likeSwitzerland in general or theUpperRhine region inparticular, with their noteworthy degree of traditional plurilingualism. So,shouldwethusspeakofa“Swissmodel”(cf.Lüdi2007a)?Indeed,onecannotdenythatexternalconditionsexertaninfluenceonthespeakers’behavior.ThismightleadtotheopinionthatSwitzerland’slonghistoryofFrench–German,Italian–German, etc. intercommunity communication—and an educationpolicythatfavoredthelearningofasecondnationallanguage—contributedtotheconstructionofacultureofcommunicationwhichcouldinvolveahigheracceptanceof “mixed” speechcomparedwithotherpartsof theworld.Be-cause an existing system of linguistic values determines which “linguisticcapital”theknowledgeanduseofoneortheothervarietyconveys(Gumperz1982;Bourdieu1982).




However,wedoubtthatthesituationsdescribedareexceptional.Thisclaimisnotonlygroundedintheincreasingplurilingualismmentionedatthebegin-ning,butalsoontheoreticalarguments.Thefactthatlanguagechoiceishighlyunstable,verydynamicandpermanentlyrenegotiatedamongtheparticipantswhereverdifferentlanguagesenterintocontactsuggeststhatweshouldques-tionthetraditionalrepresentationsofwhata—monolingualormultilingual—competenceinlanguage(s)is.Onecouldadvancethisobservationintwodirections:

1. Ifweconceivethemultilingualcompetenceasanintegratedwhole,formedbypartialcompetencesinallthevarieties(languagesanddialects)thattherepertoireofthemultilingualpersonconsistsof,thenwehavetoincludea“strategiccompetence”(CouncilofEurope2001),i.e.themasteryofexo-linguistic andmultilingual communication techniques such aswe haveobservedpreviously.Inotherwords,wecontinuetopressforanewfocus,withinthefieldoflinguistics,onthemultilingualspeaker/ hearer(cf.Lüdi2004,2006).Wewouldevendaretointerpretthe“perfect”knowledgeofonelanguageonlyasa“partialcompetence”.

2. Thepresenceofadiversityof languages in theworkplace isoftencon-sideredaproblemrather thananasset in theongoingshiftofEuropeansocietiestowardsgreatermulticulturalismandplurilingualism(KameyamaandMeyer2007:7).Theanalysisofanumberofsignificantexamplesofinteractioninprofessionalcontextsallowstheconclusionthatcompaniesandtheiremployees inventseveral, rathercreativewaysofdealing“lo-cally”withmultilingualrepertoires.TheuseofEnglishaslingua francamanifestlyrepresentsasolutionfrequentlyadopted,butnowayisittheonlyone.Partialcompetencesinvariouslanguagesasobjectives(CouncilofEurope2001)togetherwithnewformsofforeignlanguageteachingandlearning(e.g.theintercomprehensionmodelasproposedbytheEuroComprogram[cf.forexample,McCannetal.2003])couldalsoinvolve,withtime,amovetowardsvariousformsofmultilingualspeech,specificallyinsituationswherethereisno“natural”languagecontact.Animportantac-centwilllieonexolinguistic-plurilingualformsofinteraction,beitinsitu-ationsofreciprocal,asymmetriccompetences,asinthecaseofexample(3)(receptiveplurilingualism,cf.tenThijeandZeevaert2007),beitthedifferentwaysthevariouslanguagesareusedbythesamespeakers,asinexamples(2),(4)and(5)(Mondada2004)orbeit—inmarginalcases—intheformofemergent,pidgin-likevarieties(Lüdietal.2009).

3. Ifwerejectthe“essentialist”conceptionoflanguagethatunderliesmanymodern,linguistictheories,atleastsinceHerder(1891[1794]),thenwewillhave tofocus,on thecontrary,on thesituated, localizedandnego-tiated use of variable linguistic resources that draw upon the multiple



74 G. Lüdi et al.

repertoiresofalltheparticipantsintheinteraction(Lüdi2006).Commu-nicative competences are extremely sensitive to context. In the light ofmodelsthatstressthecollectivedimensionofsocialactionandcognition(e.g.Resnicketal.1991),thereisjustificationforthetheorythatlinguisticresourcesareconstructed,formattedandimplementedintheframeworkofconcrete,practical,common linguisticactivitiesof theusers.FollowingFranceschini (1998, 1999), PekarekDoehler (2005) and others,we aresceptical about individualizing, context-free and autonomous (i.e. fromotherdimensionsofsocialcompetence)conceptionsoflanguagecompe-tence.This isparticularlyimportantforconstructingmodelsofplurilin-gualcommunication.Abroadconsensusbeginstoemergethat“thehumanlanguagefacultyhasanendowmentformultilingualism”(Meisel2004).Inthelightofnewresearchresults,thiscannotmeanthepredominantuseofonesinglelanguageatanygiventime(cf.Mondada2004).Themobili-zationoftheparticipantsplurilingualresourceshappensin situ,notcon-secutivelybutinonecommonmovement,isfrequentlynotdeterminedinadvance,butorganizedandnegotiatedbytheparticipantsthemselves.Thelatterassemblealltheirpossibilities,whicharereconfiguredconstantlyatthesametime.

Inthissense,theformsofplurilingualcommunicationheredescribed—whichmightnotbevery“Swiss”, indeed—couldserveas thekindofmodelsofplurilingualinteractionwhichwillbeusedinthefuturetohelpinthemanage-mentofthegrowingdiversityoftheEuropeanUnionaswesearchfora“plu-rilingualanswer”(UmbertoEco)tothecommunicativeproblemsofaworldcharacterizedbygrowingglobalization.

University of BaselCorrespondenceaddresses:[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]

Notes

1. AllofthefollowingexampleswherethesourceisnotexplicitlymentionedweretaperecordedbytheBasel teamof theDYLANproject.This isanintegratedprojectfromtheEuropeanUnion›s Sixth Framework Program, Priority 7, “Citizens and governance in a knowledgebasedsociety”.Nineteenpartners,fromtwelvecountriesaddressthecoreissueofwhetherand,ifso,howaEuropeanknowledge-basedsocietydesignedtoensureeconomiccompeti-tivenessandsocialcohesioncanbecreateddespitethefactthat,followingenlargement,theEuropeanUnionislinguisticallymorediversethaneverbefore.

2. SeeforexampleSeidlhofer2001;Lüdi2007c.




3. Apositiveassessmentofpartialcompetencesalsoshedsnewlightonthe“exolinguistic”tech-niques forassuring intercomprehension in thecaseofasymmetriccompetencesaswewillshowlateron.

4. Onemightcallthismodelanothermanifestationofamonolingualideologyinthesensethataccepting to understand another language could be the condition for refusing to speak itactively.

5. Inafrequentlyquotedpaper,LandryandBourhis(1997:25)proposedanewapproachforthestudyofmultilingualandpolyglossicsocieties:theanalysisofthelinguisticlandscape:“Thelandscapeofpublicroadsigns,advertisingbillboards,streetnames,placenames,commercialshopsigns,andpublicsignsongovernmentbuildingscombinestoformthelinguisticland-scape of a given territory, region or urban agglomeration.” Cf. Gorter (2006); Backhaus(2007)andShohamyandGorter(2008)forbibliographicaloverviews.Asfor thefocusonpoly-/ heteroglossic urban areas see Calvet (1990) for Paris; Bagna and Barni (2005) forRome;Backhaus(2007)forTokyo;Lüdi(2007b)forBasel.

6. SeeLüdi et al. 2005 for a detailed analysis of thedemolinguistic situation inSwitzerlandconformingtotheNationalCensus2000.

7. AllthefiguresarefromtheNationalCensus2000.8. SeeLüdietal.[1997]andLüdietal.[2005]fortheintegrationofthehostlanguageintheir

oralfamilyrepertoire.9. SeeLüdi2003forafulldiscussionofthedifferentformsofspeechatthecrossingbetween

twocontinua:monolingual—plurilingualandendolinguistic—exolinguistic.

References

Altermatt,Bernhard&MonikaHeiniger.2008.Sprachgebrauch und Umgang mit Mehrsprachig-keit in der Schweizer Armee(am Beispiel einer mehrsprachigen Brigade).Basel:SchlussberichtNFP56.

Auer,Peter(ed.).1998.Code-switching in conversation.London:Routledge.Backhaus,Peter.2007.Linguistic landscapes. A comparative study of urban multilingualism in

Tokyo.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Bagna,Carla&MonicaBarni.2005.Daidatistatisticiaidatigeolinguistici:Perunamappaturadelnuovoplurilinguismo.Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata34(2).329–355.

Barère,Bertrand.1794.Rapport du Comité de salut public sur les idiomes du 8 pluviôse an II.http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/barere-rapport.htm

Berchtold,Célia.2009.La communication interne au sein de l’entreprise Pharma B à Bâle.Bâle:Institutd’Etudesfrançaisesetfrancophones.

Berthoud,Anne-Claude.2008.LeprojetDYLAN‘Dynamiquesdeslanguesetgestiondeladiver-sité’.Unaperçu.Sociolinguistica22.171–185.

Bono,Mariana.2008.Ressources plurilingues dans l’apprentissage d’une troisième langue: as-pects linguistiques et perspectives didactiques. Paris:Thèsedel’UniversitéParisIII.

Bono,Mariana&SofiaStratilaki.2009.TheM-factor,abilingualassetforplurilinguals?Learners’representations,discoursestrategiesandthirdlanguageacquisitionininstitutionalcontexts.In-ternational Journal of Multilingualism6(2).207–227.

Bourdieu,Pierre.1982.Langage et pouvoir symbolique.Paris:Fayard.Calvet,Louis-Jean.1990.Desmotssurlesmurs:unecomparaisonentreParisetDakar.InRobertChaudenson(ed.),Des langues et des villes, 73–83. Paris:Agencedecoopérationculturelleettechnique.



76 G. Lüdi et al.

Canale,Michael&MerrillSwain.1980.Theoreticalbasesofcommunicativeapproachestosec-ondlanguageteachingandtesting.Applied Linguistics1.1– 47.

Charles,Mirjaliisa.2007.Languagemattersinglobalcommunication.Journal of BusinessCom-munication44.260 –282.

CouncilofEurope.2001.Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Duchêne,Alexandre.2009.Marketing,managementandperformance:multilingualismascom-modityinatourismcallcentre.Language Policy8.27–50.

Eco,Umberto.CommentinaFrenchnewspaper(LeMonde7Oct1994).Fichte,JohannGottlieb.1808.Reden an die Deutsche Nation.Berlin:InderRealschulbuchhandlung.Franceschini,Rita.1998.Code-switchingandthenotionofcodeinlinguistics:proposalsforadualfocusmodel.InPeterAuer(ed.),Code-switching in conversation. Language, interaction and identity,51–74.London:Routledge.

Franceschini,Rita.1999.Italiano di contatto: parlanti occasionali e riattivazioni di conoscenze non focalizzate.Basel:Habilitationsschrift,PhilosophischeFakultätderUniversitätBasel.

Gal,Susan.1986.Linguisticrepertoire.InUlrichAmmon,NorbertDittmar,KlausJ.Mattheier&PeterTrudgill(eds.),Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society,286 –292.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter.

Gazzola,Michele&FrançoisGrin.2007.Assessingefficiencyandfairnessinmultilingualcom-munication:towardsageneralanalyticalframework.AILA Review20.87–105.

Gorter,Durk(ed.).2006.Linguisticlandscape:anewapproachtomultilingualism. [Specialissue.]International Journal of Multilingualism 3(1).

Grégoire, Henri. 1794. Rapport sur la Nécessité et les Moyens d’anéantir les Patois et d’universaliser l’Usage de la Langue française du 16 prairial an II.http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/gregoire-rapport.htm

Grin,François.2008.UnaspectdelatransversalitédansleprojetDYLAN:‘Efficienceetéquité’.Présentation lors du colloque VALS/ASLA 2008: Sociétés en mutation — les défis méth-odologiques de la linguistique.

Grosjean,François.1985.Thebilingual as a competentbut specific speaker-hearer.Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural development6.467– 477.

Grosjean,François.2001.Thebilingual’slanguagemodes.InJ.L.Nicol(ed.),Language Process-ing in the Bilingual.Oxford:Blackwell.1– 25.

Gumperz,John.1982.Discourse strategies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Herder,JohannGottfriedvon.1891[1794].BriefezurBeförderungderHumanität.InB.Suphan(ed.),J. G. V. Herder: Sämtliche Werke,vol.XVII.Berlin:WeidmannscheBuchhandlung.

Kameyama,Shinichi&BerndMeyer(eds.).2007.Mehrsprachigkeit am Arbeitsplatz.Frankfurta.M:PeterLang.

KleinbergerGünther,Ulla.2004.Kommunikation in Betrieben. Wirtschaftslinguistische Aspekte der innerbetrieblichen Kommunikation.München:PeterLang.

KleinbergerGünther,Ulla.2004.WirtschaftslinguistikundMehrsprachigkeit,Babylonia2004/4,36– 39.

Landry,Rodrigue&RichardY.Bourhis.1997.Linguisticlandscapeandethnolinguisticvitality:anempiricalstudy.Journal of Language and Social Psychology16.23– 49.

Louhiala-Salminen,Leena,MirjaliisaCharles&AnneKantkaaranta.2005.Englishasa linguafrancainNordiccorporatemergers:twocasecompanies.English for Specific Purposes24(4).401– 421.

Lüdi,Georges.2003.Code-switchingandunbalancedbilingualism.InJean-MarcDewaele,AlexHousen&LiWei(eds.),Bilingualism: beyond basic principles. Festschrift in honour of Hugo Baetens Beardsmore,174–188.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.




Lüdi,Georges.2004.Pourunelinguistiquedelacompétencedulocuteurplurilingue.Revue fran-çaise de linguistique appliquée 9(2).125–135.

Lüdi,Georges.2005.Code-switching/Sprachwechsel.InUlrichAmmon,NorbertDittmar,KlausJ.Mattheier&PeterTrudgill(eds.),Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society,2ndedn.,vol.I,341–350.Berlin&NewYork:WalterdeGruyter.

Lüdi,Georges.2006.Multilingualrepertoiresandtheconsequencesforlinguistictheory.InKris-tinBührig&JanD.tenThije(eds.),Beyond misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of intercul-tural communication,11– 42.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Lüdi,Georges.2007a.TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication. In JanD. tenThije&LudgerZeevaert(eds.),Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts,159–178.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

Lüdi,Georges.2007b.Basel:einsprachigundheteroglossisch.Zeitschrift für L iteraturwissenschaft und Linguistik148.132–157.

Lüdi, Georges. 2007c. Braucht Europa eine Lingua franca? In Roswitha Fischer (ed.), Her-ausforderungen der Sprachenvielfalt in der Europäischen Union, 128–148. Baden-Baden:Nomos.

Lüdi,Georges.2007d.Delacompétencelinguistiqueaurépertoireplurilingue.Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 84. 173–189.

Lüdi,Georges,LukasA.Barth,KatharinaHöchle&PatchareeratYanaprasart.2009.Lagestionduplurilinguismeautravailentrela‘philosophie’del’entrepriseetlespratiquesspontanées.Socio-linguistica 23.32–52.

Lüdi, Georges, Katharina Höchle & PatchareeratYanaprasart. Forthcoming. Dynamiques lan-gagièresetgestiondeladiversité:l’exempled’unegrandeentreprisepharmaceutiqueinterna-tionalebaséeenSuisse. InPaulDanleretal. (eds.),Actes du XXV Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes.

LüdiGeorges&BernardPy.2003[1986].Etre bilingue.3rdedn.Berneetal.:Lang.Lüdi,Georges&BernardPy.2009.Tobeornottobe...amultilingualspeaker.International

Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism.6:2,154–167.Lüdi,Georges; IwarWerlen,.incollaborationwithSarahColombo,PhilippeLüdi,MaxMader,KerstinSchmidtandFeeSteinbach.2005.Le paysage linguistique en Suisse.Neuchâtel:Officefédéraldelastatistique(StatistiquedelaSuisse.Recensementfédéraldelapopulation2000).

Lüdi,Georges,IwarWerlen,RitaFranceschini,encollaborationavecFranceescaAntonini,SandroBianconi, Jean-Jacques Furer, ChristineQuiroga, EwaldWeber etAdrianWyman 1997.Le paysage linguistique de la Suisse.Berne:Officefédéraldelastatistique(StatistiquedelaSuisse.Recensementfédéraldelapopulation1990).

McCann,WilliamJ.,HorstG.Klein&TilbertD.Stegmann.2003.EuroComRom — The seven sieves: how to read all the Romance languages right away.Aachen:ShakerPublishing.

Meisel,Jürgen.2004.Thebilingualchild.InT.K.Bhatia&W.C.Ritchie(eds.),The handbook of bilingualism, 91–113. Oxford:Blackwell.

Mondada,Lorenza.2001.Pourunelinguistiqueinteractionnelle.Marges linguistiques1.142–162.Mondada,Lorenza. 2004.Ways of ‘DoingBeingPlurilingual’ in internationalworkmeetings.InRodGardner&JohannesWagner(eds),Second language conversations, 27– 60.London:Continuum.

Myers-Scotton,Carol.1993.Social motivations for code-switching: evidence from Africa.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Pekarek[Doehler],Simona.1999.Leçons de conversation: dynamiques de l’interaction et acqui-sition de compétences discursives.Neuchâtel&Paris:Delachaux&Niestlé.

PekarekDoehler, Simona. 2005.De la nature située des compétences en langue. In JeanPaulBronckart,EcaterinaBulea&MichèlePuoliot (eds.),Repenser l’enseignement des langues:



78 G. Lüdi et al.

comment identifier et exploiter les compétences?, 41– 68.Villeneuved’Ascq:Pressesuniversi-tairesduSeptentrion.

Resnick,LaurenB.,JohnM.Levine&StephanieTeasley(eds.).1991.Perspectives on socially shared cognition.Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Seidlhofer,Barbara.2001.Closingaconceptualgap:thecaseofthedescriptionofEnglishasalinguafranca.International Journal of Applied Linguistics11(2).133–158.

Shohamy,Elana&DurkGorter(eds.).2008.Linguistic landscape. Expanding the scenery.Lon-don:Routledge.

Spolsky,Bernard.2009.Language management.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.tenThije,JanD.&LudgerZeevaert(eds.).2007.Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses,

language policies and didactic concepts.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.Vollstedt,Marina.2002.Englishasalanguageforinternalcompanycommunications.InKarlfriedKnapp&ChristianeMeierkord (eds),Lingua franca communication, 87–108. Frankfurt amMain:PeterLang.



Patterns of language in polyglossic urban areas and multilingual ...International Journal of the...

Documents

Transcript of Patterns of language in polyglossic urban areas and multilingual ...International Journal of the...