unofficial multiling ualism in an intercu ltural...

BURKHOLDER,CRUMP,GODFREY-SMITH,&SARKAR

JournalofBelonging,Identity,Language,andDiversity(J-BILD)•Vol.1(1)Revuedelangage,d’identité,dediversitéetd’appartenance(R-LIDA)

5

UNOFFICIALMULTILINGUALISMINANINTERCULTURALPROVINCE:POLYVOCALRESPONSESTOPOLICYASLIVEDEXPERIENCE

CASEYBURKHOLDER,UniversityofNewBrunswickALISONCRUMP,McGillUniversityLAURENGODFREY-SMITH,RoyalRoadsUniversityMELASARKAR,McGillUniversity

ABSTRACT.DailylanguageuseinMontréal(Québec)isadelicatebalancingactthatgoesbeyondbilingual /multilingual categories ormulticultural / intercultural frameworks. Language policy,whichtoanextentdominatestheQuébeclinguisticlandscape,canalsobeseenastheobjectofconstantmanipulationandnegotiationby individualsandcommunitieswhoexerciseagency inlocally-determinedand locally significantways.OurMontréal-based researchcommunity,BILD(Belonging, Identity, Language and Diversity), draws on perspectives from outside as well asinsideMontréal,andQuébec,toshowhowpeopleandpoliciesinteractinreal-lifecontextsthatdefy description in terms of neat dichotomies. We take advantage of our many voices toharmonizeapolyvocalconversationaboutlanguageuseonthegroundinMontréalandfurther.Weaving together several strands of research and lived experience, we form a tapestry ofcomplex language practices in constant combination and recombination. We further offersuggestions for ways to rethink official models of multiculturalism and bilingualism asframeworks for understanding how individuals in cities like Montréal use language in theireverydaylives.

RÉSUMÉ. À Montréal, Québec, l’utilisation courante de la langue devient un délicat exerciced’équilibre qui va bien au-delà des catégories de bilinguisme / plurilinguisme ou des cadresthéoriquesreliésaumulticulturalisme/interculturalisme.Lespolitiqueslinguistiquesquijusqu’àuncertainpointdominentlepaysagelinguistiquequébécois,peuventêtrevuesentantqu’objetsdemanipulationetdenégociationconstante,pardesindividusetdescommunautésquimettentenpratiquedesactionssurleplanlocal.Cesactionssontdéterminéesetsignificativesseulementàceniveau.NotrecommunautéderecherchebaséeàMontréal,LIDA(langue,identité,diversitéet appartenance) se fonde sur des perspectives situées à l’extérieur ainsi qu’à l’intérieur deMontréal et du Québec; nous cherchons à montrer comment les gens et les politiquesinteragissentdansdiverscontextesdelaviequotidienne,contextesquidéfienttoutedescriptionen termes de dichotomies nettes. En utilisant nos multiples voix, nous harmonisons uneconversation polyvocale autour des usages linguistiques sur le terrain àMontréal et au-delà.Nous tissons une riche tapisserie de pratiques langagières complexes, en combinaison etrecombinaisonconstante,àpartirdeplusieursfilstirésdelarechercheetdenotreexpériencevécue.NousoffronsaussidessuggestionsquipermettraientderepenserlesmodèlesofficielsdemulticulturalismeetdebilinguismeentantquecadresconceptuelspourcomprendrecommentlesgenshabitantdesvillescommeMontréalutilisentlelangagedansleursviesquotidiennes.

Keywords:multilingualism,interculturalism,languagepolicy,polyvocality.


JournalofBelonging,Identity,Language,andDiversity(J-BILD)•Vol.1(1) Revuedelangage,d’identité,dediversitéetd’appartenance(R-LIDA)

6

INTRODUCTION:OFFICIALMULTICULTURALISM,UNOFFICIALMULTILINGUALISMIndividualswholiveinMontréalinteractwithseverallayersofgovernment-mandatedlanguagepoliciesonadailybasis.Ontheonehand,Canadianfederalpolicyisbilingual(OfficialLanguagesAct, 1969), whereas Québec provincial language policy is not1 (Lamarre, 2007).Moreover, incontrasttoCanada’smulticulturalism,whichhasbeenofficialpolicysince1971,Québecdrawsfromanintercultural frameworkthat isseentorespondto itsowndistinctanddiversesociety(Meer & Modood, 2012). On top of these notions of bilingualism, multiculturalism, andinterculturalismistheaddedlayerofmultilingualism.Whilenotofficialpolicy,multilingualismisalived-realityformanyinCanada’slargercitiesincludingMontréal(Lamarre,2013),wherethereare daily collisions between official language policy, interculturalism, and individuals’experiences.Thesecomplexitiessuggestthatitmaybetimetorethinkofficialmodelsofmulticulturalismandbilingualism as frameworks for understanding how individuals in cities like Montréal uselanguageintheireverydaylives.Indeed,wearguethatamorecomplexsetoflocally-responsiveperspectives is needed in order to gain an in-depth understanding of multicultural andmultilingual realities inQuébec.However,beforesucha rethinkingcan takeplace,weexploreindividuals’livedexperiencesoflanguagepolicy,guidedbythefollowingquestions:

• HowdoindividualsinMontréalnegotiatetheirlanguageidentitieswithinthecontextofofficialinterculturalismandunofficialmulticulturalism?

• What do their lived experiences tell us about tensions between language ideologies,rules,andpractices?

• Howmighttheseinsightsinformlanguagepolicyresearchinthefuture?In order to address these questions, we offer our experiences as multilingual MontréalersthroughpolyvocalreflectionsonlanguagepolicybydrawingonresearchbeingdonebothwithinandbeyondQuébecthathasinformedandshapedourperspectivesonlocalpolicy.RESEARCHERPOSITIONALITYAs members of the Belonging, Identity, Language, and Diversity (BILD) research community(http://bild-lida.ca/), we share the view that language is a social practice and approach ourinquiry from the perspective of critical language scholars. In this paper, we attend to atheoreticalstancegroundedattheintersectionoftwoareasofliterature:interculturalism(Meer& Modood, 2012; Waddington, Maxwell, McDonough, Cormier, & Schwimmer, 2012) andlanguagepolicy(Shohamy,2009;Spolsky,2004;Tollefson,1994,2006).Webeginthisarticlebyexploring the notions of interculturalism andmulticulturalism,which provide the backdrop tothe current article. We then discuss the model of language policy that we have used as aconceptualframeworktoourstudy.Followingthis,webrieflyoutlinethepolyvocalmethodthatweusedtoexplorethelivedrealitiesoflanguagepolicyinCanada.Thisarticlecloseswithsome



7

finalthoughtsontheimportanceoflocally-responsiveperspectivesonunofficialmultilingualisminaninterculturalprovince.INTERCULTURALISMVS.MULTICULTURALISMAn unexpected impact of Québec’s four-decade-old French language policy, La charte de lalanguefrançaise(colloquially,«laloi101»or“Bill101”),hasbeenanincreaseinmultilingualismamongMontréalers,ratherthanFrenchmonolingualism.WhilepeoplearelearningandspeakingFrench,theyarealsorespondingtoastrongandverycontemporarypulltowardsEnglishasthelanguage of the Canadian and international economy. Montréal is the city where mostimmigrants toQuébec settle, and is thecity inNorthAmerica thathas thehighestnumberoftrilinguals (Lamarre,2013).There isanother layer to theoftenuneasyFrench-Englishbilingualtension: themultilingual lived realityofmanyMontréalerswhomaintain “heritage” languages(Cummins,2005)asmarkersoffamilyandcommunitybelonging(Lamarre,2003).Multiculturalism—asdefinedwithinCanada’s1971MulticulturalismPolicy (Haque,2012)—hasbeendescribedas “adirtyword inQuébec”because it suggests thatall cultures,peoplesandlanguage practices exist in a celebratory mosaic, where non-dominant language and culturalpracticesareintheorytoberespectedequally(Waddington,Maxwell,McDonough,Cormier,&Schwimmer, 2012, p. 3). However, this notion represents “a betrayal of Québec’s historicalstatus within the Canadian federation and undermines Québec’s grounds for seeking greaterpoliticalautonomyfromCanada”(p.3).Acknowledgingthatthepresenceofdiversitydoesnotinitselfguaranteeaninclusivesociety,Québec’sinterculturalismseekstocreateapublicsphereforthe integrationofnewcomerswith longtimeresidentswhilealsorespecting thediversityof itscitizens. Instead of diminishing racialized and minoritized citizens' diverse experiences andlinguisticandhistoricalreserves,interculturalismdirectlyacknowledgessocialasymmetry,ortheidea that a society privileges specific cultures, language practices, and ethnicities in anasymmetrical fashion (Maxwelletal.,2012). Interculturalism, inpractice, requires thatcitizensdialogue through a common language to address issues thatmay arise in pluralistic societies(Abdallah-Pretceille,2006;Seidle,2009).InQuébec,thatcommonlanguageisFrench.LANGUAGEPOLICY:PRACTICES,IDEOLOGY,MANAGEMENTWerefertolanguagebothasaverb(i.e.,languageasadoing)andasanoun(i.e.,languageasathing). This conceptualisation of language as an action and a resource provides the space toexplorefluidity, individualagency,andcreativity,aswellasrecognizeshowboundariesaroundcategories and identity labels are socially constructed (García, 2009;Heller, 2007; Pennycook,2010). It allows us to examine how power has become associated with certain linguisticresources in certain spaces andhow individuals navigate their identities in these spaces (thuschangingthespacesthroughactsofresistance).Weseelanguagesandlanguagingaspartofagivensetofsociallydistributedresourcesthatindividualsdrawfromintheirnegotiationofsocialmeaning(Heller,2007),andapproachourinquiryfromaperspectivethatviewssocialrelationsasembeddedwithinrelationsofpower(Lamarre,2013).



8

We draw on Spolsky’s (2004) tripartite model of language policy, which connects writtendocuments with, first, language practices, second, language ideologies, and third, languagemanagement. Language practices account for what people do with language; that is, theirlanguaging and translanguaging (García, 2009). However, a language practices perspective isinterestednotonlyintheactionoflanguaging,butalsoinunderstandingwhatshapesthedoingof language, including socio-historical influences (Shohamy, 2009; Tollefson, 1994). Languageideologies account for beliefs and values assigned to particular languages and ways oflanguaging.Contemporaryviewsoflanguageideologieshavetodowiththeworkingsofpowerineveryday lifeandare reflectiveofsociopoliticalandhistorical,not linguistic, facts (Weber&Horner, 2012;Woolard, 1998). Finally, languagemanagement is oftenunderstood as the top-down language planning that nation-states engage in to regulate the language behaviours ofcitizens. However, we take the view that languagemanagement occurs at all levels of socialinteraction,andweareinterestedinhowlanguagepracticesandideologiesaremanagedwithinindividuals’livedexperiences(e.g.,Crump,2017).POLYVOCALITYASMETHODANDPRACTICEWhenconsideringhowwemightexploreandargueforamorecomplexsetoflocally-responsiveperspectivesonmulticulturalandmultilingualrealitiesinQuébec,wesoughtaresearchmethodthatwouldallowustoreflectonourrespectiveresearchprojects,eachwhichfocusonlanguagepolicy as lived experiences. Our desire was to do this through a research method that wascollaborative, reflecting our identity as a research community. Thus, we were drawn to thecollaborativeresearchmethodknownaspolyvocality,whichbringstogethermultiplenarrativesallowing formultiple readingswithin a text (Gergen&Gergen,2003).Weassumeapolyvocalapproachwhere ourmultiple research narratives are drawn together through a collaborativewritingapproach.SiryandAli-Khan(2011)wrotethatcollaboratingthroughwriting“challenge[s]hierarchies...asameans toagencyand transformation” (p.7).Exploringpolyvocality inparticipatory research,Pithouse-Morgan et al. (2014) described the value of the method to address communitymembers’contributionsinknowledgeproductionandtobringthesecontributionstothesharingofthecollaborativefindings.ArnoldandBrennan(2013)consideredthatpolyvocalethnographyprovides a rhetorical space for “democratic debate, more hegemonic resistance and moreopennessandhonestyamongpractitionerresearchers”(p.353).Thisspiritofpolyvocalitymakesitanidealmethodologyforlanguagepolicyresearch.Languagepolicyasanacademicdisciplineandasabranchofpoliticaldiscoursetendstobecouchedintop-downterminology;however,asreal and conflicted the persons-as-speakers may be who come under its impersonal gaze;discussionsofinterculturalismarenolessabstract.Throughouruseofpolyvocalityasmethod,webring thevoicesof individual speakersback into thecollective spacedefinedby thepolicyfiatsofbureaucratspontificatingonissuesoflanguageandculture.Inthispolyvocalarticle,wedrawonthereflectionsofeightmembersofBILD(includingoursasauthors)whorespondedtoaseriesofquestionsaboutourrespectiveresearchprojects.



9

ToelicitthepolyvocalreflectionsofourownandotherBILDmembers’reflectionsondifferentaspectsofpolicyaslivedexperienceinresearchcontextsbothinsideandoutsideofQuébec,wepostedseveralquestions (seeTable1below)onBILD’sprivatesocialmediaplatformbetweenFebruaryandApril2016.AsBILDismadeupofMcGillcurrentandformergraduatestudentsandfacultymembers,responsestoquestionsreflectedindividuals’currentstatusintheirrespectiveresearchprojectsatthetimethatthedatawasgenerated;thismeansthatsomecontributionstotheconversationsrepresentedherecomefromresearchprojectsthatwereintheplanningorearlyexecutionstages.Rather than reportingon findings, threecontributors—Medhi,StephenandSumanthra—describethecontextoftheirstudiesandhowtheyrespondtodiverselanguagepracticesinmulticultural(e.g.,Saskatchewan,Canada)and/orintercultural(Québec)contexts.Inaddition,itisimportanttonotethatwhilethispaperwasauthoredbyfourmembersoftheBILDcommunity,thevoicesofseveralothermembersofthecommunityarealsorepresentedhereascontributionstothegenerationofpolyvocaldata.Inthesectionthatfollows,apolyvocaldialogueisdistilledfromtheseexchanges,presentedinnarrativeformtoreflecttheparticipatoryandpolyvocalnatureoftheresearchprocessthatweengaged in. After sharing these reflections,wediscuss key threads that emerged vis-à-vis ourtheoreticallens,whichdrawsonbothinterculturalismandlanguagepolicy.

Whatisourresearchabout?Whoareweworkingwith?Whatmethodsareweusing?

Whatissuesaroseinrelationtolanguagepolicyinourresearch?

Whatwereourparticipants’ideaswereaboutlanguageuseinpublicplaces?

Howdidparticipantsdescribelivedexperiencesoflanguagerules?

Table1:QuestionstopromptpolyvocalreflectionsPOLYVOCALREFLECTIONSWhatisourresearchabout?Whoareweworkingwith?Whatmethodsareweusing?Alison: I did my doctoral research with multilingual Japanese-Canadian preschoolers in theirMontréalhomes (Crump,2014).Usingacreativeapproach todoing researchwith (notabout)youngchildren (Crump,2017), Iengaged inplay-basedresearch,whichcreatedspaces for thechildrentotalkabouttheirexperiencesofpositioningthemselvesasmoreorlessmultilingualindifferentlanguagepolicycontexts,suchashome,daycare,andheritagelanguageschool.



10

Figure1:Doingresearchwithyoungchildren(Alison)

Source:Crump,2014Iwasinterestedinhowthechildrenexpressedunderstandingsofhowlanguagepracticeswereinfluencedbytheirunderstandingsofassociationsbetween languageandrace.That is,Englishand French have been constructed as White languages, whereas Japanese has not – thisunderstandingseemstoinfluenceeachchild’slanguaging.Lauren:Myresearchalso focusedon individuals’experiences,but Iworkedwithyoungadults.Specifically,IwasinterestedinwhatitmeansforlearnersofFrenchtoexperiencenon-classroomlanguage anxiety in Montréal and how language anxiety can shape and be shaped by socialexperiences. I did qualitative case studies with ten individuals in Montréal who experiencedlanguage anxiety about their French. I used a non-static approach (Lamarre, 2013) to datacollection, drawing on multiple instruments including interviews, language maps, in siturecordings,journals,walkinginterviews,andfocusgroups.



11

Figure2:WalkinginterviewwithSophia(Lauren)

Source:Godfrey-Smith,2017Michaela: Iwasalso interested intheways inwhichpeople liveand language inMontréal.Myresearch—with women from North Africa who immigrated to Montréal in 2009—is aboutlooking at policies and how they affect people. I developed a conceptual framework wherelanguage is positioned as a proxy for race and otherness (Haque, 2012). I have realized thatlooking broadly at policies was imperative. I was able to see how language issues can comethroughdiversityandimmigrationpoliciestoo(particularlyinQuébec).Sumanthra:Myresearchwilllookatheritageidentitymaintenanceforlearnerswhohavelimitedknowledge of their heritage language (May, 2001, 2005). Through the use of semi-structuredinterviewsandfocusgroups,Iaimtoexplorethefollowingquestions:Isitimportanttoknowtheheritagelanguageinordertoclaimtheheritageidentity?Formixedheritagelanguagelearners,howistheirheritagelanguageproficiency,orlackofit,afactorintheirin-groupaffinity?Mehdi:Iamexploringhowmultilingualimmigrantswithhighereducationqualificationsperceivetheir language learning experiences in intercultural Québec. I am to explore how they areinvestedinlearningFrenchasanadditionallanguage,whatbarrierstheyperceive,andhowtheirnewidentitiesareconstructedandnegotiatedthroughtheiruseofmultiplelanguages.Mela: Coming to this collectiveproject as anolder researcher, I see this as anopportunity toremakemyresearchidentityinmynewroleasgrandmother(since2012)to,now,threeyoungtrilingualchildrengrowingupinmultilingualMontréal.Thesechildrenarethemainfocusofmycurrent thinking, but they also live in families within which several adults from a variety ofbackgrounds must constantly negotiate with each other, with members of their extended



12

families, andwith the outsideworld. All the groupswe havementioned— adult immigrants,heritage-language learners (mixed and not), “children of Bill 101” (and grandchildren!) arerepresented.AsImovefromoneyoungfamilytothenextinacaregivingrole,Iusethe“familyethnography”method(Sarkar,2009;Tillmann,2010).Stephen: I’m going to take us out of Québec for amoment as I discussmy thesis workwithstudents in French immersion programs in Saskatchewan. I explored the experiences ofnewcomer Allophone-citizens, learners “whose mother tongue is neither French nor English”(Mady,2007,p.728).MadyandTurnbull(2010)andMadyandBlack(2012)foundthatveryfewprovincial and territorial policies ensure access to education in both English and French forAllophonestudents;thus,thesestudentsareoftenlimitedtostudyingonlyoneofficiallanguage.Through semi-structured interviews and a Likert-scale questionnaire, I have examined theperceptions of different stakeholders (administrators, teachers, and Allophone parents)regardingtheinclusionofAllophonestudentsinSaskatchewanFrenchimmersionprograms.Casey:Mydoctoralresearchtakesaparticipatoryvisualapproachtounderstandingmultilingualandmultiethnic youngpeople's livedexperiencesof growingup, going to school, and living inHong Kong—a linguistic landscape with similar intercultural tensions to Québec. For thepurposes of this article, I would like to reflexively revisit (Burawoy, 2003) some multilingualstreetart that I viewed inmyneighbourhood (Rosemont)when Iwas living inMontréal. I seestreetartandstreetimageproductionasakindofpublicscholarship,andthiswayofthinkingisnotunique.LymanChaffee’sPoliticalProtestandStreetArt:PopularToolsforDemocratizationinHispanic Countries took up ideas of politics and street literacies in the early nineties. Moje’s(2000)article,“Tobepartofthestory”lookedatthestreetartliteracypracticesofyouthwhoself-identified as gang-affiliated, and she noted if we accept the analysis that these literacypractices are an important aspectof youngpeople’s identity construction and representation,thenweneedtoaskhowtheylearnthesepracticesandhowtheyarticulatetheseunsanctionedpracticesandidentitieswithotherpracticesandidentitiesthattheyhaveconstructedinvariouscontexts (p. 672). Other scholars have explored street art as an act of civic engagement, ofidentity, as a way to speak back to dominant discourses. It can be sexy, and dissenting, andproblematic,andangry,anditisallofthesethingsthathavecausedmetosearchoutstreetartasIwalkthrougheverydayspaces.Whatissuesaroseinrelationtolanguagepolicyinourresearch?Alison:Amainissuethatemergedamongtheyoungchildren’sparentswashowtosupporttheirchildren’smultilinguallanguagedevelopment.Manyparentstalkedtomefrequentlyabouttheirhopes for their children to grow up knowing three languages (Japanese, English, and French)(Crump,2014).Theyhadexplicit strategies forhowtheycould support thatdevelopment.Forexample,onefamilyhiredaFrenchbabysittertocometothehouseonceaweektoensurethatthechildrenwouldbeexposedtoFrenchinthehome,inadditiontoEnglishandJapanese(theparents’respectivelanguages).ThemotherwasstudyingFrenchandeventhoughsheadmittedthatshewasreallystrugglinganddidn’treallyenjoytheclasses,shenevercomplainedinfrontofthe children because shewanted them to have positive attitudes towards French. Talk about



13

investmentinfosteringmultilingualism!ThethreefamiliesIdidmyresearchwithmadeapointtotakeatriptoJapanatleastonceayeartospendtimewithgrandparentsandotherextendedfamilymemberstohelpsupportthechildren’sJapaneselanguage.AllthechildrenalsoattendedaJapaneseheritagelanguageSaturdayschoolinMontréal.

Figure3:Play-basedresearchwithTaichi(Alison)

Source:Crump,2014The children, of course, had their own perspectives on their parents’ efforts. They hadmanycommentsabout theirparents’ languagerules.Aswewereplayingonthe floorwith Japanesecharacters,4-yearoldTaichilamentedtomethat,“everything[is]inFrenchforme.”Lauren:Languagepolicy—specificallyBill101—cameupinmyresearchinacoupleofways.Ontheonehand,myparticipantsappreciatedthevalueofknowingFrenchandwantedtheirfuturechildrentogrowupbilingual;yet,ontheotherhand,theywereworriedaboutlosingtheirayantdroitstatus(referringtofamilieswhohavetherighttosendtheirchildrentoEnglishschoolsinQuébec) for themselvesand futuregenerations.Forexample,oneparticipant said, “Bill101 isonlyassimilationover100years.Right?Becausesoonerorlater,we’regoingtomingleandalltheEnglish isgoing tominglewith theFrench. . . . So inmyhead, it’sassimilationovera fewhundredyears.”AnotherwaythatBill101cameuphadtodowithparticipants'ownexperiencesofschooling.ItwasinterestingtocontrasttwoparticipantswhowerebothvisibleminoritiesandhadgrownupinMontréal.OneattendedFrenchschoolbecauseofBill101,andoneattendedprivateEnglishschooltoavoidBill101.TheonewhoattendedFrenchschoolcalledherselfa"Bill101baby"andfeltfrustratedthatpeoplealwayscommentedonhowwellshespokeFrench.The



14

otherparticipantsaid,"IwishIwereaBill101baby"becausepeoplealwayscommentedonhowshedidn'tspeakFrenchverywell.Ishouldaddthat,inbothcases,theseexperiencesdefinitelyinterplayedwiththeirlanguageanxieties.

Figure4:WalkinginterviewwithRyan(Lauren)

Source:Godfrey-Smith,2017Michaela: The biggest issue that came up in my research was the labelling of language andspeakers, and the implications for belonging and identity. More specifically, my participantstalked about the mismatch between, on the one hand, policy documents on immigrationclaimingFrenchtobeacommunityunifierand,ontheotherhand,thelivedexperienceofthosebeingdeniedthe“Francophone”label.Mela: Inmyownextendedfamily,as longasthechildrenarebabiesandmostlyathomewiththeirparents,languagepolicyisfamily-internaland,Ithink,notdifferenthereinMontréalfromwhat it might be in any other biracial/bicultural family, where the parents bring differentlanguagestotheirunionandfeelstronglyaboutpassingthoselanguagesontothechildren.Theparentsmaytrytostickexclusivelytoonelanguagewiththechildren(asmyMexicanson-in-lawdoeswithSpanish)ortheymayfeelcomfortableconstantlytranslanguagingamongallthepartsof their communicative repertoire, while promoting comprehension in a minority language(that’smyHindi-speakingdaughter-in-law,whowasraisedwithbothPunjabi,HindiandEnglishin the home and who is passing that on). Translanguaging, in this context, transcends code-switching(García&Wei,2013);theblendedlanguagingthatemergesisafarcryfromtheneaterboundary-crossing that the term code-switching implies. But there are also family contexts inwhichneithertranslanguagingnorcode-switching isappropriate.Theseyoungparentsallhaveonelanguagetheyspeaktotheirchildrenandanothertheyspeaktotheirpartner.That,too,ispartoftheirfamilylanguagepolicy.



15

Stephen: Those examples really show theways inwhich language policy comes into people’severydaylivesinQuébec.MostprovincesandterritoriesdonothavepoliciesthatensureaccesstobilingualeducationforAllophonefamilies,whichoftenlimitsthemtolearningonlyoneofficiallanguage.Inmyresearch,IamfindingthatlanguageeducationpolicyinfluencestheinclusionorexclusionofethnicallyandlinguisticallydiversestudentsinotherpartsofCanadaaswell.Casey:BylookingbackataspecificpieceofstreetartinMontréal(seeImage5below),Iseethewaysinwhichtheproductionoflanguageandliteracypracticesarepolitical.Inthisimage,wherea protestor holds a sign reading “FUCK TOUTE” (fuck everything) somuch is said. The imagespeakstolanguagepractices,tothelegacyofBill101,toFranglais,todissentandprotest,whereyouth cultures are all implicated. When I first looked at the image, I wondered, who is thisfor?Astheimageappearsonthesideofabuildingthatiseasilyviewedfromthebusline-up,Iassumethat theaudience is thosewho take the#18:amixedbag folkswithdiverse languagepractices. I regularly hear Québecois, Haitian and West African French dialects, as well asSpanish,English,andArabiconthisbus.Rosemont(theneighbourhoodthatisintersectedbythe#18)isalsoapoliticallychargedanddiverseneighbourhood.Walkingdownthesidestreetsofthis neighbourhood, one observes a lot of nationalistic propaganda mixed with left-leaningsocialist-y texts, posters, and graffiti. Much of this is written in the French language. I alsothoughtabouthowIamimplicatedasanaudiencememberforthepiece.

Figure5:MultilingualGraffiti(Casey)

Source:Burkholder,2016



16

Whatwereourparticipants’ideaswereaboutlanguageuseinpublicplaces?Alison:Six-year-oldHenrytoldme,withconfidence,thatifsomeoneinastoretalkedtohiminFrench, he would answer in French. Likewise with English. He was at ease living in and withmultiplelanguages.Taichi(age4)seemedtofeelthathisparentsfocusedtoomuchonFrench,andhefelttheweightofhisparents’effortstomaintainanddevelophisFrench.James(age4)saidthatnooneathisdaycareknewthathespeaksJapanese.What Iheardfromthechildrenwas an understanding of how some places have fixed rules about language use. But, on theplaygroundthechildrentalkedaboutmultilinguallanguagingwiththeirfriends.And,whiletherewere language use rules in the home (English with Dad, Japanese withMom), the children’shomeswerea fluidmultilingualspace.Fortheseparticipants, therewerefixed languagerules,but fluid language practices, especially in settings where the ideas about language use weremorerelaxed(e.g.,ontheplayground).Lauren:Participants inmystudyalsohadveryclear ideasaboutwhetheragivenspacewasanEnglish“zone”oraFrench“zone.”Forexample,theMcGillcampuswasanEnglishzone,buteastofBoulevardSt.LaurentwasaFrenchzone.Myparticipants’conceptualizationsofthesezonesguided their language choices. For example, some of my participants felt uncomfortablespeakingEnglishinFrenchzones.ThereseemedtobeanawarenessofanoverarchinglanguageideologythatconfirmedthatbeingamonolingualAnglophoneisn'tattractivehereinMontréal.Oneparticipant toldme, “I guess I feel like the environment is speaking tome in French so IshouldspeaktotheenvironmentinFrenchfirst....AndforrespectIguessit’sbettertoletthemknowthatyou,asanimmigrant,aretryingtoadapttotheirenvironment.”AnotherthemethatemergedaboutlanguageuseinpublicplaceshadtodowithswitchesintoEnglish.MostofmyparticipantswantedtospeakFrenchbutfoundthatpeopletheyspoketoinpublicoftenswitchedintoEnglishwiththem.Oneparticipantsaid:"Yeah,causelikeIamtrying,andthen ifallofsuddenthey justswitch,and Ididn’tevenshowthat Ididn’tunderstand. It’slike,man,wasn’tIspeakingproperly?Didtheynotunderstood(sic)?Whathappened?Soit’slike,dammit.”Intheend,Ithinkthisallcomesdowntoasenseoflostagency.Asarticulatedbyanotherparticipant, I think I’mmuchmorereceptivetotheagreeofswitching if,asyousay, Ihavesomekindofcontrolover it.Solet’ssaywhereit’shappenedwhereIask inFrench,theyanswerinEnglish,ifIrespondagaininFrenchbecauseIreallywanttotry,I’llbeinsultediftheyrespondagaininEnglishafterI’vemadeitclearthatIwanttokeepinFrench.



17

Figure6:WalkinginterviewwithLex

Source:Godfrey-Smith,2017Mela:Forour family, it is inpublicplaces that theeffectsof languagepolicymakethemselvesespeciallyfelt.IspeakEnglishtomythree-year-oldgranddaughter,whereverweare.Ihavebeenreprimandedfordoingthisinparks,storesandherdaycare.Themessageisquiteexplicit:Iamasked (in French) if I don’t want her to speak French. This is an example of themonolingualmindset at work: because the child is heard to speak/understand English, the eavesdroppinglistenerassumesthatshemustnotspeakFrench.Casey: IcanseesomeparallelsbetweenthewaysLauren’sMontréal-basedparticipants talkedabout language use in public spaces and the complexities of street art inMontréal. Differentactors takeup language, signsandsymbols for specificpurposes in their streetart.Here I amthinking aboutmy interactionswith thework of the graffiti collectiveWall of Femmes’ inmywanderingsaroundMontréal.Ilovetheiruseofrepetitiveimageryandthewaythattheyaimtocreateapublicscholarshiparoundparticularwomen.



18

Figure7:WallofFemmes’ChiefTheresaSpence(Casey)

Source:WallofFemmes,2014

Ontheirblog,themembersoftheWallofFemmes(2014)argueouraimsaremany:topromotetherecognitionandknowledgeofwomenwefindinspirational,assertthepeople’sownershipofpublicspace,counterthebombardmentofnegativemessagesinmainstreammedia,andengageinpublicdiscoursebycontributingtotheuniquecultureofourcityinameaningfulway.(para.1)ThesetextsareinEnglish,andatonetimetheyappearedthroughoutthecity.Ithinkthatstreetartcanbeawaytopayattentiontotheeverydayspaces, languageandmultiliteracypracticesthatweregularlyignore.Ialsothinkthatstreetartcanencouragearesearchprocess,fromtheconversations thatpeoplehaveabout it as anartifact, to thephotographingand socialmediaarchiving of the images, as well as being written about. Street art as a literacy practiceencouragespublicdiscourse in amultitudeof spaces (suchas thebus stoporneighbourhoodmeetings or online spaces). I continue to wonder:What can we see when we look at thesemultipurposeandmultilingualtexts?Howcanweengagewithspaceinnewwaysthatattendtocitizensmultilingualpractices?Howdidparticipantsdescribelivedexperiencesoflanguagerules?Alison:Inmywork,thechildrentalkedaboutrulesalot.JapaneseinJapaneseschool.Frenchindaycare. English with Dad. Japanese with Mom. Mostly English with siblings. Japanese withfamilyand friends in Japan.French in stores.Thechildrendemonstratedagoodawarenessofhowrulesshiftdependingonplaceandpeople.Theymanagethosetransitionsandmovementsexpertly.Andtheyknowitandareproudofit.Myfindingssuggestthatyoungchildrenhavean



19

explicit awareness of their own language repertoires, are extremely proud of them, and alsoknow that everyone in their family has a very distinct repertoire. This is certainly not a “onenation-onelanguage”kindofsituationthatofteninformstop-downlanguagepolicies.Lauren: For the most part, my participants didn't necessarily talk very much about languagerules. Instead of rules, ideologies of language were revealed instead. My participants oftendiscussed ideologies aboutwho shouldusewhat language, and inwhatplace. In fact, I foundthattheseideologiesinterplayedwiththeirlanguageanxietybecausetheyfeltasenseofshamewhentheirlanguagepracticesdidn'treflecttheseideologies.Therewereafewinstanceswhererulescameup.Iamthinkingparticularlyofoneparticipantwhoworkedinacorporatebusinessfirm.ShehadfrancophoneclientsthatshewasexpectedtospeakFrenchwith.Incaseslikethis,whereparticipants'agencywastakenawaybyarule,Iobservedmorelanguageanxiety.Overall,I foundthatmyparticipantswantedtheir languagechoicetobeachoice.Eveniftheoutcomewas thesame (e.g. speakingFrench), they feltmoreateasewith thatoutcome if ithadcomefromaplaceofchoice,ratherthanitbeingdictatedbyarule.

Figure8:WalkinginterviewwithDenise(Lauren)

Source:Godfrey-Smith,2017Casey:Ithinkthatmanyoftherealitiesofourresearchspeakbacktotheexperienceoflivinginaninterculturalprovincewithinalargermulticulturalnationalframeworkandthewaysinwhichmultilingualcitizensliveandlanguageacrossdominantlanguagepolicies.KEYINSIGHTSFROMOURPOLYVOCALPROCESSWhat we see in our polyvocal reflections is that individuals make use of language resourcesdifferentlyandagentively inandacrosstheirsocialcontextsandspacesandthatthis isalwaysinformedbyideologies;thisismetwitheitherresistancetooralignmentwithtop-downrules.In



20

all ourwork,wehave founda strong senseof agency in individuals tonegotiateandperformlanguageidentitiesthatdonotalwaysalignwithofficialpolicyframeworks.Inthenextsection,we frameour discussion of key insights from the polyvocal reflections around our theoreticalstance that draws on intersections of three aspects of language policy (practices, ideologies,management)andinterculturalism.Attheoutsetofthispaper,wearguedthatamorecomplexsetoflocally-responsiveperspectivesisneededinordertogainanin-depthunderstandingofmulticulturalandmultilingualrealitiesinQuébec.Inordertobringtolightsuchunderstandings,weposedthefollowingquestions:

• HowdoindividualsinMontréalnegotiatetheirlanguageidentitieswithinthecontextofofficialinterculturalismandunofficialmulticulturalism?

• What do their lived experiences tell us about tensions between language ideologies,rules,andpractices?

• Howmighttheseinsightsinformlanguagepolicyresearchinthefuture?Intheparagraphsthatfollow,weconsidertheimplicationsofourpolyvocaldialogueinlightofthesequestionsandclosethediscussionwithsomesuggestionsforthefutureoflanguagepolicyinandbeyondQuébec.HowdoindividualsinMontréalnegotiatetheirlanguageidentitieswithinthecontextofofficialinterculturalismandunofficialmulticulturalism?Ourpolyvocalreflectionsbringtolightsomeofthewaysinwhichindividuals’livedexperiencesoflanguagepolicyarecomplexandoftenproblematic.Thereisclearlyadiversityofissuesthatwere revealed across our various research projects and that also intersect: the fluidity oflanguage practices and identities, race, visuality, individual agency, explicit local strategies forlanguagemanagement,andpublicdissent.From our polyvocal responses, we can see that official models of multiculturalism andbilingualism are somewhat limited in how they can help us understand individuals’ everydaylanguagepractices incities likeMontréal.Onesignificantthemethatemergedinourpolyvocalreflections was the interplay between space/context and language ideologies/practices/rules.We discovered that space and context affect language ideologies, practices, and rules. Forexample,Alisonnotedthatthechildreninherstudyunderstoodwhatfixedlanguageruleswere,buttheyalsoengagedinfluidlanguagepracticesintheirdifferentsocialspaces.Inotherwords,theirlanguagepracticeswereshapedbythespaceandcontextthattheyinhabitedinanygivenmoment.Similarly,inLauren’sstudytherewasastronginterplaybetweenimaginedspacesandlanguage practices within Montréal. This was evident when she described English zones andFrenchzonesacross thecityaswell as the role that languagepolicyplayed in framingothers’preconceptionsaboutlegitimatelanguageuse.Similarly,Mela’sreflectionssuggestedthattherewasanassumedmonolingualmindset incertainsocialcontextsspeaktoan interplaybetweenspace/contextandlanguageideologies/practices/rules.



21

Yet, space and context are not always perceived or imagined, as was evidenced in Casey’sreflectionson the visual spaces createdby street art. Indeed,Casey’s reflectionshighlight thecomplexwaysinwhichlanguagesareaffordeddifferentkindsofpower,andthatinthecontextofMontréal street art, language practices aremade visual. Finally, Sumanthra’s contributionsunderscore the need to understand and acknowledge diverse heritage language practices indifferent cultural environments, including public spaces. Overall, it is clear that while thecontexts and populations within which we research may change, space plays a great role inshifting individuals’ languagepracticesandthat individual livedexperiencesof languagepolicy,astheintersectionoflanguageideologies,languagepractices,andlanguagerules,areshapedbysocial,economic,andculturalcontexts.Whatdotheir livedexperiencestellusabouttensionsbetweenlanguageideologies,rules,andpractices?With respect to languagemanagement, it isevident that language rulesmanifest inways thataresometimesunpredictableandproblematic.Emergingfromourdiscussion,thedifferentwaysthatlanguagerulescanmanifestwererevealed.Throughthestoriestoldandreflectedonhere,wesee that language rulesaremuchmore thanpolicy; rather, language rulescanmanifest inways that can be ideological, formal (as in educational settings regarding language ofinstruction),aswellastechnicalandrulesrelatedtolexisandsyntax.The implicationsof these rules for individuals on the ground in contexts likeMontréal canbeseriousforone’slanguagepractices.Forexample,Laurencommentedonhowlanguagerules—whetherformalorideological—madeherparticipantsanxiousbecausetheyfelttheiragencyhadbeen removed, and guilty/ashamed when their language practices didn’t reflect such rules.Casey's responses captured how language practices within Montréal-based street art arethemselves political acts. Further to this, Sumanthra touched on how mechanical rules oflanguagecanbeusedasmarkersofbelongingandidentity,especiallyintermsofhowheritagelanguage learners feel accepted in their communities and their identity. Sumanthramade uswonderhowheritagelanguagelearnerswhobreaktherulesofgrammar,forexample,mightbeaffected.TheunpredictableandproblematicnatureoflanguagerulesisalsoevidentinAlison’scontributions;shesharedhowthechildreninherstudytalkedalotaboutlanguagerules,whichshowsusthatchildren—fromayoungage—areawareofformalandideologicalrules.Shetalkedabout how the children in her study expertly managed these rules through code-switching.Howmighttheseinsightsinformlanguagepolicyresearchinthefuture?Toaddresstherealityofon-the-ground livedexperiencesof individuals inQuébec,wesuggestthatamorecomplexsetoflocally-responsiveperspectivesisrequiredsothatwecanunderstandmulticultural and multilingual realities more coherently. Because our work takes up urbanperspectives, we observe a real need to explore the complexities of languaging within ruralspacesinQuébecaswell.Howdoindividualsoutsideofurbancentreslanguagewithin,around,and speak back to interculturalism and language policy? As scholars engaged in living andresearching issues of belonging, identity, language, and diversity,we suggest thatmultilingual



22

citizensmanagetheirlanguagepracticesdifferentlydependingontheiraudienceanddependingon where they are speaking. What, we wonder, gives us permission to privilege particularlanguagepracticesinparticularareas,evenwhenthesepracticesworkagainstexistinglanguagepolicies?Becausewehavefoundthatasingleprovincially-mandatedlanguagepolicydoesnotmatchtheexperiencesofMontréalers,wechallengetheconceptsofmulticulturalismandmultilingualismasappropriatelensesforunderstandingthelivedexperiencesoflanguagepolicyinMontréalandbeyond.Ascitizensoperatingwithinthisinterculturalcontext,welearnaboutthespaceswheredominantlanguagepracticesbelong,andthedifferentspaceswherewearepermittedtodrawonourmultilingual resources.Languagepoliciesexistwithincomplexsocialcontexts,andthusmust acknowledge the non-universality of people’s language practices and preferences. Ourpolyvocalreflections,ourlivedrealitiesoflanguaginginMontréal,andourresearchspacesleadustobelievethat,aboveall,weneedmorelocally-responsiveperspectivesthataresensitivetothe social dimension of language policy in order to address the unofficial, but very realmultilingual realities of an intercultural Québec. These perspectives could, we suggest,complement top-down policy documents, especially in the context of the city of Montréal’spronouncementson language. They couldpotentially alsobeused in the trainingof teachers,community/socialworkers,andlocalgovernmentemployeesinMontréal.CLOSINGTHOUGHTSOur polyvocal reflections speak to the realities and complexities ofmultilingualismwithin thecontext of Québec’s intercultural framework, which counters the notion that the success ofinterculturalism rest upon a single common language—French. Instead, we find, in all ourprojects,instancesofindividualagency,resistance,andcreativity.Ourreflectionscometogetherto suggest that in our research and in our own lives, living and languaging inMontréal mayappeartobemarkedmainlybyBill101andQuébec’sinterculturalframework.However,aswepoint out, citizens’ language practices occurwithin and beyond the determinations of officialpolicy. Whether the policy context for local living and languaging bears an intercultural ormulticultural label is less important than the commonalities across contexts. Only a high-resolution, close-up lookwill revealwhat is really happening as individuals fashion languagingpracticestosuittheirever-changing,oftenverychallengingsurroundings.REFERENCESAbdallah-Pretceille,M.(2006).Lesmétamorphosesdel’identité.Paris:Economica,Antropos.Arnold,C.,&Brennan,C.(2013).Polyvocalethnographyasameansofdevelopinginter-cultural

understandingofpedagogyandpractice.EuropeanEarlyChildhoodEducationResearchJournal,21(3),353-369.

Burawoy,M.(2003).Revisits:Anoutlineofatheoryofreflexiveethnography.Americansociologicalreview,645-679.

Burkholder,C.[@biensurcasey].(2016,February6).Myneighbourhoodismultilingual.Also,



23

best.[Instagrampost].RetrievedNovember7,2017,fromhttps://www.instagram.com/p/BBYSqRIEjKu/?taken-by=biensurcasey

Crump,A.(2014).“Butyourface,itlookslikeyou’reEnglish”:LangCritandtheexperiencesofJapanese-CanadianchildreninMontréal.(Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation).McGillUniversity.

Crump,A.(2017).“Ispeakallofthelanguage!”:EngaginginfamilylanguagepolicyresearchwithmultilingualchildreninMontréal.InJ.MacAlistar&S.H.Mirvahedi(Eds.),Familylanguagepoliciesinamultilingualworld:Opportunities,challenges,andconsequences(pp.154-174).London:Routledge.

Cummins,J.(2005).Aproposalforaction:Strategiesforrecognizingheritagelanguagecompetenceasalearningresourcewithinthemainstreamclassroom.ModernLanguageJournal,585-592.

García,O.(2009).Bilingualeducationinthe21stcentury:Aglobalperspective.Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell.

García,,O.,&Wei,L.(2013).Translanguaging:language,BilingualismandEducation:PalgravePivotMacMillan.

Gergen,K.J.,&Gergen,M.(Eds.).(2003).Socialconstruction:Areader.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Godfrey-Smith,Lauren.(2017)."PardonmyFrench":Anon-staticcase-studyofthesocialdimensionsofnon-classroomlanguageanxietyinMontréal.(Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation).McGillUniversity.

Haque,E.(2012).Multiculturalismwithinabilingualframework:Language,race,andbelonginginCanada.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Heller,M.(2007).Bilingualismasideologyandpractice.InM.Heller(Ed.),Bilingualism:Asocialapproach(pp.1–22).NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Lamarre,P.(2003).GrowinguptrilingualinMontréal:Perceptionsofcollegestudents.InR.Bayley&S.Schecter(Eds.),Languagesocializationinbilingualandmultilingualsocieties(pp.62–80).Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Lamarre,P.(2007).Anglo-Québectoday:Lookingatcommunityandschoolingissues.InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,2007(185),109-132.

Lamarre,P.(2013).Catching“MontréalontheMove”andchallengingthediscourseofunilingualisminQuébec.Anthropologica,55(1),41–56.

Mady,C.(2007).AllophonestudentsinFrenchsecond-official-languageprograms:Aliteraturereview.CanadianModernLanguageReview,63(5),727-760.

Mady,C.&Black,G.(2012).AccesstoFrenchasasecondofficiallanguageprogramsinEnglish-dominantCanada.AlbertaJournalofEducationalResearch,57(4),498-501.

Mady,C.&Turnbull,M.(2010).LearningFrenchasasecondlanguage-ReservedforAnglophones?CanadianJournalofEducationalAdministrationandPolicy,99,1-23.

May,S.(2001).Languageandminorityrights:Ethnicity,nationalismandthepoliticsoflanguage.LondonandNewYork:PearsonLongman.

May,S.(2005).Languagerights:Movingthedebateforward.JournalofSociolinguistics,9(3),319–347.



24

Maxwell,B.,Waddington,D.I.,McDonough,K.,Cormier,A.A.,&Schwimmer,M.(2012).Interculturalism,multiculturalism,andthestatefundingandregulationofconservativereligiousschools.Educationaltheory,62(4),427-447.

Meer,N.,&Modood,T.(2012).Howdoesinterculturalismcontrastwithmulticulturalism?.Journalofinterculturalstudies,33(2),175-196.

OfficialLanguagesAct.(1969).RetrievedfromtheDepartmentofJusticeCanadawebsite:http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/O-3.01/texte.html.

Pennycook,A.(2010).Languageasalocalpractice.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Pithouse-Morgan,K.,Naicker,I.,Chikoko,V.,Pillay,D.,Morojele,P.,&Hlao,T.(2014).Entering

anambiguousspace:Evokingpolyvocalityineducationalresearchthroughcollectivepoeticinquiry.PerspectivesinEducation,32(4),149.

Sarkar,M.(2009).Gettingintomedschoolorbecomingahealer?WesternmedicaleducationandIndigenousknowledges.InJ.Langdon(Ed.),Indigenousknowledges,developmentandeducation(pp.109-133).Rotterdam:SensePublishers.

Seidle,F.L.(2009).TestingthelimitsofminorityaccommodationinQuébec:TheBouchard-TaylorCommission.InJ.Fossum,P.MagnetteandJ.Poirier(Eds.),Thetiesthatbind:accommodatingdiversityinCanadaandtheEuropeanUnion,(pp.77-104).Brussels:PeterLang.

Shohamy,E.(2009).Languagepolicyasexperiences.LanguageProblems&LanguagePlanning,33(2),185-189.doi:10.1075/lplp.33.2.06sho.

Siry,C.,&Ali-Khan,C.(2011).Writingwe:Collaborativetextineducationalresearch.Criticalpedagogyinthe21stcentury,233-249.

Spolsky,B.(2004).Languagepolicy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Tillmann,L.M.(2010).Comingoutandgoinghome:Afamilyethnography.QualitativeInquiry,

16(2),116-129.Tollefson,J.W.(1994).ReviewofLinguisticImperialism.LanguageCultureandCurriculum,111,

175-79.Tollefson,J.W.(2006).Criticaltheoryinlanguagepolicy.InT.Ricento(Ed.),Anintroductionto

languagepolicy:Theoryandmethod(pp.42–59).Oxford:Blackwell.WallofFemmes(2014,November15).Spenceandspace.[Screenshotfromvideofile].

RetrievedNovember7,2017,fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G08utQRT3do&index=14&list=PLDFeso1RUVGY75ArmHuM48LHA-S1gXzTA

WallofFemmes.(2014).Home.WallofFemmes.Retrievedfromhttp://www.walloffemmes.org/.

Weber,J.-J.,&Horner,K.(2012).Introducingmultilingualism:Asocialapproach.London:Routledge.

Woolard,K.A.(1998).Languageideologyasafieldofinquiry.InB.B.Schieffelin,K.A.Woolard,&P.V.Kroskrity(Eds.),Languageideologies:Practiceandtheory(pp.3–50).OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

1Québec’sFrenchlanguagepolicy,Bill101,does,however,acknowledgethehistoricalaswellasthecontemporaryimportanceofEnglish(Lamarre,2007).

unofficial multiling ualism in an intercu ltural...

Documents