Over the past decade, multilingual settings that so far had mostly escaped attention have come to the fore of linguistic research. These language ecologies are called “small-scale multilingual settings because of the cohabitation of highly versed multilingual speakers sharing large parts of repertoires at the small-scale local level, often comprising only a village or a number of villages. They have also been described as “rural”, alluding to their frequent location in village settings across the globe, as “indigenous” or “endogenous”, referring to their anchoring in precolonial history, or as “egalitarian” to highlight the fact that languages in these configurations have an equal footing, with none in a position of higher prestige than the others. Many places where village sign languages are used belong to this category. One characteristic unites the very diverse situations: their rooting in conviviality.

Convivial multilingualism could not be further opposed from the ideal of multilingualism prevalent in language ideologies and policies in ethnolinguistic nation states. There, multilingualism is only encouraged and viewed positively when it is exclusive, in the sense of conveying great privilege to those who master it and in the sense of the restricted number of named languages invested in, e.g., for language learning, translation and interpreting, AI development, etc. By relying on and recreating regulated and standard forms of language, exclusive multilingualism discredits most forms of living multilingualism, not only in small-scale settings in the Global South, but also by judging actual practices and viewing languages not included in the global “modern language” canon pejoratively. The experience of exclusive multilingualism shapes research questions and ontologies worldwide.

I draw attention to the social interactions that give rise to convivial multilingualism, describing the language practices of individuals that jointly shape their repertoires and actual linguistic forms, and how they challenge notions of language stemming from exclusive multilingualism, including the fundamental idea of linking speech forms to one or several named languages, as a combination, and even as transcending codes. I argue that in convivial settings, categorisations and usage differ widely and are in constant flux, and, although registers/languages are named and give rise to conventionalised, reified forms, much of language use is constituted by unique assemblages which cannot be described in terms of code alternation, borrowing or even translanguaging.

Interactionally grounded language use not based on control and categorisation restores ownership of language to multilingual speakers, making convivial multilingualism a great model for linguistically more inclusive societies. At the same time, convivial multilingualism cannot be inserted into regimes of language where it serves social selection and where language marks the creation and maintenance of inequality, and which crucially rely on exclusive multilingualism to maintain the status quo.

Co authors: Patrick Kermit, Johan Hjulstad

There is an increasing legal recognition of sign languages as legitimate languages in multilingual communities, and several countries have also passed legislation that regulates the right or opportunity to education in sign language for deaf and hard of hearing children. Paradoxically, the formal recognition of sign languages picked up speed almost at the same time as the decline of the deaf schools started. Today, education in sign language is often “solved” by providing a teacher or interpreter who knows (some) sign language, for a single deaf or hard of hearing student in a hearing class room, where few, if any of the other students also learn sign language. Since approximately 95% of deaf children are born into families where none of the parents know sign language in advance, acquisition of and socializing in sign language must happen outside the family. One cannot take for granted that signing children and adolescents actually have access to arenas where they can access a vital aspect of language acquisition, namely the ability to use sign language for communication, or engage in sign languaging with others. The presentation is based on a literature review (Haualand, Kermit & Hjulstad, in progress) of Nordic studies from 2000 to 2019 addressing the question of children’s and adolescent’s access to arenas, spaces or contexts where they can sign with other peers and adults. The review revealed that the Nordic sign languages are legally recognized and publicly supported in unprecedented ways. On the other hand, the practical aspects of what it means to securing spaces, places and contexts where sign languaging is spontaneous and natural, seem to be neglected by researchers as well as policy makers.

Between the invasions of Alexander the Great (332 BCE) and the Arabs (639–646 CE) the Nile valley in Egypt witnessed the spread of several ”new” languages within its inhabitable zone. Greek was the most widely used and durable, but nonetheless its presence was unbalanced and unequal in respect for geography, time and population groups. The relationship between the historical reality of language use and our image of it, is not straightforward either, because our sources are incomplete, as historical sources usually are. A multitude of written sources still give us a rich image of multilingual Egypt where Egyptian, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Arabic and other languages were used in written communication. In this talk, I will dissect the corpus of Greek documentary papyri, a mass of over 50,000 texts that have survived directly from the Egyptian sand. We get to plunge into the pool of private letters, business correspondence, different types of contracts, receipts, invitations, and the like. The texts come from diverse linguistic surroundings and from L1 and L2 speakers, and they have often been written down by a scribe or an official, but occasionally also by the hand of the author. I will discuss how we can study this corpus from different linguistic viewpoints and what kind of knowledge we can gain about the development and impact of Greek in the multilingual setting of Egypt for the almost thousand-year time span when it was the official language in the country.

The motto of the European Union “United in Diversity” expresses the respect and support for different European cultures, traditions and languages. The paper will discuss various aspects of the multilingual policies of the EU from a historical and comparative perspective. In the introduction, parallels will be drawn with other multilingual policies on the national and international level. Some examples of historical multilingual policies will be presented, notably the Habsburg Monarchy whose language policies have often been compared to the EU. The differences between the EU official languages and working languages on the institutional level will be discussed. In addition, the processes of co-drafting, legal translation, and revision will be presented, as well as various issues involved in the creation and consistent use of EU multilingual legal terminology. Educational policies promoting multilingualism in an effort to counter the dominance of English as the global language and the European lingua franca will be discussed, as well as the protection of minority and immigrant languages in the EU. In addition to positive aspects of multilingualism, some of the challenges will also be discussed. Namely, languages can act as barriers to workers’ mobility, limiting access to cross-border public services as well as citizens’ participation in the political process, and creating fragmented markets for cross-border trade. Ways to overcome such barriers will be discussed.

International Sign is a sign language based linguistic border-crossing phenomenon. The form of International Sign (IS) is variable and dependent on the context in which it occurs and on the linguistic repertoire of participants; it is a translingual practice. This presentation explores International Sign in face-to-face interactions and in small groups, such as during meals, games, sports, break times, and small group discussions. In these contexts, people may use signs which are widely used in International Sign as well as signs from different national sign languages, all of which they may learn on the spot. They may sign “more visually” by which is meant the use of transparent signing, use of spatial grammar, and pantomime. People may use objects, pictures and translation apps on mobile phones.

Within IS, spoken language elements can be used too: people use fingerspelling and mouthing, and engage in practices of “chaining” eg. by offering an English word via fingerspelling and then offering one or more equivalent signs. While the use of fingerspelling and mouthing may be helpful, they also can prevent understanding and hamper communication. If some strategies do not work, people use repair strategies such as offering other signs, repeating, or paraphrasing. People adapt their strategies when the use of the eyes, fingers, mouth or hands are not available to them or their interlocutors, such as in the events of being blind, having the use of only one hand, wearing a burqa, or wearing mittens.

In non-dyadic interactions, interlocutors engage in language brokering (informal interpreting), and interrupt when they see others misunderstanding each other. The practices of using, learning, and understanding IS all go hand in hand in this process. These practices are studied within the context of a complex set of language ideologies that circulates regarding the use of all the abovementioned resources and strategies, such as on the ratio and role of facial expressions, iconicity and gestures, signs from American Sign Language (ASL) and words from English in IS.

A key question in studies of speakers with knowledge of more than one language ('multicompetent speakers'; e.g., Cook, 1991) is how to probe the details of underlying representations in order to gauge whether, and if so how, bilinguals’ representations differ from those of monolinguals, and how they are deployed in real-time use. I will discuss what the study of speech-associated gestures can contribute to our understanding of semantic representations in particular. I first discuss bimodal evidence for different representations in monolingual speakers of different languages. I then review a series of studies examining the consequences of such crosslinguistic differences in multicompetent speakers (L2 speakers and functional bilinguals), revealing gestural evidence of shifts in representations, bidirectional crosslinguistic influence (L1 on L2 and L2 on L1), and convergence. I will highlight what the gesture analysis adds that cannot be gleaned from speech analyses alone, and discuss methodological and theoretical implications of considering multi competent speakers’ bimodal behaviour.

Advances in Graeco-Roman multilingualism over the past two decades have been driven by converging elements: intensive work on non-classical languages (e.g. Hesperia, Ancient European Languages and Writings, RIIG); sustained interest in Graeco-Roman epigraphy on all media, including ‘small finds’ (for example, graffiti on ceramic); increased sophistication in the treatment of language contact phenomena; and the application of the findings in historical context (Crossreads, LatinNow). Our evidence is in many respects very different from that of modern multilingualism and we continue to develop interdisciplinary methodologies to tackle our partial and problematic remains from multiple sources (linguistic, epigraphic, archaeological, historical and literary).

An issue that has not been sufficiently addressed is whether our standard analytical frameworks, taken from bilingualism studies of the 1980s and 90s and embedded in Classics through Adams’ influential Bilingualism and the Latin Language (2003), should be refreshed. Our multilingual ancient texts often resist straightforward classification within our current system and the practices that they appear to reflect underscore the contextual specificities of the complexities of everyday life, making generalizations problematic. Texts which are highly ‘mixed’, comprising what linguists might regard as separate languages, for example Gaulish, the Celtic language of Gaul, and Latin, may represent contexts as divergent as the merging of texts of different linguistic make-up into composite documents in the administration of a pottery production centre (La Graufesenque) or playful negotiation of a flexible linguistic repertoire in an all-female in-group context (Autun). We have struggled to describe and make sense of these texts from Roman Gaul.

One way to move forward is to confront the tensions in different scholarly analyses and to consider how anachronistic assumptions about language may affect our interpretations. It is important to question the nature of the relationships between languages and identities in the ancient world and how local communities and individuals in Roman Gaul might have conceived of their linguistic repertoires. In exploring the realities of linguistic experience in Gaul we have found that the concept of translingualism – which puts a focus on the fluidity and complexity of linguistic repertoires and encourages us to think beyond bounded linguistic entities such as standard languages – helps us to understand multilingual texts and their contexts.

The presentation will review the research basis for educational policy and instructional practice in relation to immigrant-background students who are learning the language of instruction (henceforth multilingual students). Three sets of research findings will be discussed: (a) how long does it take for students to catch up academically to grade expectations in literacy and other school subjects? (b) Does knowledge of students’ home languages (L1) facilitate or hinder the development of literacy skills in the school language (L2)? Does use of L1 in the home interfere with the acquisition of L2 in school?

On the basis of this and related research, I will propose a framework based on the fact that causes of underachievement among multilingual students go beyond simply a mismatch between the language of the home and the language of the school. It is obviously essential that schools support students in learning the language of instruction and catching up academically. However, it is equally important that schools respond to (a) socioeconomic factors that potentially limit academic success, and (b) the devaluation of students’ identities that results from societal stereotypes and discrimination in the wider society.

The relationship of this framework to the theoretical concept of translanguaging will be discussed. I will suggest that we can distinguish two distinct versions of translanguaging theory—Unitary Translanguaging Theory (UTT) advanced by Ofelia García and colleagues over the past 12 years, and Crosslinguistic Translanguaging Theory (CTT) that is reflected in most other conceptualizations of multilingualism and pedagogical translanguaging. The major difference between UTT and CTT is that UTT rejects the reality of distinct languages in our cognitive/linguistic system and, on this basis, designates notions such as additive bilingualism, the common underlying proficiency, and teaching for crosslinguistic transfer as monoglossic and hence implicated in oppressive educational practices that stigmatize the fluid linguistic practices of minoritized students. I argue that UTT fails to meet the criteria of empirical adequacy, logical coherence, and consequential validity.

Finally, I will discuss the implications of the research and theory for educational policy and instructional practice.