In “Defining Multiculturalism,” Jasone Cenoz (2013) explores the complex concept of multilingualism through various lenses and perspectives. He provides a comprehensive exploration of multilingualism, highlighting its effects on individuals and society. Cenoz defines key terms, distinguishing between multilingualism and plurilingualism, and delves into various dimensions of multilingualism. By examining themes in multilingualism research, the author uncovers historical and modern factors that influence language use, such as globalization and transnational mobility, highlighting their significance in scholarly discourse. Additionally, Cenoz compares monolingual (atomic) and holistic views, demonstrating how these differing approaches shape our understanding of language interactions.
Cenoz emphasizes that multilingualism is not a recent phenomenon but a historical one that varies across societies. To illustrate its deep historical roots, she cites the example of post-Norman Conquest England in 1066, where three languages coexisted: English, the language of the majority; Norman French, spoken by the ruling class; and Latin, used for record-keeping in the Church. Today, multilingualism is more common all over the world, a trend the author points out is driven by the fact that there are more languages than countries. Additionaly, Cenoz draws light to the necessity for speakers of smaller languages to engage with a dominant language in their daily lives also contributes to this increase. He identifies several other factors that contribute to the increase of multilingualism including, globalization, transnational mobility and technology. As the world becomes more connected through trade and travel, the importance of knowing multiple languages grows causing an increase in the value of multilingualism. Furthermore, with a rising number of people moving between countries for work or school, the need for skills in multilingualism expands. Lastly, with the rapid evolution of technology, new tools such as language applications or software systems allow people to better communicate with each other around the world, resulting in enhancement of not only communication but also research opportunities that further promote multilingualism.
After exploring the roots of multilingualism and its influencing factors, Cenoz dives deeper into different perspectives and dimensions. He compares two views; the monolingual or atomic perspective, which treats languages as separate entities, and the holistic perspective, which acknowledges the fluidity and interconnectedness of languages. The author goes on to mention how mentions how overtime there has been a shift from the monolingual to the holistic perspective, resulting in diverse definitions of multilingualism and differing opinions on what should be considered when describing the phenomenon. Cenoz examines several dimensions of multilingualism, including the individual versus social dimension, the proficiency versus use dimension, and the bilingualism versus multilingualism dimension. In the individual versus social dimension, he discusses how multilingualism manifests at both personal and societal levels. In this dimension individual multilingualism, also known as plurilingualism; is observed to focus on personal capacity or use of various languages. Individual multilingualism, often referred to as plurilingualism, focuses on a person’s capacity to use various languages, while societal multilingualism reflects the linguistic diversity of a region, including multiple language varieties. This section also addresses simultaneous language acquisition, where individuals are exposed to multiple languages from birth, and successive language acquisition, which involves learning additional languages later in life. Furthermore, Cenoz distinguishes between additive and subtractive multilingualism. Additive multilingualism occurs when a new language is acquired while proficiency in the first language continues to be developed. In contrast, subtractive multilingualism happens when a new language replaces the first language, a phenomenon commonly observed in immigrant contexts. In the proficiency vs use dimension, Cenoz states that while the use of languages is often seen as the main characteristic of multilingual individuals, scholars interested in individual multilingualism tend to focus on proficiency levels. Two main perspectives emerge regarding definitions of multilingualism based on proficiency level; the maximalist perspective, which states that high proficiency is required to be considered multilingual, and the minimalist perspective, which accepts minimal proficiency. Cenoz notes how Baker (2011) criticizes both extremes, arguing that neither definition effectively captures the true nature of multilingualism. In this way highlighting the ongoing debate among scholars about the appropriate criteria for defining individual multilingualism based on language proficiency.
In addition to the exploration of different dimensions, Cenoz cites research indicating that multilingualism has significant cognitive benefits, enhancing skills such as selective attention and inhibitory control, which may help mitigate cognitive decline with age (Bialystok et al., 2004; 2008). He also highlights recent studies that analyze code-switching as a means of identity negotiation, emphasizing the complexities of language interactions (Gardner-Choros, 2009; De Angelis, 2007). Furthermore, Cenoz notes a significant shift toward a holistic perspective on multilingualism, recognizing the interconnectedness of language use, learning, and social context. This differs with the traditional atomistic approach that treats languages as isolated entities (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011). The holistic view posits that multilingual speakers possess dynamic, interrelated competencies that reflect their unique linguistic profiles, challenging the notion that they are merely collections of monolingual speakers (Grosjean, 1985; Cook, 1992).
One of the strengths of Cenoz’s research is its well-supported arguments, which draws upon a wide range of research. The article offers a thorough examination of multilingualism, addressing various dimensions, contexts and factors. By integrating perspectives from multiple fields, it enriches the understanding of multilingualism and its complexities. However, the article also has limitations. Its broad scope restricts a more in-depth exploration of specific areas within multilingualism, resulting in a surface-level analysis rather than a thorough investigation of key themes. In addition, while Cenoz effectively compares findings from existing research, he offers minimal new perspectives or personal insights. Instead of providing a clear definition of multilingualism, it primarily emphasizes trends and shifts over time, which may detract from a deeper understanding of the topic.
Research on multilingualism includes various theoretical frameworks, which shape studies and focus on both individual and societal aspects. Perspectives can be categorized as monolingual or atomistic, which look at languages separately, or holistic, which highlight the interconnectedness of language use. Multilingualism is a global phenomenon influenced by numerous factors. Such as, globalization which has increased the importance of multilingualism research by promoting more interactions and migration. As well as technology which has played a significant role in improving research methods. Cenoz notes that the shift toward holistic approaches acknowledges the complexities of language interactions within diverse communities. In summary, while the article effectively outlines the historical and current significance of multilingualism, it may lack depth in certain areas. Nonetheless, it successfully explores various factors that contribute to the complexity of multilingualism.
References
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 859–873.Google ScholarPubMed
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. Modern Language Journal, 95, 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining Multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(Mar), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X
Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner-Choros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
