Lost in Translanguaging? 23 Lost in Translanguaging? Practices of Language Promotion in Luxembourgish Early Childhood Education Sascha Neumann Université de Fribourg Abstract Luxembourg maintains by far the largest proportion of foreign immigrants in Europe. This is also reflected in the population of children. About 50% of children under the age of four are foreign nationals. Accordingly, the question of how to deal with linguistic diversity represents one of the biggest challenges in the professional debate about early childhood education in Luxembourg. The article will refer to this issue on the basis of several insights stemming from an ethnographic study in Luxembourgish daycare centers which was conducted between 2009 and 2012 by the working group Early Childhood: Education and Care at the University of Luxembourg. The study explored practices professionals apply to come up with the superdiverse and translingual environment in order to meet the political expectation of promoting foreign children’s competences before they enter school. Based on the empirical investigations of everyday language use in center-based early childhood education, the article will not only characterize two different modes of language promotion (institutional monolingualization in one language and institutional monolingualization in several languages) but also highlight the ambiguities of those language promotion practices which, although facing a translingual environment, are still based on a multilingual standard. Keywords early childhood education, diversity, language promotion, translingual, multilingualism, monolingualism, ethnography, inequality Introduction Strategy of the EU which was set up in the early The last ten years in Luxembourg have brought 2000’s. It became effective in Luxembourg an enormous increase of non-familial care for around the year 2005 with the establishment of children prior to and alongside the school just as the regulations for the so-called maison relais in many other member countries of the pour enfants (MRE) [daycare center]. This European Union (EU) and the Organization for development of expanding extracurricular and Economic Co-operation and Development ______________________________ Corresponding Author: (OECD). The expansion of the child care system Sascha Neumann, Université de Fribourg, Avenue de in Luxembourg has been part of the national l'Europe 20, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. effort for the implementation of the Lisbon Email: [email protected] Global Education Review is a publication of The School of Education at Mercy College, New York. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Neumann, Sascha (2015). Lost in translanguaging? Practices of language promotion in Luxembourgish early childhood education. Global Education Review, 2(1). 23-39 24 Global Education Review 2(1) non-familial early childhood education Luxembourgish Ministry for Family Affairs, the institutions serves about 79,000 children from percentage increase was 87% in 2010 in birth to 12 years of age, of about 549,000 comparison to the previous year (MFI, 2011, p. inhabitants in total (Le portail des statistiques, 194) and by about 28% between 2011 and 2012 2014).Compulsory schooling starts at the age of (MFI, 2013a, p. 125). The rising number of four. Around 31,000 children in Luxembourg commercial daycare providers is not least a are currently not yet of school age (Le portail des consequence of the system of care vouchers statistiques, 2014). In 2013, there were about (chèques-services accueil) introduced in 2009 12,859 ( places allocated to several children in which relieves parents of the costs for crèches and MREs (Ministère de la Famille et de extrafamilial care depending on their income. l’Integration [MFI], 2013, p. 122).1 More than The rapid expansion of the childcare 70% percent of the three year olds are attending sector resulted in considerable doubt concerning the half-day, facultative education précoce the quality of these institutions (Kurschat [preschool] (Honig & Haag, 2011, Ministère de 2009a, b). Because of the public controversy, the l’Éducation Nationale et de la Formation ministry of family affairs began to define key Professionnelle [MENFP], 2012a). In just the elements for a quality development strategy. In five years between 2005 and 2010, the number the context of this quality development strategy of places for children under four in state the ministry of family affairs is currently operated childcare centers has increased thirty- working on a new law for the sector of early fold (Honig & Haag, 2011). childhood education institutions, the intent of The system of non-familial care and pre- which is to establish a uniform standard for the school education in early childhood education in non-profit and for-profit sector of early Luxembourg is based on a dual structure in childhood education in order to create a several regards. Whereas pre-school education consistent and independent field of non-formal forms a part of the state-organized system of learning before school age. This is accompanied educational institutions, the field of non-familial by and directly linked to the development of a care is divided according to a mixed economy national curriculum for early childhood into a smaller public and a bigger private sector, education practice to be entered into force in which in turn includes non-profit and for-profit 2015. Within this curriculum the question of organizations. The respective share of childcare how to deal with (linguistic) diversity in places in for-profit daycare institutions varies Luxembourgish society plays a major role. depending on the age group of the children: For In Luxembourg, nearly half of the children children up to the age of four years, commercial have another than the Luxembourgian crèches and family daycare homes (assistants citizenship (Honig & Haag, 2011). This also parentaux/dageselteren) provide more than affects the everyday reality in the educational half of the daycare places (Honig & Haag, 2011, system. The proportion of immigrant pupils in MFI, 2011). Even though the government has Luxembourgish schools amounts to 43.2 percent made considerable effort to increase the public (Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de provision of daycare facilities during the last l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse [MEN], 2014a, p.16). years, the current availability of public daycare For the school year 2012/2013, 60.2 % of the places, in particular for children under the age of students in primary school admitted to speaking four, does not come close to meeting the need. a language other than Luxembourgish at home At the same time, the number of private daycare (MEN, 2014a, p. 102 ). Against this background, places supplied by for-profit providers has it is hardly surprising that language promotion is increased rapidly: According to the report of the intended to be one of the key elements of the Lost in Translanguaging? 25 educational and linguistic policy in this country. in institutional everyday life. The third step will, Since early childhood education has entered the finally, provide some points of reference for focus of national as well as supranational discussing the political implications of the political and professional discussions, challenges current institutional practices of language of dealing with linguistic diversity have gained a promotion in Luxembourgish early childhood firm position in these debates (see e.g. education. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2001, 2006, Saracho & The Research Context: An Spodek, 2010, United Nations Educational, Ethnographic Study on Language Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], Promotion in Luxembourgish 2006, 2008). This also applies to Luxembourg Early Childhood Education and is reflected in the new national curriculum for the non-formal sector of education before The reconstruction and reflection of language and alongside the school (MFI, 2013b, MFI & use practices in Luxembourgian early childhood Service National de la Jeunesse [SNJ], 2013). education refers to empirical observations and Because of the tremendous diversity and analyses in the framework of the project titled, heterogeneity of their clientele, an inclusive and Realities of Early Childhood Education and constructive management of differences is also Care: The Pedagogy of the Maisons Relais pour expected from the early educational institutions Enfants (MRE). It was carried out by the and particularly from the MREs (Baltes-Löhr, research axis Early Childhood: Education and 2009). Care at the University of Luxembourg and The article takes up this issue by drawing financed by the university’s research fund and attention to practices of language use in the Luxembourgish Ministry of Family Affairs. Luxembourgian daycare centers. The empirical In general, the study dealt with the practice of findings the paper refers to are from an education and care for children under the age of ethnographic research project conducted in four in the publicly funded daycare sector of MREs which, at first, will be introduced in terms Luxembourg by examining local institutional of its general objectives. After that, the argument everyday life with the methods of ethnographic of the article will be developed in three steps. fieldwork. It started in August 2009 and ended First, the paper aims to illustrate the in December 2012. background of the general linguistic setting in The general political environment of the Luxembourg and discusses the various attitudes study must be seen in the vast expansion the towards the situation of multilingualism in this daycare sector in Luxembourg was witnessing country. Here, the argument draws attention to since 2005. In the wake of this vast expansion, how the situation of linguistic diversity is the MREs were created as a new type of empirically reflected in the political discourse on institutions. The MRE daycare centers in education and especially on early childhood Luxembourg, and particularly the MRE-crèche education. Second, the paper will demonstrate for children under the age of four we were how the institutions of early childhood investigating, were both meant to be a general educations try to meet the political agenda of means of increasing the number of places in early language promotion in a linguistically childcare facilities and to provide a high quality diverse society. This will be done by of education.2 Against this background, the reconstructing how the complex linguistic project can briefly be characterized as a sort of situation of the country is reflected in different accompanying research, which was settled in the modes of language use and language promotion so-called research and development as well as in 26 Global Education Review 2(1) the area of basic research on educational children. As linguistic diversity is not only a phenomena. On the one hand, the project was societal fact, but also regarded as a pedagogical expected to give some indication for the ministry challenge, it is quite evident that linguistic to evaluate the success of their institutional practices can also function as an important expansion strategy. On the other hand, from the medium through which the institutions in the vantage point of the researchers the project was daycare sector will be able to account for their also linked to the objective of basically quality in the sense of ethnomethodology, which investigating the phenomenology of the means to make high quality reportable und pedagogical in early childhood education and the observable for the members inside the different forms and practices of its institutions as well as to audiences from the representation towards various stakeholders. In outside. this sense, the research interest of the project Methodologically, the study was based on was to describe the realities of care, focusing on an ethnographic research style using participant the question how professionals account for their observation and videography as data collection educational significance in light of strategies. In accordance with a theoretical heterogeneous and at times also contradictory sampling, examinations of the major study took expectations of their services. Thus, the study place in six selected crèches and MRE during intended to contribute to debates on the several research phases. All phases included six educational quality of daycare facilities. In weeks of intensive fieldwork in which three contrast to most other studies on this subject, ethnographers placed themselves approximately however, it did not presuppose what education three times a week at different sites within the is or should be. Rather, we understood institutional setting of the daycare centers. The education as a task that educational practice has data referred to in the following is based on to confront in order to assure as being observation in five different classrooms in three educational and to represent itself as such in different childcare institutions. Data analysis front of its audience. Empirically, the study is was based on field notes and protocols, video about practices of pedagogicalization. recordings, photographs, documents, and Theoretically, it is about aspects of the artifacts. A detailed overview of the methodology institutionalization of non-familial childcare. In and different findings of the whole study has this context, our research project also paid been published in Honig et al. (2013). special attention to linguistic practices in early education institutions which, in Luxembourg, Linguistic Diversity and Language are regularly characterized by a “pluriglossic” Policy in Luxembourgian Early language ecology that has a strong influence on Childhood Education the institutional everyday life (Kühn & Reding, With about 45%, Luxembourg has by far largest 2007, p. 31). As already pointed out in the proportion of foreign nationals in the European introduction to this paper, the biggest challenges Union (Statistical Office of the European Union (early childhood) education in Luxembourg [EUROSTAT], 2013). The main foreign national faces are the question of language promotion minority groups in Luxembourg are the and the more basic question of how to deal with Portuguese (16.5% of the total population), linguistic diversity at all. So, the request for French (6.7%), Italians (3.4%), Belgians (3.2%) quality in early childhood actually cannot be and Germans (2.3%) (Service Central de La separated from the question of language, Statistique et des Études Économiques because language competencies count as one of [STATEC], 2014). Additionally, there are also key factors to the future educational success of Lost in Translanguaging? 27 about 150,000 frontier workers from France, The complexity and differentiation of Germany and Belgium crossing the everyday language practices in Luxembourg Luxembourgish border day by day. In addition, would be underestimated if one conceived of the Luxembourg is also one of the few officially language setting to be a diverse realm of multilingual states in Western Europe. This separate language domains brought to live by, means that the (often multilingual) migrants without exception, perfectly trained multilingual find themselves in a situation of historically speakers. What one encounters in Luxembourg, evolved trilingualism (Berg, 1993). This however, is rather a situation of linguistic super- trilingual setting was already codified in the diversity. It is helpful to refer to Steven official Luxembourgish language law passed in Vertovec’s (2007) concept of super-diversity 1984, which in addition to Luxembourgish as the here as it was designed to describe the dynamics national language, identifies German and and complexity of diversification processes in French as official legal and administrative social spaces which are characterized by a high languages (langues administratives et degree of migration. In this sense, linguistic judiciaries) (Chambre des Députés, 1984). These super-diversity refers to conditions under which three languages are also represented in different different languages do not merely co-exist forms and weighting in the national education independently from one another, but rather are system. affected by a complex interplay of foreign and But, in response to significantly increasing indigenous languages (Bloomaert, 2010, Creese migration since the late 1990’s the language & Blackledge, 2010, Gogolin, 2010). This is, in situation in Luxembourg has also changed fact, the case in Luxembourg. Besides the fact (Horner & Weber, 2008). Alongside the three that multiple languages are spoken, the language official administrative languages there has been setting in Luxembourg is characterized by a growing importance of English as the language spontaneous and permanent changes in the of international business and the financial languages coupled with a mixture of different sector. IContinuing immigration increased the languages. To what extent this varies depends on importance of other immigrant languages as the differing domains of language behavior well, primarily Portuguese. In addition, the role (politics, media, private conversation, etc.) (Berg, of French has changed since it shifted from the 1993) in which one may find a more or less open language of the societal elites to an everyday competition of different languages (Unité de language among immigrant groups, as well as Recherche Identités, Politiques, Sociétés, between residents and cross border commuters Espaces [IPSE], 2010, p. 67). Against this from France and Belgium. Furthermore, the use background, it becomes quite clear that the of the Luxembourgish language has also linguistic situation is not purely bi- or increased in the last decades even though the multilingual. This means, that speakers do not government did not take any special effort to communicate with each other by using different encourage its dissemination after the language languages separately. Instead, they interact in law has passed (such as implementing different languages, simultaneously operating Luxembourgish as a major subject in schools for between them and crossing their borders. In example). Due to the growing use of other words, the speakers are acting as Luxembourgish in the context of traditional and translinguals. The terms translinguality and new (social) media, which also pushes forward translanguaging as defined by García (2009) its standardization as a written language, it is no describe practices of language use in which the longer limited to the area of oral boundaries of different languages are constantly communication. crossed in communication by a so-called code- 28 Global Education Review 2(1) switching and even a code-mixing to such an established within the school system. It is based extent that a detached observer is no longer able on a monolingualist view of language use in the to identify them in proper separation from each sense of aspiring to a nearly native-like level of other. The term translanguaging has been linguistic performance in every official language deployed by García to denote the actual language as well as in English. Following this idea of practices of multilingual speakers, not from the monolingual multilingualism, different socially perspective of language as a system, but as an approved languages are to be learned and used everyday experience where diverse linguistic and separately while the corresponding non-linguistic resources are combined in competencies should each be applied as perfectly dynamic and fluid ways in order to make as possible in the appropriate sociolinguistic meaning and achieve understanding. In this domain (family, friends, job, public space etc.). sense, following García, translanguaging means But, on the other hand, there is also an “the act performed by bilinguals of accessing illegitimate form of multilingualism. Here different linguistic features or various modes of different languages seem to interfere, no what are described as autonomous languages, in language is supposed to be spoken ‘properly’ and order to maximize communication potential” in a correct manner, and the speaking of socially (García, 2009, p. 140). disapproved and economically less profitable Though the translingual management of languages, for example Portuguese, is reflected linguistic diversity belongs to the ordinary as a symbol of failed integration, backwardness, everyday experience of people living in and an impediment to social cohesion. From this Luxembourg, the societal discourse about the perspective, the everyday practices of language situation displays a split into two translanguaging are rather regarded as a different and opposing positions (IPSE, 2010, problem than a solution for dealing with Péporté et al., 2010). On the one hand, there is a multilingualism in the Luxembourgish society. strong commitment to multilingualism, which is Considering the governmental considered both as a special feature of the perspective of how to deal with issues of Luxembourgian society as well as offering an linguistic and cultural heterogeneity in early added value for its economy and the cultural life childhood education, Luxembourg does not of its inhabitants. In this sense, multilingualism really differ very much from other central is even often regarded as the ‘true’ mother European countries like Germany, Switzerland, tongue in Luxembourg (Berg & Weis, 2007, p. or Austria. In Luxembourg, migration-related 19). On the other hand, multilingualism is also inequality of opportunity in the educational perceived as a risk for the social cohesion and system is also a big issue. This is reflected in the the preservation of the nation’s identity. In this relevant documents informing educational context, the role of Luxembourgish as the ‘true’ policy as well as in the (few) governmental national language in the narrowest sense is statements available on this topic. So, for emphasized and it is launched as an effective example, the national report concerning the means to establish the nation’s cultural integrity. situation of youth in Luxembourg (MFI, 2010) The perspective on multilingualism, however, confirmed once again what the studies of the has to be further differentiated, since there are Program for International Student Assessment different practical forms of multilingual (PISA) had indicated previously; namely, that repertoires and different ideas of young people with a lower socioeconomic status, multilingualism at stake (Fehlen, 2009). On the migration backgrounds, and foreign-language one hand, there is a more commonsense- parents are most affected by origin-related oriented vision of multilingualism which is inequality of opportunity in the educational Lost in Translanguaging? 29 system (see MENFP, 2010, 2012b). Especially in diverse linguistic situation and to functional light of a highly segregating school system which literacy during the early school years. With this has repeatedly been shown to re-produce social in mind, the promotion of the Luxembourgish inequalities as well as high repetition and language should not be seen as an effort to dropout rates, language promotion in early and assimilate immigrants into the mainstream preschool education in Luxembourg is politically society, but should rather be understood as a assigned with a strong preventive and reaction to the undeniable situation of linguistic compensatory function (Achten, Horn & super-diversity. Schronen, 2009, Delvaux-Stehres, 2011). This multiplicity of purpose explains why In terms of promoting early language the promotion of language skills in acquisition it is especially the Luxembourgish Luxembourgish is supposed to be one of the key language, which as one of the three official priorities in early childhood education (Freiberg, languages, is considered an essential ingredient Hornberg & Kühn, 2007, p. 210f.), a vision in the formation of a national identity, and also which guided the establishment of the MRE as an important step in accomplishing a daycare form since 2005. Their educational successful school career and, importantly, for mission is, as the ’founding father’ of the MRE in the integration of immigrants into a the Luxembourgish Ministry of Family affairs, multilingual and culturally diverse social Mill Majerus, has pointed out for several times, environment (Berg & Weis, 2007). The emphasis to provide a ”common colloquial language” is put on the promotion of Luxembourgish with (Majerus, 2008, p. 294) between children of the argument that it – once established as a different national origin. Accordingly, one of the common language – not only eases classroom main programmatic aims and declared communication in general, but also prepares educational tasks of the MRE is “to foster the use children for their alphabetization in German of Luxembourgish as the language of everyday later on, in the first class of primary school communication and as an expression of a (Neumann & Seele, 2014). In other words, the common identity” (Majerus, 2009, p. 32). function ascribed to the Luxembourgish Promoting Luxembourgish as the so-called language is manifold, which means that the “language of integration”, therefore, does not promotion of Luxembourgish must be regarded only serve communication and understanding as an attempt to kill several birds with one inside the institutions, it also contributes to the stone, rather than as a clear and powerful cohesion of a heterogeneous society as a whole political strategy, for example, of assimilation or as well as to the preservation of the nation’s stratification. This is especially true since, from identity. the perspective of the government, the goal of Against this background, to promote promoting the Luxembourgish language in order linguistic competencies in Luxembourgish to preserve the national cultural identity does within the given multilingual environment is a not contradict the aim of fostering the social key challenge to be taken up by the publicly integration of foreign immigrants. As a funded daycare institutions in order to prove the historically evolved “upgrade language”, or politically and professionally ascribed value of language to be developed, (in German: early childhood education. This is reflected in Ausbausprache), which is characterized by a the everyday practice of professionals to meet high disposition to adapt to other languages the demands and expectations of parents as well (Scheidweiler, 1988), Luxembourgish is as political and administrative stakeholders in considered as a kind of a langue véhiculaire terms of developing outstanding educational (vehicular language) that facilitates access to the ‘quality’ (see Honig et al., 2013, p. 22). The 30 Global Education Review 2(1) interesting empirical question is, however, how adapting their language use to the preferences of do early childhood institutions and their their communication partners, by switching to professionals actually cope with this English or by acting translingual in terms of linguistically diverse environment, and which allowing more than one language in strategies do they use in order to meet the conversation or switching between different demand to establish Luxembourgish as the languages. For example, parents’ evenings are lingua franca for communication as well as a regularly offered in a mixture of at least two or subject of early language learning? three languages. The entries in the so-called ‘walking-diaries’ of children are written in each Between Societal Multilingualism child's mother tongue or in English. Notices with information for the parents are written in one of and Institutional Monolingualism: the three official languages or in English. Notices Language Promotion Practices in issued by state authorities (i.e. information on Early Childhood Education flu vaccination) are displayed in the source An examination of what really takes place in the language of the documents, which in context of language use in institutional everyday Luxembourg is normally French. In the case of life enables one to draw a more differentiated emergency instructions, these are sometimes picture of how the educators deal with the supplemented with handwritten explanations in expectation of language promotion in a Luxembourgish to avoid possible linguistically diverse environment. In order to misunderstandings. What can also be observed come straight to the point, a first important is a frequent use of meta-linguistic artifacts, finding of our field observations is that the such as handmade ‘traffic lights’ which signal the linguistic landscape in Luxembourgish daycare start and the end of pick-up and delivery times centers is much more diverse and complex than for children in front of the classrooms. the programmatic narrative of promoting Considering such forms of Luxembourgish as a common language may communication, one can observe that suggest. From the perspective of a participant translanguaging is a kind of a lived principle. In observer, the use of language in the daycare contrast, the determination of Luxembourgish as centers is quite similar to the use of language in lingua franca seems to be quite artificial, social everyday life, so that the determination of particularly since even educators communicate Luxembourgish as lingua franca appears to in several different languages, depending on apply only selectively. Such an observation is their individual skills. Translanguaging is even hardly surprising as the situation of linguistic present in communication with children and diversity in Luxembourg does, of course, not among the children themselves. Furthermore, stop in front of the gates of daycare institutions. the so-called ‘familiarization phase’ with the Based on a questionnaire for the parents, parents and their child regularly takes place in which was also part of our fieldwork, we found the parents’ mother tongue or in English. From up to 14 different home languages that children the perspective of a participant observer, all the bring into the everyday life of the MRE. Among linguistic differences seem to disappear through these languages were not only the three official the diversity of language practices. The languages of the country (French, German, and corresponding oral translingual practices we Luxembourgish) or English but also many others observed were especially characterized by as Portuguese, Italian, Polish, Swedish or frequently switching between different codes or Chinese. The speakers in the early childhood even by mixing them so that the speakers were education settings cope with this situation by nearly operating between different languages. Lost in Translanguaging? 31 This is, for example, reflected in the following excitedly and in French: C'est un cochon! statement of a caregiver during a conversation (French, That’s a pig!). Pierre looks at her with the researchers (see also Neumann & Seele, with big eyes and says in Luxembourgish: 2014, p. 359): Weider! (Luxembourgish, Go further!) “I actually always try to speak Annbelle slides her fingers a bit further, Luxembourgish with the children. But points to the next picture and says: Une sometimes, when they answer in French, I chèvre! (French, A sheep!). Pierre laughs just keep talking in French, without and says, again in Luxembourgish: Nach realizing it at all. Then, I notice later on: weider! (Luxembourgish, More further!). Oh, yes I'm actually talking French…It is All this, however, changes fundamentally always so messed up”. when language use is no longer solely based on How this looks like in the context of the objective of mutual understanding, but also everyday interactions can be illustrated by the directly associated with ambitions of language following sequence during lunch time in a MRE: promotion. This means in general, that two I sit with a group of four children different institutional modes of language use in and an educator at the lunch table. the multilingual environment of early childhood Laetitia and Elena, who are both waiting education institutions must be distinguished. for their meals, sit to my left. The The main line of differentiation runs between educator, Ingrid, sits next to them on the such daycare facilities which do not pay any other side. Ingrid asks me in German, if I particular attention to linguistic diversity in would also like to eat something: Möchten their pedagogical approaches on the one hand, Sie auch etwas essen? I say: Nein, danke, and such facilities mentioning the task of im Moment lieber nicht (No, thanks, not language promotion and linguistic diversity right now). After that, the meals are served explicitly in their mission statements. The latter onto the plates of the children and they are characterized especially by the fact that they begin to eat. A view minutes later, Natalie meet the demands of language promotion in the notices that Laetitia’s plate is nearly context of a diverse linguistic environment by empty. She asks in Luxembourgish, Wëlls monolingualizing the language use in de nach e bësselchen? (‘Do you want a bit institutional everyday life. Nevertheless, the more?) Laetitia looks at her with a smile in enforcement of a monolingual standard of her face and replies in French: Oui! (Yes). language use also depends situationally on who is actually talking to whom. In light of this, one This sequence displays a typical example can recognize that monolingualization also for language use practices in which several implies a practice distinguishing between languages are applied without any particular children and adults. When adults talk to each attention to their original distinctiveness. other, then tolerance for translingual and However, such situations are not restricted to linguistically diverse conversation is still the communication between adults or between predominant. In the communication between adults and children but can also be observed adults and children, however, and also in during the conversations among children communication among children in the presence themselves: of adult professionals, this may not only be Annabelle opens a picture book and completely different, but also dependent on the slides her fingers over the animals particular institution and special local depicted there. She looks at Pierre, points to one of the pictures and tells him 32 Global Education Review 2(1) conditions. In this context, two main variations Luxembourgish is rather the language which has can be described. to be learned and in which should be taught. However, in trying to monolingualize the Speaking Luxembourgish: linguistic intercourse the educators do not Monolingualization in a single Language pursue a regular plan or an official curriculum. Monolingualizing communication with and Moreover, this kind of language promotion is among children towards a consequent embedded in everyday interactions between performance of Luxembourgish is the most children and adult professionals. This represents widespread form of so-called language the common practice of the promotion of promotion in the publicly funded non-profit Luxembourgish which can be understood as a sector of preschool early childhood education in kind of linguistic naturalization. The educators Luxembourg, and especially in the MRE. It is apply a habit of ‘teaching’ which relies on characterized by the fact that at the level of the requesting children to perform their pedagogical concepts of these daycare centers, Luxembourgish language faculties. If it is spoken the challenge of how to deal with linguistic by those children who do not do so natively, then diversity becomes redefined to the general use of it becomes a language through which children Luxembourgish as lingua franca in the are educated. This happens as they are made to communications with children and of children ‘learn’ through it in a way that allows the with children. Although this is not prescribed by educators to continuously observe the any official law, commitments to the effectiveness of their own interventions. In the Luxembourgish language can be regularly found end, this leads to intensive practice of language in the conceptual frameworks of the publicly promotion where children are repeatedly funded sector. According to these conceptual admonished to speak Luxembourgish, and not frameworks, the caregivers are expected to speak only when they speak with professionals in the Luxembourgish with the children and to take supposedly ‘wrong’ language, but also when they care that it is pronounced correctly. This is, communicate among themselves in a however, not about a lack of competence of the multilingual way or in different foreign caregivers as nearly all of them are themselves languages. The professionals use an implicit and multilingual. It rather means that the intuitive didactic whose guiding idea is: educational mission is conceptually taken up Luxembourgish is taught through speaking it. with trying to meet the diverse language ecology This strategy is similar to the experience of at the institutional level by monolingualizing the indigenous Luxembourgish people with their linguistic intercourse. For the daily life in own language acquisition. They learn ‘their’ childcare institutions, this has the consequence language not in the classroom, but in everyday that the family languages are displaced in the family life. In this sense, the use of domestic private sphere while German and Luxembourgish language is both the aim and the French are left to the responsibility of the school. means of language promotion. Against this With the claim of an exclusive background, it is telling that the use of the promotion of Luxembourgish, the daycare sector Luxembourgish language is not intended as simultaneously creates its separate educational serving to solve a problem of understanding at mission with which it can distance itself from all. Put another way, the use of this language is both the school on the one hand side and the always oriented to the language-promoting family on the other hand side. In these effectiveness of its use, and effort to bring it in institutions to speak Luxembourgish does not line with a performative evocation of the only mean to use a specific language – children’s ability really to speak Luxembourgish.