Lingua Franca English, Multilingual Communities, and Language Acquisition SURESHCANAGARAJAH PennsylvaniaStateUniversity 304CSparksBuilding UniversityPark,PA16801 Email:[email protected] FirthandWagner(1997)questionedthedichotomiesnonnative versusnative speaker,learner versus user, and interlanguage versus target language, which reflect a bias toward innateness, cognition, and form in language acquisition. Research on lingua franca English (LFE) not onlyaffirmsthisquestioning,butrevealswhatmultilingualcommunitieshaveknownallalong: Language learning and use succeed through performance strategies, situational resources, and social negotiations in fluid communicative contexts. Proficiency is therefore practice- based, adaptive, and emergent. These findings compel us to theorize language acquisition as multimodal, multisensory, multilateral, and, therefore, multidimensional. The previously dominant constructs such as form, cognition, and the individual are not ignored; they get redefined as hybrid, fluid, and situated in a more socially embedded, ecologically sensitive, andinteractionallyopenmodel. Theconceptoflanguageasarigid,monolithicstruc- masteringitsgrammarinspeciallydesignedped- tureisfalse,evenifithasprovedtobeausefulfiction agogicalcontexts. in the development of linguistics. It is the kind of Theensuingdebatehasmadeusawareofmany simplification that is necessary at a certain stage of other dichotomies in language acquisition that a science, but which can now be replaced by more needtobereexamined: sophisticatedmodels.(Haugen,1972,p.325) Firth and Wagner questioned some key di- 1. Grammar versus pragmatics: Is one more pri- chotomiesoperativeinsecondlanguageacquisi- maryincommunicationthantheother,andarethey tion(SLA)researchintheir1997article.Focusing infactseparable?Wouldpragmaticstrategiesenable onetocommunicatesuccessfullyirrespectiveofthe mainlyontheconstructslearner versususer,non- levelofgrammaticalproficiency?(House,2003). nativeversusnativespeaker(NNSvs.NS),andin- 2. Determinismversusagency:Arelearnersatthe terlanguage versustarget language,theycontested mercyofgrammaranddiscourseformsforcommu- thenotionsofdeficiencyimputedtothefirstcon- nication,ordotheyshapelanguagetosuittheirpur- struct in each pair. SLA1 has generally worked poses?(Canagarajah,2006a). with the assumption that learners are emulat- 3. Individual versus community: Are language ing the idealized competence of NSs, that they learninganduseorchestratedprimarilybytheindi- are handicapped in their capacity to communi- vidualevenwhentheyoccurthroughinteraction?Or catewiththeundevelopedlanguagetheypossess, docommunicationandacquisitiontakeplaceincol- andthatlearningalanguageprimarilyconstitutes laborationwithothers,throughactivenegotiation,as anintersubjectivepractice?(Block,2003). 4. Purityversushybridity:Arelanguagesseparated from each other, even at the most abstract level of TheModernLanguageJournal,91,FocusIssue,(2007) grammatical form? And how do they associate with 0026-7902/07/923–939 $1.50/0 othersymbolsystemsandmodalitiesofcommunica- !C2007TheModernLanguageJournal tion?(Khubchandani,1997;Makoni,2002). 924 TheModernLanguageJournal91(2007) 5. Fixityversusfluidity:Whatistheplaceofdevi- previouslyignoredorsuppressed.Toaconsider- ation,variation,andalterationinlanguage,andcan ableextent,LFEresearchpresentsdatafromcon- a system lack boundedness? Similarly, is acquisition tact situations in professional and everyday con- linear,cumulative,unidirectional, and monodimen- textsoutsidetheclassroom,broadeningtheSLA sional?(Kramsch,2002;Larsen-Freeman,2002). database. Though we need more emic perspec- 6. Cognitionversuscontext:Doweformulateand tivesfromnon-Westerncommunities,thestudies store language norms detached from the situations by European scholars provide useful data from and environment in which they are embedded? Is multilingual contexts. LFE research was avail- learningmoreeffectivewhenittakesplaceseparately from the contexts where multiple languages, com- able earlier, but it has developed to even more municativemodalities,andenvironmentalinfluences complexlevelsastheglobalcurrencyofEnglish are richly at play? (Atkinson, Churchill, Nishino, & has grown in relation to recent forms of post- Okada,2007;Lantolf&Thorne,2006). modern globalization.3 The new context, featur- 7. Monolingual versus multilingual acquisition: ingtransnationalaffiliations,diasporacommuni- Shouldwetreatlearningastakingplaceonelanguage ties, digital communication, fluid social bound- atatime,separatelyforeach,inhomogeneousenvi- aries, and the blurring of time–space distinc- ronments?(Cook,1999). tionshasgeneratedmoreinformationaboutatyp- ical communicative contexts, encouraged stud- FirthandWagner(1997)usheredintheques- iesoncontactsituations,andcreatedanurgency tioningofthedichotomies,andwehavegradually tounderstandacquisitionoutsidehomogeneous progressedtoapositionofmodelbuilding,devel- communities. opingalternatetheoreticalparadigmsthatwould Therefore,wenowhavenewdataandperspec- integratetheseconstructs(seeZuengler&Miller, tivesthatwereunavailableatthetimeoftheini- 2006, for a review). Although Firth and Wagner tial debate. However, my argument here is not primarily sought parity between the constructs, thatSLAhastoberevisedonlytoaccommodate we are now in a position not only to abandon theexceptionalissuesderivingfromglobalization thedichotomizedorientationbutalsotosynthe- andLFE.4 Theserecentdevelopmentshaveonly sizetheconstructsonaradicallydifferentfooting. madeusawareofsomefundamentalprocessesof FirthandWagnerendedtheirarticlewithabroad language learning and usage relevant to diverse call “to work towards the evolution of a holistic, communitiesindifferenthistoricalandgeograph- bio-socialSLA”(p.296).Wehavehence/nowcon- icalcontexts.Forexample,wearenowinaposi- structedarangeofspecificmodelsthatelaborate tiontoappreciatehowlanguagelearningandus- andrefinethebiosocialparadigm(examplesfol- agehavetakenplaceinnon-Westernmultilingual low). Thus the first of the three requirements communitiesforcenturies.Thelocalknowledge Firth and Wagner identified in order to redress oftheseperipherycommunitieshasbeenignored the imbalance—in other words, an enhanced in linguistic scholarship, as in many other fields awarenessofthecontextualandinteractionaldi- intheacademy. mensions of language use—stands fulfilled. The Therefore,weshouldconsiderthecritique,re- othertworequirements—inotherwords,anemic vision, and expansionof dominant constructsas perspectiveandabroadenedSLAdatabase—are adesirableprocessofknowledgeconstruction.As stilltoberealized.Weneedmoreinsiderstudies Haugen (1972) noted, in the quotation in the frommultilingual(especiallynon-Western)com- epigraph, there is a place for enabling fictions munitiesanddatafromoutsidetheclassroomto atparticularstagesinscholarlyinquiry.However, meettheserequirements.Eveninthecaseofthe- in the light of new evidence, especially as social oreticalawarenessandmodelbuilding,wedonot conditionsthemselveschangeandourinquirybe- have a consensus. Zuengler and Miller (2006) comes sharper, we have to deconstruct our ear- argued that the cognitive and social perspec- lier models and perhaps start anew. Globaliza- tives constitute “parallel worlds” in SLA studies tion, multilingual contact, and LFE provide im- (p.35). petus for continuing this disciplinary rethinking It is in this context that I present recent re- with new urgency and addressing language pro- search related to lingua franca English (LFE)2 cessesandpracticesthathavelainhiddenallthe asradicallyreconfiguringthenewmodelsoflan- time. guageusageandacquisitionbeingconstructedin Inthisarticle,Ifirstreviewstudiesontheacqui- our field. This emergent body of knowledge en- sition and use of English as a contact language. ables us to reappraise the constructs that were Basedontheseresearchfindings,Iconsiderthe SureshCanagarajah 925 implications for the dichotomized constructs in LFE when they find themselves interacting with SLA. Then, I review the literature on commu- each other. House (2003) appropriately called nicative practices in non-Western communities, these communities of imagination, borrowing the which confirms the practices informing LFE us- well-known metaphor from Anderson (1984). It age, suggesting the bases of the resources and isunclearwhatconstitutesthethresholdlevelof skills multilinguals bring to language negotia- English proficiency required to join this invisi- tion.Thenon-Westernscholarshipalsoraisesad- blecommunity.ThoughsomeproficiencyinEn- ditional complex questions about language use glishiscertainlynecessary,itisevidentthateven andacquisitionthatenableustofurtheradvance those individuals with a rudimentary knowledge our inquiry on SLA. As I move toward an alter- canconductsuccessfulcommunicationwhilefur- nate paradigm, I consider the reasons why such ther developing their proficiency. This facility is acquisitionprocesseshavenotbeenaddressedin nodoubtattributabletothelanguageawareness thedominantSLAmodels.Examiningthe(struc- andpracticesdevelopedinothercontextsofcom- turalist) philosophical and (monolingual) social municationwithlocallanguages.Multilingualism biases in knowledge construction, I move on to isattheheartofLFE’shybridcommunityidentity outline a new integration of the SLA constructs andspeakerproficiency. on a practice-based model that would better ac- Aradicalimplicationofthismultilingualismis commodatethecommunicativeprocessesofmul- that all users of LFE have native competence of tilinguals. LFE, just as they have native competence in cer- tain other languages and cultures. This charac- terization goes against our usual ways of using ACQUIRINGANDUSINGLINGUA the concept of NS. Typically, one is an NS of FRANCAENGLISH only one language. However, this type of native Graddol (1999) prophesied “in [the] future competence(andinsiderstatus)inmultiplelan- [English] will be a language used mainly in guagesisawell-knownrealityinmanycommuni- multilingual contexts as a second language and ties.LFEonlymakesthisphenomenonmorevis- forcommunicationbetweennon-nativespeakers” ibleandglobal.Animportantimplicationisthat (p. 57). This prediction is arguably already a unlike our treatment of those who are outsiders reality. English is used most often as a contact toBritish,American,orothernationalvarietiesof language by speakers of other languages in the English,wecannottreatLFEspeakersasincompe- new contexts of transnational communication. tent.House(2003)putitthisway:“alinguafranca Speakers of English as an additional language speakerisnotperdefinitionemnotfullycompetent aregreaterinnumberthanthetraditionallyun- inthepartofhisorherlinguisticknowledgeun- derstood NSs5 who use English as their sole or derstudy”(p.557).Thisassertiondoesnotmean primary language of communication. These de- thatLFEspeakersdonotdeveloptheirproficiency velopments have impressed upon us the need further—justasAnglo-AmericanNSsstillhaveto to understand the character of LFE, a variety developtheirproficiencyinEnglish.Perhapswe that overshadows national dialects—the domi- havetodistinguishbetweencompetenceandpro- nantonessuchasBritishorAmericanEnglishand ficiency.BothLFEspeakersandNSshavecompe- the recently nativized forms such as a Indian or tenceintheirrespectivevarieties,thoughthereis Singaporean English—both in currency and sig- nolimittothedevelopmentoftheirproficiency nificance(seeCanagarajah,2006b;Jenkins,2006; through experience and time. The competence and Seidlhofer, 2004, for the state of the art on ofLFEspeakersisofcoursedistinct.Thiscompe- LFE).Howisthislinguafranca,6alanguagesoim- tenceforcross-languagecontactandhybridcodes portantformillionsofglobalspeakers,acquired derivesfromtheirmultilinguallife. andused? Becauseofthediversityattheheartofthiscom- LFE belongs to a virtual speech community. municativemedium,LFEisintersubjectivelycon- The speakers of LFE are not located in one ge- structed in each specific context of interaction. ographical boundary. They inhabit and practice TheformofthisEnglishisnegotiatedbyeachset other languages and cultures in their own im- of speakers for their purposes.The speakers are mediatelocalities.Despitethislinguistic–cultural abletomonitoreachother’slanguageproficiency heterogeneityandspatialdisconnect,theyrecog- todeterminemutuallytheappropriategrammar, nizeLFEasasharedresource.Theyactivateamu- phonology,lexicalrange,andpragmaticconven- tuallyrecognizedsetofattitudes,forms,andcon- tionsthatwouldensureintelligibility.Therefore, ventionsthatensuresuccessfulcommunicationin itisdifficulttodescribethislanguageapriori.It 926 TheModernLanguageJournal91(2007) cannotbecharacterizedoutsidethespecificinter- possibletoconsiderformasconstitutinganinde- actionandspeakersinacommunicativecontext. terminate,open,andfluidsystem? Meierkord(2004)saidthatLFE“emergesoutof How does such a fluid system facilitate har- andthroughinteraction”and,forthatreason,“it monious communication? It is obvious that LFE mightwellbethatELFneverachievesastableor speakerscannotdependonapreconstitutedform even standardized form” (p. 129). In this sense, for meaning. They activate complex pragmatic LFE does not exist as a system “out there.” It is strategiesthathelpthemnegotiatetheirvariable constantlybroughtintobeingineachcontextof form. It is amazing, therefore, that “misunder- communication. standings are not frequent in ELF interactions,” Letusnowunpacktheimplicationsofthisne- accordingtoSeidlhofer(2004,p.218).Shewent gotiabilityforform.TheformofLFEisvariable.7 on to say that “when they do occur, they tend Because the type of language is actively nego- to be resolved either by topic change, or, less tiated by the participants, what might be inap- often, by overt negotiation using communica- propriate or unintelligible in one interaction is tionstrategiessuchasrephrasingandrepetition” perfectlyunderstandableinanother.Thisnotion (p. 218). A kind of suspension of expecta- offormgoesbeyondthetraditionalunderstand- tions regarding norms seems to be in opera- ingofvariationasderivingfromacommoncore tion, and when forms from a different language of grammar or language norms.In other words, or English variety surface, they do not inter- variation is at the heart of this system, not sec- fere negatively. Planken (2005) described how ondary to a more primary common system of this condition is achieved in intercultural busi- uniform norms. Speakers understand the inter- ness communication. She noted that the in- locutor’svariantsandproceedeffectivelywiththe terlocutors do some preparatory work through communication,inturnusingtheirownvariants. opening comments to create a third space—a AsGramkowAnderson(1993)putit“thereisno no-man’s-land between their primary languages consistencyinformthatgoesbeyondthepartici- and cultures—to negotiate LFE on equal terms. pantlevel,i.e.,eachcombinationofinteractants Throughreflexivecommentsontheirowncom- seems to negotiate and govern their own variety municative practices, self-deprecating humor, oflinguafrancauseintermsofproficiencylevel, and the evocation of their shared nonnative- useofcode-mixing,degreeofpidginization,etc.” ness, they distance themselves from their own (p.108). normsandactivateflexiblepracticesthatfacilitate Tomakemattersmorecomplicated,LFE’sform communication. ishybridinnature.Thelanguagefeatureswords, As long as a certain threshold of understand- grammaticalpatterns,anddiscourseconventions ingisobtained,interlocutorsseemtoadoptwhat fromdiverselanguagesandEnglishvarietiesthat Firth (1996) termed the let it pass principle, by speakersbringtotheinteraction.Participantsbor- whichtheyoverlookidiosyncracies.Partofthese rowfromeachotherfreelyandadopttheother’s pragmatic resources are discourse strategies (at language in their interaction with that partici- the suprasentential level) to accommodate local pant. In her research on the syntactic character variants. Meierkord (2004) found that although of LFE, Meierkord (2004) presented it as a het- individualsretainthecharacteristicsoftheirown erogeneousformofEnglishcharacterizedby:(a) English varieties, they facilitate communication “overwhelming correspondence to the rules of throughsyntacticstrategieslikesegmentation(in- L1 Englishes”; (b) “transfer phenomena, devel- volvingutterancesthatareshortenedintoclausal opmentalpatternsandnativisedforms”;and(c) or phrasal segments that form the basic infor- “simplification, regularisation and levelling pro- mationalunits)andregularization(involvingthe cesses”(p.128). movement of focused information to the front SampsonandZhao(2003)madeananalogybe- of the utterance). These characteristics give the tweenLFEandapidginlanguage,basedondata impression that LFE talk is “overtly consensus- from multilingual sailors. They found the exis- oriented, cooperative and mutually support- tenceofSingaporean,Indian,andPhillipinoEn- ive, and thus fairly robust” (Seidlhofer, 2004, glishes,inadditiontootherlanguages,intheLFE p.218). of their participants. The sailors borrowed from If uniformity of form is not a requirement in theusageofeachothertodevelopahybridlan- LFE, more surprising is the finding that even guage that is still shared and used smoothly for the enabling pragmatic strategies do not have communication. Thus, LFE raises serious ques- to be the same. House (2003) demonstrated tionsabouttheconceptoflanguagesystem.Isit howstudentsofEnglishfromdifferentcountries SureshCanagarajah 927 bring pragmatic strategies valued in their own ImplicationsforTheorizingAcquisition communities to facilitate communication with outsiders. These strategies are, paradoxically, Such a scenario of LFE communication com- culture-specific strategies that complement in- plicatesthedominantconstructsofSLAandval- terculturalcommunication.Forexample,House idates the questions raised by Firth and Wag- foundthat“Asianparticipantsemploytopicman- ner(1997).BecauseLFEisintersubjectivelycon- agement strategies in a striking way, recycling a structed in a situation- and participant-specific specific topic regardless of where and how the manner, it is difficult to elicit a baseline data discoursehaddevelopedatanyparticularpoint” to assess the proficiency of LFE speakers. LFE’s (p. 567). This discourse of parallel monologues formandconventionsvaryfordifferentspeakers actuallyhelpsnonproficientEnglishspeakersbe- and contexts. We have to judge proficiency, in- cause it enables them to focus on each move as telligibility, and communicative success in terms if it were a fresh topic. In the three strategies of each context and its participants. More im- House described, while the local cultural ways portantly,we have to interpretthe meaning and of interacting are alive in the English of Asians, significance of the English used from the par- they still serve to ensure intelligibility and com- ticipants’ownperspective,withoutimposingthe munication with outsiders. This communication researcher’s standards or criteria invoked from ispossiblebecausetheotheralsobringshisorher elsewhere. ownstrategiestonegotiatetheseculture-specific Arelatedpointhereisthatwehavetoridour- conventions. Participants, then, “do their own selves of what Cook (1999) called the compara- thing,”butstillcommunicatewitheachother.Not tive fallacy. The haste to judge language perfor- uniformity,butalignmentismoreimportantfor mance using limited and unfair norms has af- suchcommunication.Eachparticipantbringshis fectedmuchofwhatwehavedonesofarinlan- or her own language resources to find a strate- guagelearning.8 ThetreatmentofaputativeNS gic fit with the participants and purpose of a of English as the norm is another manifestation context. ofthecomparativefallacy.TheEnglishofmulti- Forcommunicationtoworkacrosssuchradical lingualLFEspeakersisnotusedindeferenceto differences, it is important that acquisition and thenormsofprestigevarietiessuchasBritishor usegohandinhand.AsspeakersuseLFE,alotof AmericanEnglish.LFEspeakersdonottreatthe learningtakesplace:Theymonitortheformand speakers of these varieties as their frame of ref- conventionstheotherbrings;theylearntoascribe erence.House(2003)remindedus“theyardstick meaningstotheirformandconventions;andthey formeasuringELFspeakers’performanceshould monitortheirownformandconventiontonego- thereforeratherbean‘expertinELFuse’,asta- tiatecommunication.Meetingdifferentspeakers blemultilingualspeakerundercomparablesocio- from the vast, diffuse, and virtual community of culturalandhistoricalconditionsofuse,andwith LFE,onealwayshastolearnalot—andrapidly— comparable goals for interaction” (p. 573). This as one decides which receptive and productive is a tongue-in-cheek statement, as we have seen resources to adopt for a context. Furthermore, thatthereisnothingstableaboutthemultilingual the lessons learnt in one encounter will help to speaker.Moreover,thereislittlethatiscompara- constantlyreconstructtheschematomonitorfu- bleaboutLFEcontextsorpurposesofinteraction, turecommunicationofsimilarordifferentpartic- aseachLFEinteractionushersinitsownunique ipantsandcontexts.Inthissense,learningnever dynamics. stopsinLFE.Ifthereisnolanguageusewithout These realizations call into question the idea learning,thereisalsonolanguagelearningout- thattheEnglishofmultilingualusersisaninter- sideofuse.Becausethereisnoapriorigrammar, language. Multilingual speakers are not moving the variable language system has to be encoun- towardsomeoneelse’starget;theyareconstruct- teredinactualuse.Thecontextsofintercultural ingtheirownnorms.Itismeaninglesstomeasure globalcommunicationareunpredictable,andthe the distance of LFE speakers from the language mix of participants and purposes have to be en- of Anglo-American speakers as LFE has no rele- countered in real situations. Also, the strategies vancetotheirvariety.Besides,wehavetoquestion thatenablenegotiationaremeaninglessasknowl- theassumptionintheinterlanguageconceptthat edge or theory; they have to be constantly acti- therearegradations,alinearprogression,andan vatedfortheirdevelopment.Alanguagebasedon endpointtobeachievedinlanguagelearning.We negotiation can be developed only through and have seen that each LFE interaction is a unique inpractice. context,raisingitsownchallengesfornegotiation. 928 TheModernLanguageJournal91(2007) Itmaynotbethecasethatonecommunicativeact contribution from environmental and social do- contributes to the other and so on, leading to a mains.Therules,schema,andconventionsdevel- cumulativelineofprogression.Becausethecon- oped by LFE users come loaded with significant texts are so variable and unpredictable, it is not socialinformation.Thevariableandhybridgram- possible to say that a target can be reached for marofLFEcannotbeacquiredoutsidethecon- perfect or competent LFE proficiency. (We may textsandsocialmilieuthathelpselectthemand not be able to say that even for Anglo-American give meaning. If language has a cognitive habi- NSsofEnglish.) tation, such a cognition is shaped, enabled, and Ifatall,wecanspeakofachievingatypeoflan- realizedinsocialpractice.Inthisrespect,thedis- guage awareness and competence that can help tinction between competence and performance handle diverse communicative situations. How- hastoberevised.Itcanbearguedthatinthecase ever,itispossiblethatmultilingualsalreadycome ofLFE,thereisnomeaningforform,grammar, withthiscompetenceanddonotwaitfortheirin- orlanguageabilityoutsidetherealmofpractice. teractionsinEnglishtodevelopthatability.Based LFE is not a product located in the mind of the onherfindingsofthecreativeandcomplexnego- speaker;itisaformofsocialaction. tiation strategies of multilinguals, House (2003) Intheorizingthiscomplexsocialaction,some argued“allthesestrategiesseemtoshowthatELF scholars have begun to explore how success- usersarecompetentenoughtobeabletomonitor ful communicationdepends on aligning the lin- each others’ moves at a high level of awareness” guistic resources one brings to the social, situ- (p.559).Inthissense,theirdevelopmentofLFE ational, and affective dimensions operative in a proficiency has to be granted relatively greater context(seeKramsch,2002).Inotherwords,lan- agency,atleastanalogoustotheagencyattributed guage learning involves an alignment of one’s tothedevelopmentinone’sfirstlanguageincer- language resources to the needs of a situation, taingenerativistmodels.TheLFEspeakercomes rather than reaching a target level of compe- with the competence—in many respects, more tence. Atkinson et al. (2007) defined alignment advanced than that of the child because of the as“themeansbywhichhumanactorsdynamically yearsofmultilingualpracticeenjoyedintheirlo- adapt to—that is, flexibly depend on, integrate cal communities—which is then honed through with, and construct—the ever-changing mind- actual interactions. This development does not body-world environments posited by sociocogni- havetobemarkedbymiscommunicationordefi- tivetheory.Inotherwords,alignmenttakesplace cientusage,andshouldnotbetreatedassuch. notjustbetweenhumanbeings,butalsobetween Werealize,however,thatthelinguisticcompe- human beings and their social and physical en- tenceofanLFEspeakerhastobedefinedmore vironments” (p. 171, original emphasis). Atkin- broadly and with greater complexity. The domi- son and his collaborators went on to illustrate nantorientationistotreatsolelyormainlyformas alignment through the English language learn- defining competence, with communicative com- inginteractionofaJapanesechildandhertutor. petence given a secondary role. In LFE, form What is more pertinent to this article (an issue receives reduced significance; or, rather, form theauthorsdonotchoosetodevelop)istheway gets shaped according to the contexts and par- both Japanese and English and, sometimes, co- ticipants in an interaction. More important are constructed words and meanings of ambiguous a range of other skills, abilities, and awareness linguisticidentityareusedascuesandeffectsof that enable multilingual speakers to negotiate successfulalignmenttofacilitateEnglishlanguage grammar. In addition to grammatical compe- learning. tence, we have to give equal importance to: lan- Thisnotionofalignmentmakesusquestionan- guage awareness that enables speakers to make otherbiasinSLA—languageacquisitionasanin- instantaneous inferences about the norms and dividualactivity.Itisclearthattheindividual’spro- conventions of their multilingual interlocutors; ficiencyisshapedbycollectiveandcontextualfac- strategic competence to negotiate interpersonal tors.Butthereareotherimplicationsforassessing relationships effectively; and pragmatic compe- anindividual’slevelofproficiency.Aswesaw,LFE tence to adopt communicative conventions that makes sense only as an intersubjective construc- areappropriatefortheinterlocutor,purpose,and tion, something achieved by two or more peo- situation.9 ple,basedonthestrategiestheybringtotheint- Theorientationtoacquisitionasacognitiveac- eraction. We have to consider the collaborative tivityalsoneedsclarification.Wecannotfocuson natureofcommunicationandlinguisticnegotia- theactivityandthecontentofthemindinunder- tioninassessingthemeaningandsignificanceof standingLFEproficiency.Thereisaconsiderable aninteraction. SureshCanagarajah 929 From this perspective, the conduit model of theyareNSs,inadditiontobeingoutsiderstothe meaningasinformationtransfer(whichinforms interaction? SLA)hastobequestioned.InLFE,meaningdoes The intersubjective nature of communication not precede (and is not detachable from) the makes us question the separation of the learner language in which it is communicated. House rolefromothersocialrolesandidentities.Intra- (2003)noted,“inELFuse,speakersmustcontinu- ditionalSLAresearch,alearner’slanguageisnot ouslyworkoutajointbasisfortheirinteractions, presumedtobefunctional(unlessprovenother- locally construing and intersubjectively ratifying wise).Theresearcher’sactsofothering,objectify- meanings”(p.559).Therefore,evenanungram- ing,patronizing,andjudgingfurtherreducethe matical usage or inappropriate word choice can learner’s social complexity. However, LFE users be socially functional. They can create a new arealwaysconsciousofthesocialrolestheyplay meaning originally unintended by the speaker, in their contexts of contact communication. We or they may be negotiated by the participants have to interpret their performance in terms of and given new meanings. Participants negotiate thepurposesandrolesthatmatterinthatspeech thelanguageeffectivelytoascribemeaningtoev- event. To further complicate theorization, LFE erything. A radical implication of this assertion users do not remain with the rich and diverse forassessinglanguageproficiencyisthaterroris identitiestheybringtotheevent;aswediscussed also socially constructed. An error occurs when earlier,theynegotiatetomodifyandreconstruct someone fails to ascribe meaning to a linguistic newidentitiesmoreamenabletotheinteraction. form used by another. In LFE, such cases rarely Therefore, to reduce the analysis to speaker-as- occur.BreakdowninLFEcommunicationispos- learner is to leave out many other features of sible only in rare cases of refusal to negotiate communication that provide significance to the meanings—whichisitselfaformofcommunica- languagedata. tionasitconveystheparticipant’sdesiretocutoff Thisrecognitiondoesnotmeanthatotherso- the conversation. Therefore,if there is a case of cialidentitiesmaynotsubsumethelearneriden- failedcommunication,wecannotblameanindi- tity,orviceversa.Wenowknowthatinalllanguage vidualforlackofproficiency.Thisfailedcommu- learningcontexts,includingacademicvenues,ac- nication might be a divergence strategy (Giles, quisitionisasocialprocesswheresubtlenonped- 1984). Those individuals who assess proficiency agogical meanings and identities are communi- have to take into account such joint activity of cated. Even in classroom contexts, identities are participantsincommunicationbeforerushingto multiple,conflictual,andchanging(seeNorton, rulesomethingamistake. 2000).Studentsconveyothermeaningsandiden- Inrelationtoalltheseissues,wehavetoques- titiesnotprescribedinthelessons. tion whether researchers can study language ac- In my ethnography of classroom discourse, quisition by standing outside the interaction in I show how students shuttle between identi- questionor,evenworse,comingfromoutsidethe ties of learner, friend, and in-group community communitiestheystudy.Wouldtheybeimposing member with their teachers, all the time con- normsandmeaningsthatdonotmattertotheir veying contextually relevant meanings, even as participants? Given the intersubjective nature of they gain communicative competence in code- LFE,howcanresearcherswhodonotparticipate switching (Canagarajah, 1999). They also find inaspecificcommunicativeeventclaimtobeprivy spacesforexpressingresistantidentities,deviating tothenormsandmeaningsoperativeforthosein- from the institutionally mandated roles and dis- volved?Thereisresearchdocumentationtosug- tancingthemselvesfrommessagesofthehidden gest that in cases where speakers do not come curriculum. Often even narrowly defined peda- fromtheLFEvirtualcommunity,sharingtheba- gogical exercises can be turned into richly pur- siccommunicativeexpectations,theirinteraction posivecommunicationbystudents.Learnerscan fails(House,2003). subvert lessons that treat them as passive and Ironically, the only cases of miscommunica- mechanical through sarcasm, serving to prove tionHouse(2003)observedinherresearchwere themselvescomplexagents.Routinepedagogical in the interactions of multilingual speakers with exercises can be reframed to generate humour those individuals for whom English is native or andplay.Thesecommunicativeactsandidentities solelanguage.Thismiscommunicationinnative– canimplycomplexproficiency.Bythesametoken, nonnativetalkiseasytoexplain,asNSswouldfail interactions that are not framed as pedagogical to negotiate, treating their norms as universally (i.e.,off-task,off-siteactivities)canbeutilizedfor applicable. Would researchers be prone to sim- learning.Theserealizationsmakeusquestionthe ilar misunderstanding, especially in cases where assumptionoflearningasaconscious,controlled, 930 TheModernLanguageJournal91(2007) predesigned,andpredictableactivity.Wehaveto noretheminthestudyofLFEacquisitionanduse. movetowardconceivingoflearningasoftennon- LFEismeaninglessoutsidetheseconditions. intentional,nonscripted,andnonlineartounder- standLFEacquisitionineverydaycontexts. LANGUAGEACQUISITIONANDUSEIN Asweconsideracquisitionastranscendingthe MULTILINGUALCOMMUNITIES control of the individual and the scope of inter- personal relationships, we have to explore one’s If multilingual speakers display such stupen- language development in relation to that of a douscompetenceinacquiringandusingahybrid wholecommunityofspeakers.Whenalanguageis languagelikeLFE,thereisevidencethatitcomes beingappropriatedbyacommunitytosuititsown fromlanguagesocializationandawarenessdevel- interestsandvalues,developinguniquegrammars opedintheirlocalcommunities.Higgins(2003) andconventionsintheprocess,shouldwestillas- foundinhergroupexperimentthatmultilingual sessthelanguageoftheindividualinrelationto students were more successful in decoding the NS norms? The term macro-acquisition has been meaning of lexical and grammatical items from used to understand how a community appropri- newEnglishesthanAnglo-Americanstudents.NSs ates another language and develops proficiency haddifficultiesinsuchtasksastheydidnotbring inendonormativeterms(Brutt-Griffler,2002).We skillsandattitudesopentonegotiation.Theprac- havetodevelopwaystomapthemicroacquisition ticesweobserveinLFEusersarecommoninother of individuals with the macroacquisition of the contexts of multilingual communication involv- communities of which they are a part. This pro- ing local languages. Paradoxically, then, recent cess is not always isomorphic. In some ways, the findings in LFE communicative practices help individualhastoalignhisorherlearningtothat usappreciatelanguageacquisitionandusecom- ofthecommunity’snorms;inotherways,heorshe mon to multilingual communities from precolo- hastodeviatefromandresistthenormsofthecol- nialtimes. lectiveforthesakeofvoiceandindividuality.To Thoughwedonothaveadequatescholarlyde- makemattersmorecomplicated,whilemapping scriptions of them in our field, these practices thelevelsofalignmentoftheindividualandthe arenotcompletelylostinthesecommunities.We collective,wealsohavetorealizethatthelanguage are beginning to see descriptions of such prac- developmentofbothismobileandchanging.In ticesfromAfrica(Makoni,2002),SouthAmerica this sometimes asynchronous proficiency devel- (deSouza,2002),andthePolynesianIslands(Do- opment in an unstable grammatical system, one rian, 2004), among others. They are striking in needscreativestrategiestomaketheappropriate theirdifferencesfromthedominantconstructsin alignmentbetweenone’slanguageresourcesand linguistics,andraisefurtherquestionsthatneed therequirementsofthecontext. exploration.Ibasethedescriptionofmultilingual We can now appreciate how certain method- communication that follows on my own region ological constructs that were a cause of concern of early socialization in South Asia, especially as forFirthandWagner(1997)areconstitutivefea- it emerges through the perceptive discussion of turesofLFE.Thesefeaturesaretheneedto(a) Khubchandani(1997).10 considermeaningasnegotiatedandintersubjec- Linguistic diversity is at the heart of multilin- tive;(b)treatformasshapedbyparticipantsfor gual communities. There is constant interaction theirownpurposesineachcommunicativeactiv- between language groups, and they overlap, in- ity;(c)affirmlearnersascapableofexertingtheir terpenetrate, and mesh in fascinating ways. Not agency to renegotiate and overcome errors; (d) only do people have multiple memberships, but integrate learning and use; (e) provide for non- theyalsoholdintensiontheiraffiliationwithlo- learnersocialidentitiesinacquisition;(f)accom- cal and global language groups as the situation modatebothpurposiveeverydaycommunication demands.Khubchandani(1997)usedanindige- andnonfunctionalplayasequallycontributingto nous metaphor, Kshetra, to capture this sense of acquisition;(g)relatetolanguageaspractice;(h) community.Kshetras “canbevisualizedasarain- treatcognitionassituatedandcompetenceasper- bow;heredifferentdimensionsinterflowsymbiot- formance;and(i)interpretthecommunicationof icallyintooneanother,responsivetodifferences novicesincontextwithoutcomparingitwithNS ofdensityasinanosmosis”(p.84).Khubchandani normsoratargetproficiency,ortreatingitasan calledtheunitythatdevelopsoutofthisdiversity interlanguage. The use of these methodological andcontinuityofaffiliationsasuperconsensus. constructs is not optional, as Firth and Wagner Such individuals and communities are so rad- seemedtoallow,fordifferentmodesandcasesof ically multilingual that it is difficult to iden- analysis.Wecannotchoosetoeitheradoptorig- tify one’s mother tongue or native language. SureshCanagarajah 931 Peopledevelopsimultaneouschildhoodmultilin- communities, meaning and intelligibility are in- gualism,makingitdifficulttosaywhichlanguage tersubjective. The participants in an interaction comesfirst.AsKubhchandani(1997)pointedout, producemeaningandaccomplishtheircommu- “identification through a particular language la- nicative objectives in relation to their purposes bel is very much a matter of individual social and interests. In this sense, meaning is socially awareness”(p.173).Languageidentityisrelative constructed, not preexisting. Meaning does not tothecommunitiesandlanguagesoneconsiders resideinthelanguage;itisproducedinpractice. salientindifferentcontexts.Therefore,thelabel Asaresult,“individualsinsuchsocietiesacquire isappliedinashiftingandinconsistentmanner. moresynergy(i.e.,puttingforthone’sownefforts) Because of such intense contact, languages and serendipity (i.e., accepting the other on his themselves are influenced by each other, los- or her own terms, being open to unexpected- ing their purity and separateness. Many local ness),anddeveloppositiveattitudestovariations languages serve as contact languages, and de- inspeech(totheextentofevenappropriatingde- velop features suitable for such purposes—that viationsasthenorminthelinguafranca),inthe is, hybridity of grammar and variability of form. processof‘comingout’fromtheirownlanguage- Khubchandani (1997) said “many Indian lan- codestoaneutralground”(Khubchandani,1997, guagesbelongingtodifferentfamiliesshowparal- p.94,originalemphasis). leltrendsofdevelopment...[They]exhibitmany This description sounds similar to Firth’s phonological, grammatical and lexical similari- (1996)letitpassprincipleandPlanken’s(2005)no- tiesandaregreatlysusceptibletoborrowingfrom man’s-land where participants accommodate dif- thelanguagesofcontact”(p.80).Hewentonto ferencesinlanguageandconventions.Ofcourse, saythatdifferences“betweenPunjabiandHindi, ittakesalotofworktogettothispoint.Synergy UrduandHindi,DogriandPunjabi,andKonkani capturesthecreativeagencyparticipantsmustex- and Marathi can be explained only through a ert in order to work jointly with the other par- pluralisticviewoflanguage”(p.91).Thoughhe ticipant to accomplish intersubjective meaning. didnotelaborate,thepluralisticviewoflanguage Serendipityinvolvesanattitudinaltransformation. wouldraisemanyenigmasfortraditionallinguis- To accept deviations as the norm, one must dis- tics:Howdoweclassifyandlabellanguageswhen play positive attitudes to variation and be open there is such mixing? How do we describe lan- to unexpectedness. Participants have to be radi- guageswithouttreatingthemasself-containedsys- callyother-centered.Theyhavetobeimaginative tems?Howdowedefinethesystemofalanguage and alert to make on-the-spot decisions in rela- withouttheautonomy,closure,andtightnessthat tion to the forms and conventions employed by wouldprecludeopennesstootherlanguages? theother.Itisclearthatcommunicationinmulti- Suchcommunitiesaresomultilingualthatina lingualcommunitiesinvolvesadifferentmind-set specificspeechsituationonemightseethemixing andpracticesfromthemind-setandpracticesin ofdiverselanguages,literacies,anddiscourses.It monolingualcommunities. might be difficult to categorize the interaction as belonging to a single language. Khubchan- ImplicationsforTheorizingAcquisition dani (1997) explained “the edifice of linguistic plurality in the Indian subcontinent is tradition- How do local people develop proficiency in ally based upon the complementary use of more a form of communication that involves multi- than one language and more than one writing ple communities and languages in contexts that system for the same language in one ‘space’” cangenerateanunpredictablemixofformsand (p. 96; original emphasis). If social spaces fea- conventions? How is harmony achieved out of ture complementary—not exclusive—use of lan- diversity, synchrony out of differences in form guages,mixingoflanguagesandliteraciesineach andconventions,alignmentindiscordantandun- situation is the norm, not the exception. This predictablesituations?Clearly,communicationin communicative reality raises many questions for contact situations is marked by enigmatic para- language acquisition: What kind of competence doxes. dopeopleneedtocommunicateinsuchcontexts Multilingual communication works because where different languages mix, mesh, and com- competencedoesnotconstituteaformofknowl- plement each other? How do people produce edge,butrather,encompassesinteractionstrate- meaning out of this seeming chaos of multiple gies.Khubchandani(1997)arguedthattheability systemsofcommunication? to communicate is not helped by explicit for- Itisclearthatthislinguisticpluralismhastobe mulassuchasformalgrammarsanddictionaries negotiatedactivelytoconstructmeaning.Inthese of words. For South Asians, “interpretation [is] 932 TheModernLanguageJournal91(2007) dependent on the focus of communication resourcestheybringandthecontextofcommu- ‘field’andthedegreesofindividual’s‘sensitivity’ nication. Thus, acquisition is not a cumulative towards it” (p. 40). In other words, participants process, but an ability to come up with diverse must engage with the social context, and re- strategies for speech events that need to be ad- sponsively orchestrate the contextual cues for dressed for their own sake. The mention of ad alignment. As we have already seen, meaning hocstrategiesremindsusthatcompetenceisnot in language is not a product that can be pre- predictabilitybutalertnessandimpromptufabri- scribed objectively. Communication is intersub- cationofformsandconventionstoestablishalign- jective.Ratherthanknowledgeofform,multilin- mentineachsituationofcommunication.Thus, gualcompetencefeaturesanarrayofinteractional acquisitionaimstowardsversatilityandagility,not strategiesthatcancreatemeaningoutofshifting masteryandcontrol.11 contexts. Inmultilingualcompetence,grammarreceives AsKhubchandani(1997)explained,“commu- reducedsignificance.Incontextswheredeviation nications in everyday life are based on the syn- is the norm, multilinguals cannot rely on gram- ergic relationship between the twin criteria: (a) mar or form. The linguistics system is a hybrid thereciprocityoflanguageskillsamongcommunica- andvariableone,evenifitcanbedescribedapri- tors (spread over a speech spectrum comprising ori. To reduce further the importance of gram- oneormorelanguages,dialects,styles,etc.);and mar, Khubchandani (1997) said that the speech (b)themutualityoffocus (thatis,sharingtherele- process is “regarded as a non-autonomous de- vanceofthesetting,commonlyattributedtothe vice,communicatinginsymphonywithothernon- attitudes,moods,orfeelingsoftheparticipants)” linguisticdevices;itsfullsignificancecanbeexpli- (p.49).WhatKhubchandanihighlightedareskills cated only from the imperatives of context and and strategies. Mutuality and reciprocity indicate communicative tasks” (p. 40). In other words, thewaysparticipantsaligntheirmovesandstrate- communicationismultimodal.Meaningdoesnot gies inrelationtotheirlanguage resources.Syn- reside in language alone. Linguistic meaning is ergyistheoutcomeofthisalignment,whenpartic- created in relation to diverse symbol systems ipantsjointlyinvokelanguageresourcesandcol- (icons,space,color,gesture,orotherrepresenta- laboratively build coherence. Multilingual com- tionalsystems)andmodalitiesofcommunication petence is thus a mode of practice, not resident (writing,sound,visuals,touch,andbody),notto solelyincognition. speak of diverse languages. If we need a gram- Furthermore,multilingualcompetenceisopen marorrulesforthismodeofcommunication,it to unpredictability. In a sense, each context of will be a grammar of multimodality—that is, it communication poses a new and unpredictable willcontainrulesthataccountforhowlanguage mixoflanguagesandconventions.AsKhubchan- mesheswithdiversesymbolsystems,modalitiesof dani (1997) explained further, “it is often diffi- communication,andecologicalresourcestocre- culttodeterminewhetheraparticulardiscourse ate meaning. This orientation would set us on a belongs to language A or B” (p. 93). There- differentpathofdescriptionfromthestructural- fore, it is difficult to transfer the forms and isttraditionthatproceedsfurtherinwardsintoau- conventions of one context to the next. In this tonomouslanguagetofindtherulesoflinguistic sense, learning is nonlinear. It is for this rea- meaningmaking. son that when SLA is able to theorize language Thiskindofexpandedcompetenceinvolvesnot use and acquisition as based on directed effort justtherationalfacultybutothersensorydimen- (somethingpredictable,withlearnersarmedwith sionsaswell.Kubhchandani(1997)evokedHindu a stock of forms and strategies that can make spiritual concepts to capture this idea: “ancient themcompetentforsuccessfulcommunication), Indiangrammarianstalkabouttheguna (power, in the Indian community speech is “an effort- potency) of language when deliberating on the lessintegralactivity;discoursecentresaroundthe dhvani doctrine in Indian aesthetics. A message ‘event’ with the support of ad hoc ‘expression’ can convey meaning not merely through its in- strategies”(p.40).Localpeoplerealizethat“the tentinisolation(asindexedinthedictionary)but ‘tradition inspired’ standardized nuances of an- alsointhecontextofidentity(aswhenobserving other language or culture” (p. 93) cannot help verbal protocol in a formal setting) or through them communicate successfully in the mix of its effect on the participants (as manipulated by languages and dialects they encounter in each observers)” (p. 52). It is difficult for nonpartic- situation. ipants observing an interaction in a detached It appears as if all that speakers can do is to manner to come up with a rationalist account findafit—analignment—betweenthelinguistic forthesuccessofcommunication.Themeaning