the multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal

Applied Linguistics 2016 374 474ndash494 Oxford University Press 2014

doi101093applinamu045 Advance Access published on 14 August 2014

The MultiPlural Turn Postcolonial Theoryand Neoliberal MulticulturalismComplicities and Implicationsfor Applied Linguistics

RYUKO KUBOTA

Department of Language and Literacy Education University of British Columbia 2034

Lower Mall Rd Vancouver BC Canada V6T 1Z2

E-mail ryukokubotaubcca

In applied linguistics and language education an increased focus has been

placed on plurality and hybridity to challenge monolingualism the native

speaker norm and the modernist view of language and language use as unitary

and bounded The multiplural turn parallels postcolonial theory in that they

both support hybridity and fluidity while problematizing the essentialist under-

standing of language and identity However postcolonial theory which has

been influenced by poststructuralism met criticisms in the 1990s in cultural

studies The notion of hybridity has been especially criticized for its privileged

status individual orientation and disparity between theory and practice

Furthermore the conceptual features of the multiplural turn overlap with neo-

liberalism and neoliberal multiculturalism which uncritically support diversity

plurality flexibility individualism and cosmopolitanism while perpetuating

color-blindness and racism The multiplural turn also neglects the ways in

which neoliberal competition and the dominance of English affect scholars

This article examines the multiplural trend by drawing on some critiques of

postcolonial theory and neoliberal ideologies and proposes an increased atten-

tion to power and inequalities as well as collective efforts to resist the neoliberal

academic culture underlying the multiplural turn

INTRODUCTION

Recently I proposed a colloquium for an applied linguistics conference on

plurilingualism and language teaching In the proposal my co-organizer and

I mentioned that the concept of plurilingualism often runs into conflict with

the current dominance of English in language teaching in many non-Englishndash

dominant countries We received a comment that the global dominance of

English is passe and it has been replaced by multilingualismmdasha more nuanced

and complex situation in which the market saturation of English has opened

up opportunities for other languages This was surprising and made me

wonder how the popular theoretical trend to highlight linguistic multiplicity

can or cannot adequately address challenges that exist in our society

Dow

nloaded from httpsacadem

icoupcomapplijarticle-abstract3744741741757 by guest on 28 January 2019

A recent prominent trend in applied linguistics is a multilingual or dynamic

turn (Flores 2013 May 2014) which focuses on the plurality multiplicity and

hybridity of language and language use to challenge a traditional paradigm of

understanding linguistic practices in various contexts In this article I will

focus on this turn and call it lsquomultiplural turnrsquo The multiplural turn can

be observed in a large number of publications and conference presentations

on such inquiry foci as multilingualism (Martin-Jones et al 2012 May 2014)

plurilingualism (Taylor and Snoddon 2013) world Englishes (WE) (Kachru

et al 2006) English as a lingua franca (ELF) (Seidlhofer 2011) codemeshing

(Canagarajah 2006) metrolingualism (Otsuji and Pennycook 2010) translin-

gual approach (Horner et al 2011) translanguaging (Blackledge and Creese

2010 Garcıa and Sylvan 2011) multiliteracies (Cope and Kalantzis 2009) and

hybridity (Rubdy and Alsagoff 2013)

Although linguistic multiplicity is nothing new in human history (Cenoz

2013) the recent interest has been influenced by postmodern poststructural-

ist and postcolonial thought as seen in such notions as multiplicity hetero-

geneity fluidity hybridity and constructedness which expand and blur the

fixed boundaries of the social and linguistic categories that are defined in an

essentialist binary logic in the previous modernist paradigm (Pennycook 2010)

However as this lsquoturnrsquo grows in popularity it seems as though its critical

impetus has faded and its knowledge is becoming another canonmdasha canon

which is integrated into a neoliberal capitalist academic culture of incessant

knowledge production and competition for economic and symbolic capital

and neoliberal multiculturalism that celebrates individual cosmopolitanism

and plurilingualism for socioeconomic mobility In bolstering neoliberal dis-

courses the multiplural approaches lose a transformative edge that seeks sig-

nificant changes in the sociopolitical and economic conditions of people who

are using learning and teaching language Indeed while our discipline en-

gages with multiplural frameworks we continue to see not only the domin-

ance of English and standard language ideology but also ethnic conflicts civil

wars racism xenophobia and growing economic gaps both nationally and

internationally While applied linguistics alone will not cure these social

evils some are within the purview of our discipline and the gap between

our celebrated lsquomultipluralrsquo perspectives and real lives of many people con-

cerns me

Similar concerns about a theorypractice divide were raised in the 1990s in

many publications critiquing postcolonial theory to which our field has paid

little attention (cf Kumaravadivelu 2008) Critiques of postcolonial theory are

useful in alerting us to the problematic ideological overlap between the multi

plural turn and neoliberal multiculturalism Drawing on some literature criti-

quing postcolonial theory and neoliberalism this article demonstrates how

facets of postcolonial theory and neoliberal multiculturalism parallel the con-

ceptual foundations of the multiplural turn in applied linguistics and suggests

a shift in attention from individual plurality and hybridity to asymmetrical

R KUBOTA 475

Dow



power relations social injustices and resistance to neoliberalism in our aca-

demic community

In critically examining the multiplural turn my focus is not specific argu-

ments made in applied linguistics literature but rather a macro discourse on

plurality and hybridity that has attracted so much attention Neither is it my

intention to deny the significance and utility of the multiplural turn in under-

standing linguistic forms and practices In fact these conceptualizations are

valuable as they challenge a broader political and educational discourse that

privileges a dominant language and culture My aim is instead to encourage us

to critically reflect on ideological complicities that undermine the philosophical

impetus of the multiplural turn

Below I provide an overview of the multiplural turn in applied linguistics

followed by a review of relevant criticisms of postcolonial theory neoliberal-

ism and neoliberal multiculturalism and their implications for applied linguis-

tics Finally I suggest narrowing a gap between theory and practice by focusing

more on power and inequalities in research and on resistance to neoliberal

scholarly practices in our academic communities and institutions

THE MULTIPLURAL TURN IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Some of the aforementioned inquiry areas constituting the multiplural turn

describe linguistic forms and practices while others inform language pedagogy

In these discussions two closely related orientations are observed pluralism

and hybridity The pluralist orientation focuses on using and learning multiple

languages or varieties of a language in social and educational contexts

Frameworks such as WE traditional foreign language pedagogies and immer-

sion or maintenance bilingual education are pluralist in the sense that they

challenge previous linguistic normsmdashAnglocentric native speakerness or

monolingualismmdashand embrace linguistic pluralism and multilingual compe-

tence However they tend to support an atomistic view (Cenoz 2013) or segre-

gationist view of language (Harris 1998) which regards languages language

varieties and language use as autonomous entities with clear linguistic bound-

aries (Garcıa and Flores 2012) and constitutes monoglossic instruction or what

Cummins (2007) called two-solitude pedagogies of bilingual education in

which language mixing is discouraged

In contrast the hybrid orientation support the holistic view (Cenoz 2013) or

integrational view of language (Harris 1998) which regards multilingual lin-

guistic practices as products of language usersrsquo multiple repertoires that are

employed in a contingent and flexible manner rather than an aggregate use of

languages that are separated along structural boundaries In this sense the

hybridity orientation is distinct from the pluralist one even though they

both attempt to pluralize the traditional norms In contrast to WE for instance

recent research on ELF focuses on the investigations of fluidity and hybridity as

observed in English usersrsquo negotiation of meaning expressions of their

476 THE MULTIPLURAL TURN IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Dow



identities and multilingual interactions in fluid contingent and heteroge-

neous ways (Jenkins et al 2011 Cogo 2012)

The hybrid orientation has also influenced pedagogy Garcıa and her col-

leagues proposed translanguaging as a communicative and pedagogical prin-

ciple of multilingual communities in which multiple discursive practices

across languages such as code-switching and translation are performed by

language users to express their meanings in multilayered and multidirectional

processes (Garcıa and Sylvan 2011) This is a heteroglossic dynamic multilin-

gual pedagogical approach as opposed to the traditional monoglossic view of

bilingualism or multilingualism as a manifestation of two (or more) separate

competencies in one individual From a similar perspective Canagarajah

(2013) advocated the translingual practice of code-meshing (as opposed to

code-switching) in English writing While code-switching presupposes switch-

ing between two or more separate semiotic systems code-meshing views lan-

guages symbols and communicative modes as a single unified hybrid system

(Canagarajah 2006 2013) Translanguaging and translingual practices under-

score plural and hybrid language use and identity as legitimate forms of

expression

The rejection of the monoglossic and fixed view of bimultilingualism is also

seen in the notion of metrolingualism According to Otsuji and Pennycook

(2010 264)

Metrolingualism describes the ways in which people of differentand mixed backgrounds use play with and negotiate identitiesthrough language it does not assume connections between lan-guage culture ethnicity nationality or geography but ratherseeks to explore how such relations are produced resisted defiedor rearranged its focus is not on language systems but on languagesas emergent from contexts of interaction

Although Otsuji and Pennycook (2010) draw attention to metrolingualism as

hybrid expressions of language and identity they problematize the notion of

hybridity as a fixed category of pluralization a notion that reflects a modernist

view of language as a bounded and countable object (Makoni and Pennycook

2005 2012) rather than complexification Otsuji and Pennycook (2010) also

reveal contradictions as manifested in the cultural and linguistic fixity

observed in metrolingual users who simultaneously demonstrated hybridity

in language and identity Although metrolingualism problematizes hybridity as

superficial celebration it is still grounded in the postmodern affirmation of

multiplicity and fluidity which keeps it from critiquing how inequality is

often solidified or intensified within multiplicity and fluidity

As implied thus far there are some significant differences and disagreements

among scholars supporting multiplural frameworks One intriguing tension is

seen in the discussion of ELF and WE in the context of Singapore (Pakir 2009)

Although both frameworks support a pluricentric view of the form and use of

English they differ in that ELF implies borderless hybrid uses of English by

R KUBOTA 477

Dow



nonnative speakers whereas English in Singapore though similarly used as a

lingua franca is forming nativized uniqueness as seen in the emerging creative

literature and new canons that denote national linguistic identity This exem-

plifies a tension between hybridity and rootedness as discussed later

In sum the inquiry foci and concepts of pluralism and hybridity problem-

atize the previous view of language as a bounded system with one-to-one

relationships between the signified and the signifier between language and

the nation state culture or ethnicity and between language and language

user They underscore the fluid dynamic multiple flexible and hybrid na-

tures of language language learning and language use and call for transform-

ing fixed monoglossic thinking which supports the native speaker norm the

monolingual norm and the superiority of standard language Other areas of

inquiry such as nonnative English speakers (Moussu and Llurda 2008) and

usage-based linguistics of second language acquisition including complexity

theory (Larsen-Freeman 2012 Ortega 2014) share this skepticism of trad-

itional monoglossic approaches

These multiplural perspectives parallel aspects of poststructuralism and

postcolonial theory which have been applied to various inquiry areas in

applied linguistics As a critique of modernist ideas of objectivity and essen-

tialism poststructuralism which postcolonial theory significantly draws on

pays attention to the dynamics fluidity and contingency of social cultural

and linguistic categories as well as power that circulates and constructs know-

ledge and subjectivities (Morgan 2007)

However scholarly discussion on multilingualism has been critiqued from a

poststructuralist perspective as well Drawing on poststructuralist tenets of

critiquing social political and cultural systems and raising critical awareness

of lsquothe irrational of violence within social structurersquo McNamara (2011 431)

critiqued the multilingual turn in a special issue of The Modern Language Journal

entitled lsquoToward a multilingual approach in the study of multilingualism in

school contextsrsquo McNamara cautions against assuming that lsquomultilingualism

in itself is simply a cause for celebrationrsquo (p 432) and calls for a more critical

and complex understanding by examining monolingual ideologies These

ideologies are seen in Africa where learning English rather than local lan-

guages is promoted for economic and political causes and in Europe where

multilingualism is promoted for speakers of majority languages but not for

immigrants The denial of multilingualism for marginalized populations indi-

cates how power produces and justifies social violence a problem to be scru-

tinized (McNamara 2011) Also from Marxist globalization and

poststructuralist perspectives OrsquoRegan (2014) critiqued the ELF movement

as idealist hypostatization that obscures ideology discourse and power that

underlie racial gender and socioeconomic inequalities of English learners

users around the world

Although McNamara (2011) and OrsquoRegan (2014) draw on poststructuralism

to challenge the celebratory trend of multilingualism or ELF the multiplural

turn can also be theoretically scrutinized by the criticisms of postcolonial


Dow



theory that were published in the 1990s in cultural studies Paradoxically such

criticisms challenge poststructuralist and postmodernist thought underlying

the influential works by postcolonial scholars such as Edward Said Homi

Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak Below I present some criticisms of hybridity a

major concept underlying both postcolonial theory and the multiplural trend

and related issues These criticisms offer alternative conceptual lenses to chal-

lenge the multiplural turn as shown briefly in the next section and in more

detail in the subsequent one

CRITICISM OF POSTCOLONIAL THEORY

Hybridity has been theorized by Bhabha (1994) and discussed widely as a key

concept of postcolonial theory Whereas Edward Said focused on binary rep-

resentations of the colonizer and the colonized and critiqued how colonial

power was exercised in their discursive construction Bhabha proposed hybrid-

ity as a space for enunciating and translating cultural difference in which

culture is never understood as primordially fixed or universal and cultural

purity is untenable As the Third Space of enunciation hybridity is a space

in which cultural meanings and signs lsquocan be appropriated translated rehis-

toricized and read anewrsquo (Bhabha 1994 55) Resistance can be articulated in

the Third Space where lsquoit is possible to return the colonial gaze and subvert

the ambivalent construction of cultural supremacy itself where colonial rule

and the relational construction of colonizer and colonized can be destabilized

from withinrsquo (Andreotti 2011 31) Hybridity is performed via translation

mimicry and appropriation colonized peoplersquos use of the colonizerrsquos cultural

and linguistic codes destabilizes power hierarchy and has subversive effects of

resistance

Although hybridity aims to provide the colonized with a new identity and

possibility for liberation the notion has been critiqued First it has been

argued that the notion of hybridity is predicated on the existence of non-

hybrid cultures Moore-Gilbert (1997) argues that the Center and to a lesser

extent the Periphery tends to be described with such non-hybridity leading to

cultural homogenization This problem appears to be solved by the argument

that lsquoall forms of culture are continually in a process of hybridityrsquo forming the

lsquothird spacersquo rather than a mixture of lsquotwo original moments from which the

third emergesrsquo (Rutherford 1990 211) However if all cultures are hybrid

and in-between a postcolonial critique conflicts with its original impetus to

recreate a distinct agency and identity of the colonized (Moore-Gilbert 1997)

Here hybridity can become a fixed categorization (cf Otsuji and Pennycook

2010) either existing in a binary of hybrid or non-hybrid or referring to the

all-encompassing In applied linguistics this problem is exemplified by the

recent contradictory advocacy for rhetorical hybridity to be achieved by

mixing culturally essentialized rhetorical styles in academic writing for

unique self-expression (Li 2014)

R KUBOTA 479

Dow



Secondly critics argue that hybridity can be exploited for the benefit of the

dominant in various ways to create and legitimate hierarchies In the case of

India Moore-Gilbert (1997) argues that hybridity of the colonized was histor-

ically used to legitimate the imposition of the power of the colonizer as a

unifying force Furthermore lsquocultural hybridity became a means of securing

colonial control through the production of complicit lsquolsquomimic menrsquorsquo rsquomdashlsquothe na-

tional bourgeoisie to which control was relinquished at the beginning of the

(neo)-colonial periodrsquo (Moore-Gilbert 1997 195) Another example is Imperial

Japan from the late 19th century to the end of World War II in which a

dominant discourse about national identity was hybrid ethnicity rather than

monoethnic purity as it conveniently legitimated Japanrsquos colonial control over

East and Southeast Asian nations which consisted of diverse ethnic groups

(Oguma 1995) Far from being liberatory or celebratory hybridity when as-

signed a superior status can become oppressive The promotion of hybridity by

dominant groups corresponds to the neoliberal ideology of plurilingualism

(Flores 2013) and neoliberal multiculturalism as discussed later

Thirdly hybridity disregards the significance of cultural nationalism or col-

lective politics It is necessary to remember that it was cultural nationalism the

separatist politics of identity and resistance rather than hybridity that first

prompted decolonization Cohesive forces continue to exist As May (2009)

notes many governments confront demands from ethnic and religious groups

who present themselves in collective terms rather than from hybrid positions

The postcolonial or poststructuralist stance of anti-essentialism and a denial of

rootedness demonstrates a shift in attention lsquofrom national origin to subject-

positionrsquo (Dirlik 1994 335) or from group identity to individual subjectivity

However by doing so it endorses the colonial civilizing mission in which

individualism (but not freedom) was introduced to the colonized along with

the ideas of modernity and enlightenment (Chakrabarty 2000) In the context

of capitalist globalization of the Empire (Hardt and Negri 2000) the nation-

state no longer appears to exert its political and economic power In this sense

the perceived decline of cultural nationalism and the rise of hybridity consti-

tute an idea aligned with capitalist globalization Despite or because of the

lsquodecline in sovereignty of nation-statesrsquo (Hardt and Negri 2000 xi) the nation-

state lsquomight be the only political formation able to mitigate the unprecedented

poverty and discrimination violence and civil strife that are results of global-

ization and of the geo-political interventions of the westrsquo (Sethi 2011 123)

Likewise group solidarity can challenge hegemonic forces of racism sexism

and homophobia although solidarity can also obscure various differences and

inequalities within each group A tension between collective politics and

hybridity or individual difference can be observed in indigenous language

revitalization and maintenance as discussed in the next section

Fourthly hybridity typically refers to relations between the postcolonial and

the First World rather than between two postcolonial subjects indicating that

it overlooks the politics of location as ideological and institutional structures

(Dirlik 1994) This leads to a contentious point the notion of hybridity and


Dow



in-betweenness when applied to postcolonial scholarsrsquo professional status and

theoretical stances demonstrates a privileged elitist position of power located

in the First World which is not shared by subalterns who are forced to take a

marginalized status or location Referring to postcolonial scholars of Third

World origin Dirlik (1994) states

However much postcolonial intellectuals may insist on hybridityand the transposability of locations not all positions are equal inpower To insist on hybridity against onersquos own language itseems to me is to disguise not only ideological location but alsothe differences of power that go with different locationsPostcolonial intellectuals in their First World institutional locationsare ensconced in positions of power not only vis-a-vis the lsquonativersquointellectuals back at home but also vis-a-vis their First World neigh-bors here My neighbors in Farmville Virginia are no match inpower for the highly paid highly prestigious postcolonial intellec-tuals at Columbia Princeton or Duke (p 343)

Postcolonial theory which favors Eurocentric textual analysis and European

theorists but overlooks social economic and political struggles experienced by

the underprivileged creates a privileged location in which lsquothe identity of the

postcolonial is no longer structural but discursiversquo (Dirlik 1994 332) As a

caveat it is important not to totalize European knowledge as antithesis to

the (post)colonial but to view it as a complex and contradictory construct

that was adopted and resisted by the colonized in the establishment of bour-

geois individualism and modernism even in decolonization (Chakrabarty

2000) In applied linguistics our academic status as scholars corresponds to

the privileged position of postcolonial academics that Dirlik (1994) critiques

Finally the power and privilege attached to postcolonial scholars and the

location of theorization further indicate a gap between theory and practice

(Sethi 2011) Comparing Bhabharsquos texts imbued with words from Foucault

Lacan and Levi-Strauss with the people in the Third World Ahmad (1992)

states lsquoThose who live in places where a majority of the population has

been denied access to such benefits of lsquolsquomodernityrsquorsquo as hospitals or better

health insurance or even basic literacy can hardly afford the terms of such

thoughtrsquo (pp 68ndash9) Similarly referring to poverty and violence in many de-

veloping countries Miyoshi (1995) notes lsquoAs we talk about postcoloniality

and postindustrialism in the metropolitan academia we ignore those billions

outside our ongoing discourse for whom life has nothing lsquolsquopostrsquorsquo about itrsquo

(p 71) Relying on Western intellectual canons such as poststructuralism as

well as such notions as hybridity syncretism and multiplicity postcolonial

theory champions Eurocentric rational thought though appropriated and re-

sisted in ambivalent ways endorsing rather than reversing the colonial rela-

tions of power A similar theoryndashpractice divide of the multiplural turn is seen

in the examples discussed by McNamara (2011) The criticisms reviewed so far

raise the following implications for the multiplural turn in applied linguistics

R KUBOTA 481

Dow



IMPLICATIONS FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Hybridity and related notions are neither neutral nor apolitical they involve

contextual and relational arrangements of power Without addressing power

and ideology advocacy of multiplural approaches and hybridity in language

use can become complicit with domination and will fail to solve real problems

Furthermore when our intellectual engagement becomes entrenched in the

popularity of the multiplural turn we may lose sight of the persistent demand

for monolingualism and linguistic purism in various locations as well as

Anglocentrism and English-only ideologies in many non-Englishndashdominant

neoliberal societies It is important to keep in mind that as Shohat (1992)

mentions lsquoA celebration of syncretism and hybridity per se if not articulated

in conjunction with questions of hegemony and neo-colonial power relations

runs the risk of appearing to sanctify the fait accompli of colonial violencersquo

(p 109)

An awareness of the hegemony and ideology behind postcolonial concepts

requires contextual understandings Hybridity carries many political meanings

and consequences in different locations It is necessary to examine hybridity

not in universal but contextual terms within the current neocolonial hegemo-

nies To cite Shohat (1992)

As a descriptive catch-all term lsquohybridityrsquo per se fails to discriminatebetween the diverse modalities of hybridity for example forcedassimilation internalized self-rejection political cooptation socialconformism cultural mimicry and creative transcendence (p 110)

This implies that hybridity or the Third Space between a dominant group and a

subordinate group may either support or hinder cultural and linguistic revi-

talization of indigenous groups

Tension between hybridity and rootedness

Studies on indigenous language maintenance and revitalization reveal a com-

plex web of power While postcolonial theory challenges culturallinguistic

essentialism and purism as violence of colonial discourse authentication of

linguistic and cultural resources and identities often constitutes a key strategy

for revitalization Contrary to the postmodern sociolinguistic idea that lan-

guage is no longer fixed at a certain location (Blommaert 2010) claiming to

belong to ancestral land constitutes important means for language preservation

or revitalization and for resistance in indigenous communities Although the

mobility of people including indigenous populations shifts linguistic practices

(Patrick 2007) there is a conflict between the idea of deterritorialized language

use built upon individualism and an indigenous epistemology of land The

claim for linguistic belonging in the context of Singapore expressed by Pakir

(2009) similarly indicates how rootedness constitutes linguistic identity

Concepts such as hybridity and cosmopolitanism can undermine the positive


Dow



effects of rootedness to form local solidarity among minoritized groups and

instead promote neoliberal capitalism as discussed later in more detail

Conversely such fixed authentication creates a feeling of shame and reluc-

tance to learn or use a heritage language among indigenous youths who lack

the ability to use a correct form of the language (Lee 2009 McCarty et al 2009)

This shows a dilemma between authentication and postcolonial plurality

Although authentication of premodern indigeneity is paradoxically founded

upon the modernist definitions of language and language rights (Patrick 2007)

postcolonial hybridity that challenges such modernist definitions will under-

mine traditional indigeneity Indeed it is difficult to negotiate two opposing

poles political efforts to seek collective rights to identity and attempts to sup-

port indigenous youths who negotiate their hybrid identity This raises several

questions lsquoWho defines what counts as language Who defines what language

should be revitalized How does one avoid alienating speakers of other lan-

guage varieties (eg younger mixed-language speakers)rsquo (Donna Patrick per-

sonal communication) Additionally who proposes either hybridity or

authentication as a goal to be sought on what grounds Significantly both

cultural hybridity and authenticity may work to undermine cultural and pol-

itical identities and rights of indigenous peoples (Franklin and Lyons 2004)

As Otsuji and Pennycook (2010) point out hybridity coexists with fixity in

plurilingual individualsrsquo linguistic expressions and cultural identity Blackledge

and Creese (2010) also reveal how national belonging to a heritage culture was

insisted on in heritage language classrooms in the United Kingdom which was

shaped within a more powerful discourse of national belonging to the domin-

ant language and culture Here the authors stress duality rather than hybrid-

ity of identity

Hybridity as a privileged position

The complexity of power relations also implies that hybridity can become a

privileged position as seen in the politics of location that privileges postcolonial

theory and its scholars Although some individuals who are socially politic-

ally and economically disadvantaged or displaced become linguistically

hybrid as in the case of an African asylum seeker described in Blommaert

(2010) hybridity can also signify cultural capital In global capitalism and

neoliberalism linguistically hybrid plurilingual English-speaking subjects are

transnational elites who are considered to be superior to monolingual users of

a single national language (Flores 2013) Given that assimilationist monolin-

gual ideology continues to predominate in many countries economically pri-

vileged and ethnically dominant students who employ translanguaging

codemeshing and plurilingualism become more privileged than those who

are trained to become monoglossic It is important to ask whether all language

users regardless of their racial gender socioeconomic and other background

equally transgress linguistic boundaries and engage in hybrid and fluid linguis-

tic practices As mentioned earlier hybridity tends to be more focused on

R KUBOTA 483

Dow



individual subject positions than on group identity However access to certain

linguistic competencies or performativities is unequally distributed among not

only individuals but also groups So the question to ask is among different

groups lsquowho is included and excluded in the celebration of hybridityrsquo

(Lorente and Tupas 2013 70)

The availability of hybrid positioning is also relevant to scholars Just as

postcolonial scholars of the Third World or any other origin who work in

the First World can enjoy privilege without actually transforming the lives of

the people in the Third World it is owing to our privilege that we applied

linguists including myself can discuss and even model hybridity and multi-

plicity of linguistic practices Of course oppressive policies and ideologies that

marginalize certain populations should indeed be challenged and hybrid and

multiple identities of marginalized people who are excluded by monolingual

monoethnic ideology need to be protected However our scholarly promotion

of the multiplural turn may primarily function as a way to legitimate and

reaffirm our own hybrid and plural subjectivities rather than as an aid to

transforming the lives of the people we refer to These people include those

who are linguistically racially and economically marginalized for whom hy-

bridity may be a site of struggle rather than celebration or students and scho-

lars who are expected to conform to the conventions of academic writing and

standard language ideology Applied linguistics will perhaps more meaning-

fully mobilize its academic knowledge for social transformation not simply by

promoting multiplural concepts but also by examining their political eco-

nomic and ideological underpinnings

A gap between theory and real-world needs

The gap between theory and practice or the fallacy of pedagogical practice

deemed progressive was discussed extensively in the 1990s in relation to the

process-oriented teaching of literacy It was argued that the liberal construct-

ivist approach of student-centeredness with a focus on meaning and free ex-

pression rather than form and accuracy worked for middle-class students who

were already equipped with cultural capital but not for working-class racially

minority students An alternative approach proposed was to appropriate the

language of powermdashthe teaching of the dominant code via form-focused in-

struction without devaluing the cultural and linguistic identity of minority

students (Reyes 1992 Delpit 1995) Successful implementation of this peda-

gogical idea is to provide these students with an opportunity to gain cultural

capital and eventually economic and symbolic capital for socioeconomic

success

Will hybridity-oriented ideas also have the same effect While appropriation

of the dominant code alone is unlikely to destabilize its power neither are

hybridity-oriented ideas since they address individual studentsrsquo expressions

but not broader sociopolitical constraints that limit more fluid multiple and

hybrid expressions In this sense scholarly discussion on hybridity and


Dow



multiplicity more likely becomes self-serving academic activity than social

impact The relationship between applied linguistics scholars and practi-

tionersstudents seems to parallel that between the First World scholars and

the Third world populations which constructs lsquoa division of labour in which

the Third World acts while the First thinks (or even worse in which the First

World speaks while the Third dumbly acts)rsquo (Moore-Gilbert 1997 164)

Academicsrsquo privileged status and the politics of multiplural turn are impli-

cated in multiculturalism in a neoliberal era Many published critiques of

postcolonial theory in the 1990s pointed out its complicity with neoliberal

world order I now examine how notions of plurality flexibility hybridity

and so on used in applied linguistics today are located in neoliberal ideology

THE MULTIPLURAL TURN AND NEOLIBERALISM

Neoliberalism and plurilingualism

Critics have pointed out the complicity of postcolonial theoryscholars in neo-

liberal global capitalism Neoliberalism a topic of growing interest in applied

linguistics (eg Kubota 2011 Park 2011 Block et al 2012 Park and Lo 2012

Flores 2013 Holborow 2013) is an ideological and structural apparatus that

promotes a free-market economy by privatizing public services creating a

flexible workforce and increasing individual and institutional accountability

for economic success while reducing social services and producing disparities

between the rich and the poor With global capitalism neoliberalism supports

economic activities across national borders Theorizing the realignment of

global power in late capitalism Hardt and Negri (2000) argue

Many of the concepts dear to postmodernists and postcolonialistsfind a perfect correspondence in the current ideology of corporatecapital and the world market The ideology of the world market hasalways been the anti-foundational and anti-essentialist discoursepar excellence Circulation mobility diversity and mixture are itsvery conditions of possibility Trade brings differences together andthe more the merrier Differences (of commodities populationscultures and so forth) seem to multiply infinitely in the worldmarket which attacks nothing more violently than fixed bound-aries it overwhelms any binary division with its infinite multipli-cities (p 150)

As increased numbers of multinational corporations and smaller businesses

cross-national borders successful management of diversitymdashrecognition of

multiplicity and negotiation with cultural and linguistic difference among di-

verse employees and clientsmdashhas become a key to economic success

A link between neoliberalism and the multiplural trend of language studies

especially the pluralist orientation is found in the discourse of plurilingualism

promoted by transnational organizations such as the Council of Europe and

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (Flores 2013)

R KUBOTA 485

Dow



Based on the key neoliberal concept of human capital plurilingualism has

been promoted essential for working in global capitalism Critically reviewing

a document published by the Council of Europe Flores (2013) pointed out that

the notion of plurilingualism was promoted to support learning to communi-

cate across borders (via various linguistic repertoires) and respect for linguistic

diversity language rights freedom of expression and democratic citizenship

This aligns with the neoliberal emphases on the development of individual

competencies in service of economic growth lifelong learning of communica-

tion skills to be developed as individual responsibility flexible pragmatic and

truncated language repertoires as essential competence for transcultural work-

ers and cultural competence that facilitates individual and national economic

development

These skills are indeed deemed important among transcultural workers

creating a predicament for contesting the dominance of English which is

also entrenched in neoliberal ideology (Phillipson 2008) More precisely the

neoliberal preoccupation with learning English as an international language

can be challenged by promoting plurilingualism beyond English which iron-

ically overlaps with neoliberal human capital (Flores 2013 Kubota 2013)

Here it is important to recognize a duality between neoliberal pluralism

and neoliberal desire for English for economic purposes which resonates

with a legacy of colonial discourse of the superiority of whiteness modernity

and liberation (Motha 2014) As in my opening episode the multiplural

position that ignores the other side of the duality misses the bigger

picture of hegemony becoming complicit with the neoliberal celebration of

difference

A similar complicity is seen in the discussion of multiliteracies (Cope and

Kalantzis 2009) In the era of neoliberal human capital in the new economy

increased multimodality in everyday literacy is sharply contrasted by a persist-

ent emphasis on back-to-basics literacy instruction To counter this conserva-

tive pedagogy Cope and Kalantzis (2009) support new literacy instruction that

highlights flexibility creativity multimodality and innovation in meaning-

making processesmdashskills promoted since the progressive education movement

in the early 20th century but discursively realigned with neoliberal human

capitalmdashwith a critical awareness of power relations The authors argue that

this transformative pedagogy can support either realistic demands or emanci-

patory purposes and that it is up to the learner to decide which view to take

this is essentially a neoliberal solution of individual choice

These cases demonstrate a paradox conservative educational policies

(eg the teaching of English only as an international language or back-

to-basics instruction) appear to support neoliberal practical skills When

applied linguists critique such policies and propose alternatives they often

endorse equally neoliberal ideology of multiplicity thus becoming complicit

with neoliberal discourse A possible solution will be discussed in the

conclusion


Dow



Neoliberal multiculturalism

As discussed above a neoliberal and global capitalism that expands beyond

national borders requires workers citizens and institutions to successfully

navigate and negotiate cultural differences Multicultural competence is part

of human capital Neoliberal multiculturalism is built upon lsquoan ethos of self-

reliance individualism and competition while simultaneously (and conveni-

ently) undermining discourses and social practices that call for collective social

action and fundamental structural changersquo (Darder 2012 417) The multi

plural turn thus parallels the underlying ideology of neoliberal multicultural-

ismmdashthat is individualism difference-blindness and elitist cosmopolitanism

rather than critical acknowledgement of power

Neoliberal multiculturalism in the context of the United States inherited

previous racial liberalism which sutured the anti-racism of the civil rights

movement to Cold War nationalism for establishing the legitimacy of the

United States as a global power of democracy human rights and transnational

capitalism (Melamed 2006) Replacing socialist ideology neoliberal multicul-

turalism also underscores individual accountability to legitimate the distinction

between the privileged and the stigmatized In post-racial discourse racism is

given a label of pastness in light of the success of Barack Obama and other

minorities In this color-blindness individuals are to enjoy their freedom and

opportunities but are ultimately responsible for their own socioeconomic

standings regardless of their background which leads to lsquoprivatizing racismrsquo

(Lentin and Titley 2011 168) This meritocratic justification legitimates racial

and other inequalities

Not only does neoliberal multiculturalism legitimate the difference between

the privileged and the stigmatized it also distinguishes the forms of lsquogoodrsquo and

lsquobadrsquo diversity as in the case of banning the headscarf worn by Muslim women

(Lentin and Titley 2011 176) This indicates that lsquomonoculturalism becomes a

category of stigmarsquo recreating lsquo lsquolsquomulticulturalrsquorsquo and lsquolsquomonoculturalrsquorsquo as new

privileged and stigmatized racial formationsrsquo (Melamed 2006 16)

Furthermore lsquogoodrsquo and lsquobadrsquo diversity among immigrants is distinguished

along the class line under neoliberalism In the case of Australia desirable

immigrants are those from middle-class backgrounds who will make economic

contributions whereas undesirable immigrants are from lower socioeconomic

backgrounds in need of social services causing a burden for the neoliberal state

(Shiobara 2010) We can see that although neoliberal multiculturalism pro-

motes respect for diversity sensitivity to difference official antiracism open

societies and individual (economic) freedom it reproduces the existing racial

gender and class hierarchies of power

An ideal neoliberal subject is cosmopolitan However critics argue that

cosmopolitanism reflects individualism and an elite worldview of people

with wealth mobility and hybridity in global capitalism while undermining

the potentially positive role of the nation which could provide opportunities

for workers and other groups to form solidarity Critiquing cosmopolitanism

R KUBOTA 487

Dow



Calhoun (2002) states lsquoCosmopolitanism is not responsible for empire or

capitalism or fascism or communism but neither is it an adequate defensersquo

(p 887)

It is clear that the multiplural approaches are complicit in neoliberal multi-

culturalism in that both focus on the individual rather than group solidarity

assume color-blindness and support diversitymdashbut only the kind of diversity

that privileges the multiculturalhybridcosmopolitan (rising) middle class over

the monoculturalnon-hybridparochial working class Although creating a

binary between middle class and working class may seem inappropriate it is

also problematic to claim the universality of hybriditycosmopolitanism across

the class line since it justifies difference-blindness and undermines situated

politics It is important to note that the multiplural focus does not necessarily

take into account how racial and other relations of power might affect the

ways people use learn and teach language As Motha (2014 79) notes

lsquoOptimism about new hybrid language practices therefore needs to be tem-

pered by a consciousness of the role being played by race in our constructionsrsquo

Scholars need to pay greater attention to the role that power dynamics play in

linguistic hybridity fluidity and plurality

Earlier I discussed a theorypractice divide in the critiques of postcolonial

theory and scholars The free-market economy and neoliberal policies also

regulate the academic activities of intellectuals further proliferating the

multiplural turn as a favored intellectual trend Below I focus on the

impact of neoliberalism on our scholarly activities

Scholars in neoliberal academic institutions and theircomplicity with neoliberalism

Neoliberalism in higher education can be characterized by privatization

marketization corporatization increased student fees emphasis on obtaining

grants a two-tiered employment and institutional system curriculum for de-

veloping human capital English-medium education and documentation for

accountability (Mok 2007 Holborow 2013) These measures aim to increase

institutionsrsquo global competitiveness for financial gains Competition is pro-

moted by university rankings which are based largely on research productivity

as measured by citation analysis and research funding (Altbach 2013)

However not all research counts as legitimate lsquothe topics and the methodol-

ogies of the research must be appealing to editors and reviewers in the central

academic powersrsquo (Altbach 2013 79) Pressure to publish and obtain funding

compels academics and graduate students to try to lsquoposition themselves com-

petitively within the knowledge of marketplacersquo and lsquoas a good fit within the

institutionrsquos neoliberal purposersquo (Darder 2012 414) Academic writing prac-

tices are also situated in the economic interest of the publishing industry as

well as a competitive model for individual and institutional accountability

Academic journals are ranked according to impact factors based on citation

frequencies and other measures Researchers are often rewarded by how many


Dow



times their works were cited The basic principle is indeed the more the mer-

rier This implies that popular theories and concepts proposed by prominent

scholars tend to get cited recycled and propagated incessantly while opposing

or deviant ideas are likely to be relegated to a form of inadequate diversity

In this way the multiplural trend becomes a fashionable commodity to be

consumed but not necessarily to fix real-life problems

One of the real-life issues is the global dominance of English In neoliberal

academic institutions in the world English dominates and regulates many

scholarsrsquo academic careers (Mok 2007 Altbach 2013) Referring to the

increased pressure for scholars in Asia to publish in English-medium high-

impact journals Mok (2007) comments

Ironically publications in local languages or national venues whichmight be read by a wider audience and might have significanteffects or impacts on local policy formation or socioeconomic devel-opments would not be counted as internationally importantIf such a situation proves to be a valid one we certainly need toaddress the fundamental problems resulting from the quest forinternationalization of universities (p 446)

Altbach (2013) also reports lsquoNorwegian academics who publish in English and

in recognized journals are paid fees for their accomplishments while their

colleagues who publish in Norwegian are paid less or not at allrsquo (p 3)

International and domestic graduate students in English-speaking countries

are taught to write in acceptable academic discourse in English but are

rarely encouraged to learn to write and publish in their native or other lan-

guages Far from the perception that multilingualism is now the norm English

indeed dominates as a global academic language reinforcing the hegemony of

English monolingualism

Furthermore not all contexts allow hybrid and creative language use Take

high-stakes academic writing including writing for tests publishing and pro-

posals for funding for example While advocacy for multiplural approaches is

essential in these contexts jumping on a multiplural bandwagon in teaching

will likely repeat the same problem with the process writing approach in the

past (Heng Hartse and Kubota 2014)

The dominance of English and standard varieties of English is intact both

globally and within English-speaking countries marginalizing and disadvanta-

ging nonndashEnglish-speaking or nonnativendashEnglish-speaking populations as

McNamara (2011) pointed out This inequality is not just about language

but also about race (Motha 2014) and class (Block 2013 OrsquoRegan 2014) In

many parts of the world the dominant language is imposed on minority popu-

lations while race and class index positive or negative meanings attached to

being plurilingual (Lo and Kim 2012) Although one impulse of the multi

plural turn is to challenge this monolingual and standardization-based

approach to research and language teaching the discourse that underscores

plurality and hybridity sidesteps the hegemonic ideologies and social practices

R KUBOTA 489

Dow



This is demonstrated in the opening episode in which the rhetoric of multilin-

gualism was favored

It is also significant to note that applied linguists including myself who

publish on multiplural topics benefit from this activity in advancing our

own careers just as postcolonial scholars do from publishing their work

Many of us applied linguists native or nonnative speakers of English are

privileged plurilingual scholars who can afford to use hybrid modes of expres-

sion or advocate what we wish to see while people for whom we ostensibly

advocate often do not have the power to do so As postcolonial scholars were

criticized as complicit with colonial hegemony Eurocentrism and elitism

applied linguists who embrace the multiplural turn perhaps cannot escape a

similar charge

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The progressive ideas of the multiplural turn which has an intellectual affili-

ation with postcolonialpoststructuralist thought provide an important shift in

our understanding of language use and language teaching They originally

aimed to transform hegemonic monolingual and English-only ideology

However critical reflections on postcolonialpoststructuralist theory in the

1990s as well as recent criticisms of neoliberalism and neoliberal multicultur-

alism indicate that the multiplural turn should not be embraced with unquali-

fied optimism

While notions such as hybridity fluidity and multiplicity are potentially

liberating they can obscure actual struggles and inequalities just as postcolo-

nial theory tends to ignore lsquothe contemporary actuality of global politics within

a capitalist world-systemrsquo (Parry 1994 7) Using the multiplural frame of

reference with insufficient critical reflection makes us complicit with a neo-

liberalism that exacerbates economic and educational gaps and with a neo-

liberal multiculturalism that evades racism and other injustices Thus in

considering linguistic plurality and hybridity in our research more explicit

attention should be paid to issues of asymmetrical relations of power and

inequalities that privilege or stigmatize individuals and groups due to their

plurilingualism cosmopolitanism and hybridity on the one hand or their

monolingualism and monoculturalism on the other

It is also important to critically reflect on our own hybrid plurilingual status

of privilege within neoliberal academic institutions in which we further

accrue cultural economic and symbolic capital from presenting and publish-

ing while moving further away from real-world problems Concrete measures

to resist academic neoliberalism will require the applied linguistics community

to raise our concerns and begin to seek alternatives Professional associations

may recommend guidelines for tenure and promotion focusing more on qual-

ity of research (eg originality social relevance and critical reflexivity) prac-

tical impact (eg community-based inquiry and improvement of practice) and

diverse venues and methods for knowledge mobilization (eg equal weight


Dow



given to research output in languages other than English or alternative formats

that have a greater social impact) than on quantity of output prestige of jour-

nals or publishers or uncritical alignment with popular approaches Such

guidelines will influence the ways in which we advise graduate students and

review various academic work such as manuscripts for publications external

tenure reviews and grant applications With regard to academic writing pro-

moting multiplural approaches (eg translanguaging) should coincide with

advocacy for broadening the current textual conventions by communicating

to publishers editors and other gatekeepers (Heng Hartse and Kubota 2014)

In addition bimultilingual students and scholars should be given more en-

couragement and opportunities to engage in academic writing in languages

other than English Language testing is another area where advocacy for

allowing greater linguistic diversity can make real impact for change

One difficulty for change is the close conceptual alignment between con-

structs of neoliberal multiculturalism (eg flexibility diversity mobility) and

critical approaches to applied linguistics (Pennycook 2010) As I mentioned

earlier this creates a challenge for us to critique neoliberal-like conservative

policies (eg English-only instruction) without becoming complicit with neo-

liberalism One strategy might be to appropriate the discourse of neoliberalism

to promote critical awareness of diversity without endorsing capitalist domin-

ation (Kubota 2013) In fact this strategy might more easily convince practi-

tioners and policymakers about alternative views than asking them to

drastically change their ideological position would

It is time for us to critically reflect on the multiplural turn and pay more

attention to the systems of power that produce racial economic and other

inequalities related to plural and hybrid linguistic practices It is equally ne-

cessary to resist the neoliberal academic culture that compels us to ignore

social problems and instead celebrate plurality and hybridity for our own

cause Increased attention to places where real problems exist can make our

professional activities more socially meaningful and transformative

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Alastair Pennycook for his insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier

draft I also thank Joel Heng Hartse for providing suggestions for increasing readability My ap-

preciation also goes to the editor for his support and guidance

REFERENCES

Ahmad A 1992 In Theory Classes Nations

Literatures Verso

Altbach P G 2013 The International Imperative

in Higher Education Sense Publishers

Andreotti V 2011 Actionable Postcolonial Theory

in Education Palgrave Macmillian

Bhabha H K 1994 The Location of Culture

Routledge

Blackledge A and A Creese 2010

Multilingualism Continuum

Block D 2013 Social Class and Applied Linguistics

Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow



Block D J Gray and M Holborow 2012

Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics Routledge

Blommaert Y 2010 The Sociolinguistics of

Globalization Cambridge University Press

Calhoun C 2002 lsquoThe class consciousness of

frequent travelers Toward a critique of actu-

ally existing cosmopolitanismrsquo The South

Atlantic Quarterly 101 869ndash97

Canagarajah A S 2006 lsquoThe place of world

Englishes in composition Pluralization contin-

uedrsquo College Composition and Communication 57

586ndash619

Canagarajah S 2013 Translingual Practice Global

Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations Routledge

Cenoz J 2013 lsquoDefining multilingualismrsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33 3ndash18

Chakrabarty D 2000 Provincializing Europe

Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference

Princeton University Press

Cogo A 2012 lsquoELF and super-diversity A case

study of ELF multilingual practices from a

business contextrsquo Journal of English as a

Lingua Franca 1ndash2 287ndash313

Cope B and M Kalantzis 2009

lsquo lsquolsquoMultiliteraciesrsquorsquo New literacies new learn-

ingrsquo Pedagogies An International Journal 4

164ndash95

Cummins J 2007 lsquoRethinking monolingual in-

structional strategies in multilingual class-

roomsrsquo Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics

10 221ndash40

Darder A 2012 lsquoNeoliberalism in the academic

borderlands An on-going struggle for equality

and human rightsrsquo Educational Studies 48

412ndash26

Delpit L 1995 Other Peoplersquos Children Cultural

Conflict in the Classroom The New Press

Dirlik A 1994 lsquoThe postcolonial aura Third

world criticism in the age of global capitalismrsquo

Critical Inquiry 20 328ndash56

Flores N 2013 lsquoThe unexamined relationship

between neoliberalism and plurilingualism

A cautionary talersquo TESOL Quarterly 47 500ndash20

Franklin C and L Lyons 2004 lsquoRemixing hy-

bridity Globalization native resistance and

cultural production in Hawailsquoirsquo American

Studies 45 49ndash80

Garcıa O and N Flores 2012 lsquoMultilingual ped-

agogiesrsquo in M Martin-Jones A Blackledge and

A Creese (eds) The Routledge Handbook of

Multilingualism Routledge pp 232ndash46

Garcıa O and C E Sylvan 2011 lsquoPedagogies

and practices in multilingual classrooms

Singularities in pluralitiesrsquo The Modern

Language Journal 95 385ndash400

Hardt M and A Negri 2000 Empire Harvard

University Press

Harris R 1998 Introduction to Integrational

Linguistics Pergamon Press

Heng Hartse J and R Kubota 2014

lsquoPluralizing english Variation in high-

stakes academic texts and challenges of copy-

editingrsquo Journal of Second Language Writing 24

71ndash82

Holborow M 2013 lsquoApplied linguistics in the

neoliberal university Ideological keywords and

social agencyrsquo Applied Linguistic Review 4

229ndash57

Horner B M Lu J Royster and J Trimbur

2011 lsquoLanguage difference in writing Toward

a translingual approachrsquo College English 73

303ndash21

Jenkins J A Cogo and M Dewey 2011

lsquoReview of developments in research in to

English as a lingua francarsquo Language Teaching

44 281ndash315

Kachru B B Y Kachru and C L Nelson

(eds) 2006 The Handbook of World Englishes

Blackwell

Kubota R 2011 lsquoQuestioning linguistic instru-

mentalism English neoliberalism and lan-

guage tests in Japanrsquo Linguistics and Education

22 248ndash60

Kubota R 2013 lsquolsquoLanguage is only a toolrsquo

Japanese expatriates working in China and im-

plications for language teachingrsquo available at

httpwwwmultilingual-educationcomcon-

tent314

Kumaravadivelu B 2008 Cultural Globalization

and Language Education Yale University Press

Larsen-Freeman D 2012 lsquoComplex dynamic

systems A new transdisciplinary theme for

applied linguisticsrsquo Language Teaching 45

202ndash14

Lee T 2009 lsquoLanguage identity and power

Navajo and Pueblo young adultsrsquo perspectives

and experiences with competing language

ideologiesrsquo Journal of Language Identity and

Education 8 307ndash20

Lentin A and G Titley 2011 The Crises of

Multiculturalism Racism in a Neoliberal Age Zed

Books

Li X 2014 lsquoAre lsquolsquoCultural differences a Mere

fictionrsquorsquo Reflections and arguments on con-

trastive rhetoricrsquo Journal of Second Language

Writing 25 1ndash122


Dow



Lo A and J C Kim 2012 lsquoLinguistic compe-

tency and citizenship Contrasting portraits

of multilingualism in the South Korean

popular mediarsquo Journal of Sociolinguistics 16

255ndash76

Lorente B P and T R F Tupas 2013

lsquo(Un)emancipatory hybridity Selling English

in an unequal worldrsquo in R Rubdy and

L Alsagoff (eds) The Global-local Interface and

Hybridity Exploring Language and Identity

Multilingual Matters pp 66ndash82

Makoni S and A Pennycook 2005

lsquoDisinventing and (re)constituting languagesrsquo

Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 2 137ndash56


lsquoDisinventing multilingualism from mono-

logical multilingualism to multilingua francasrsquo

in M Martin-Jones A Blackledge and



Martin-Jones M A Blackledge and A Crees

(eds) 2012 The Routledge Handbook of

Multilingualism Routledge

May S 2009 lsquoCritical multiculturalism and edu-

cationrsquo in J Banks (ed) Routledge International

Companion to Multicultural Education Routledge

pp 33ndash48

May S (ed) 2014 The Multilingual Turn

Implications for SLA TESOL and Bilingual

Education Routledge

McCarty T L M F Romero-Little

L Warhol and O Zepeda 2009

lsquoIndigenous youth as language policy

makersrsquo Journal of Language Identity and


McNamara T 2011 lsquoMultilingualism in

Education A poststructuralist critiquersquo The

Modern Language Journal 95 430ndash41

Melamed J 2006 lsquoThe spirit of neoliberalism

From racial liberalism to neoliberal multicul-

turalismrsquo Social Text 894 2ndash24

Miyoshi M 1995 lsquoSites of resistance in the

global economyrsquo Boundary 2 61ndash84

Mok K H 2007 lsquoQuesting for internationaliza-

tion of universities in Asia Critical reflectionsrsquo

Journal of Studies in International Education 11

433ndash54

Moore-Gilbert B 1997 Postcolonial Theory

Contexts Practices and Politics Verso

Morgan B 2007 lsquoPoststructuralism and applied

linguisticsrsquo in J Cummins and C Davison

(eds) International Handbook of English

Language Teaching Springer pp 949ndash68

Motha S 2014 Race Empire and English

Language Teaching Teachers College Press

Moussu L and E Llurda 2008 lsquoNon-native

English-speaking English language teachers

History and researchrsquo Language Teaching 41

315ndash48

Oguma E 1995 Tanrsquoitsu minzoklu shinwa no

kigen lsquolsquoNihonjinrsquorsquo no jigazo no keifu [The myth

of the homogeneous nation A genealogy of

the lsquolsquoJapanesersquorsquo self-portrait] Shinrsquoyosha

OrsquoRegan J P 2014 lsquoEnglish as a lingua franca

An immanent critiquersquo Applied Linguistics 35

533ndash52

Ortega L 2014 lsquoWays forward for a bimulti-

lingual turn in SLArsquo in S May (ed) The

Multilingual Turn Implications for SLA TESOL

and Bilingual Education Routledge pp 32ndash53

Otsuji E and A Pennycook 2010

lsquoMetrolingualism fixity fluidity and language

in fluxrsquo International Journal of Multilingualism

7 240ndash54

Pakir A 2009 lsquoEnglish as a lingua franca ana-

lyzing research frameworks in international

English world Englishes and ELFrsquo World

Englishes 28 224ndash35

Park J S Y 2011 lsquoThe promise of English

Linguistic capital and the neoliberal worker

in the South Korean job marketrsquo International

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

14 443ndash55

Park J S Y and A Lo 2012 lsquolsquolsquo Transnational

South Korea as a site for a sociolinguistics of

globalization Markets timescales neoliberal-

ismrsquorsquorsquo Journal of Sociolinguistics 16 147ndash64

Parry B 1994 lsquoSigns of our times Discussion of

Homi Bhabharsquos The location of culturersquorsquo Third

Text 828ndash9 5ndash24

Patrick D 2007 lsquoLanguage endangerment

language rights and indigeneityrsquo in M Heller

(ed) Bilingualism A Social Approach Palgrave

Macmillan pp 111ndash34

Pennycook A 2010 lsquoCritical and alternative

directions in applied linguisticsrsquo Australian

Review of Applied Linguistics 332 1ndash16

Phillipson R 2008 lsquoThe linguistic imperialism

of neoliberal empirersquo Critical Inquiry in

Language Studies 5 1ndash43

Reyes M de la L 1992 lsquoChallenging venerable

assumptions Literacy instruction for linguistic-

ally different studentsrsquo Harvard Educational

Review 62 427ndash46

Rubdy R and L Alsagoff (eds) 2013

The Global-local Interface and Hybridity

R KUBOTA 493

Dow



Exploring Language and Identity Multilingual

Matters

Rutherford J 1990 lsquoThe third space Interview

with Homi Bhabharsquo in J Rutherford (ed)

Identity Community Culture Difference

Lawrence and Wishart pp 207ndash21

Seidlhofer B 2011 Understanding English as

a Lingua Franca Oxford University Press

Sethi R 2011 The Politics of Postcolonialism

Empire Nation and Resistance Pluto Press

Shohat E 1992 lsquoNotes on the lsquolsquopost-colonialrsquorsquorsquo

Social Text 3032 99ndash113

Shiobara Y 2010 lsquoNeoriberaru tabunka shugi to

gurobaru ka suru lsquolsquosentakuhaijorsquorsquono ronnri

[Neoliberal multiculturalism and the logic of se-

lectionandexclusioninglobalmigration]rsquoShakai

Kagaku [The Social Science] 86 63ndash89

Taylor S K and K Snoddon (eds) 2013

lsquoPlurilingualism in TESOL (special topic

issue)rsquo TESOL Quarterly 47 439ndash45


Dow



A recent prominent trend in applied linguistics is a multilingual or dynamic

turn (Flores 2013 May 2014) which focuses on the plurality multiplicity and

hybridity of language and language use to challenge a traditional paradigm of

understanding linguistic practices in various contexts In this article I will

focus on this turn and call it lsquomultiplural turnrsquo The multiplural turn can

be observed in a large number of publications and conference presentations

on such inquiry foci as multilingualism (Martin-Jones et al 2012 May 2014)

plurilingualism (Taylor and Snoddon 2013) world Englishes (WE) (Kachru

et al 2006) English as a lingua franca (ELF) (Seidlhofer 2011) codemeshing

(Canagarajah 2006) metrolingualism (Otsuji and Pennycook 2010) translin-

gual approach (Horner et al 2011) translanguaging (Blackledge and Creese

2010 Garcıa and Sylvan 2011) multiliteracies (Cope and Kalantzis 2009) and

hybridity (Rubdy and Alsagoff 2013)

Although linguistic multiplicity is nothing new in human history (Cenoz

2013) the recent interest has been influenced by postmodern poststructural-

ist and postcolonial thought as seen in such notions as multiplicity hetero-

geneity fluidity hybridity and constructedness which expand and blur the

fixed boundaries of the social and linguistic categories that are defined in an

essentialist binary logic in the previous modernist paradigm (Pennycook 2010)

However as this lsquoturnrsquo grows in popularity it seems as though its critical

impetus has faded and its knowledge is becoming another canonmdasha canon

which is integrated into a neoliberal capitalist academic culture of incessant

knowledge production and competition for economic and symbolic capital

and neoliberal multiculturalism that celebrates individual cosmopolitanism

and plurilingualism for socioeconomic mobility In bolstering neoliberal dis-

courses the multiplural approaches lose a transformative edge that seeks sig-

nificant changes in the sociopolitical and economic conditions of people who

are using learning and teaching language Indeed while our discipline en-

gages with multiplural frameworks we continue to see not only the domin-

ance of English and standard language ideology but also ethnic conflicts civil

wars racism xenophobia and growing economic gaps both nationally and

internationally While applied linguistics alone will not cure these social

evils some are within the purview of our discipline and the gap between

our celebrated lsquomultipluralrsquo perspectives and real lives of many people con-

cerns me

Similar concerns about a theorypractice divide were raised in the 1990s in

many publications critiquing postcolonial theory to which our field has paid

little attention (cf Kumaravadivelu 2008) Critiques of postcolonial theory are

useful in alerting us to the problematic ideological overlap between the multi

plural turn and neoliberal multiculturalism Drawing on some literature criti-

quing postcolonial theory and neoliberalism this article demonstrates how

facets of postcolonial theory and neoliberal multiculturalism parallel the con-

ceptual foundations of the multiplural turn in applied linguistics and suggests

a shift in attention from individual plurality and hybridity to asymmetrical

R KUBOTA 475

Dow




demic community










































Dow




















expression



(2010 264)


















R KUBOTA 477

Dow

















































Dow



























resistance


















R KUBOTA 479

Dow

















































Dow





































R KUBOTA 481

Dow
















(p 109)


























Dow




























ity of identity


















R KUBOTA 483

Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow




demic community










































Dow




















expression



(2010 264)


















R KUBOTA 477

Dow

















































Dow



























resistance


















R KUBOTA 479

Dow

















































Dow





































R KUBOTA 481

Dow
















(p 109)


























Dow




























ity of identity


















R KUBOTA 483

Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow




















expression



(2010 264)


















R KUBOTA 477

Dow

















































Dow



























resistance


















R KUBOTA 479

Dow

















































Dow





































R KUBOTA 481

Dow
















(p 109)


























Dow




























ity of identity


















R KUBOTA 483

Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow

















































Dow



























resistance


















R KUBOTA 479

Dow

















































Dow





































R KUBOTA 481

Dow
















(p 109)


























Dow




























ity of identity


















R KUBOTA 483

Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow



























resistance


















R KUBOTA 479

Dow

















































Dow





































R KUBOTA 481

Dow
















(p 109)


























Dow




























ity of identity


















R KUBOTA 483

Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow

















































Dow





































R KUBOTA 481

Dow
















(p 109)


























Dow




























ity of identity


















R KUBOTA 483

Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow





































R KUBOTA 481

Dow
















(p 109)


























Dow




























ity of identity


















R KUBOTA 483

Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow
















(p 109)


























Dow




























ity of identity


















R KUBOTA 483

Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow




























ity of identity


















R KUBOTA 483

Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow








































success







Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow



































R KUBOTA 485

Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow














development













difference



















conclusion


Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow















































R KUBOTA 487

Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow





(p 887)









































Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow









































R KUBOTA 489

Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow




gualism was favored










similar charge









fied optimism
























Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow

































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




REFERENCES


Literatures Verso






Routledge




Routledge

R KUBOTA 491

Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow














586ndash619















164ndash95




10 221ndash40




412ndash26






















University Press







71ndash82




229ndash57




303ndash21




44 281ndash315



Blackwell




22 248ndash60





tent314






202ndash14








Books






Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow







255ndash76






















pp 33ndash48



Education Routledge

















433ndash54












315ndash48







533ndash52








7 240ndash54









14 443ndash55
























R KUBOTA 493

Dow




Matters




















Dow




Matters




















Dow



the multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal

Documents