This article was downloaded by: [82.67.137.208]On: 04 March 2014, At: 06:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language, Culture and CurriculumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20

From multilingualism to plurilingualism:university students’ beliefs aboutlanguage learning in a monolingualcontextChristine Jeoffriona, Aurore Marcouyeuxa, Rebecca Starkey-Perretb, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combesb & Ilker Birkanc

a LUNAM Université – Laboratoire de Psychologie des Pays de laLoire (LPPL – UPRES EA 4638), Faculté de Psychologie, Universitéde Nantes, Nantes, Franceb CRINI – Centre de Recherches sur les Identités Nationales etl'Interculturalité – EA 1162, Université de Nantes, Nantes, Francec CREN – Centre de Recherche en Education de Nantes – EA 2661,Université de Nantes, Nantes, FrancePublished online: 28 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Christine Jeoffrion, Aurore Marcouyeux, Rebecca Starkey-Perret, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes & Ilker Birkan (2014): From multilingualism to plurilingualism: universitystudents’ beliefs about language learning in a monolingual context, Language, Culture andCurriculum, DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2014.887724

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.887724

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

From multilingualism to plurilingualism: university students’ beliefsabout language learning in a monolingual context

Christine Jeoffriona*, Aurore Marcouyeuxa, Rebecca Starkey-Perretb,Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combesb and Ilker Birkanc

aLUNAM Université – Laboratoire de Psychologie des Pays de la Loire (LPPL – UPRES EA4638), Faculté de Psychologie, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France; bCRINI – Centre deRecherches sur les Identités Nationales et l’Interculturalité – EA 1162, Université de Nantes,Nantes, France; cCREN – Centre de Recherche en Education de Nantes – EA 2661, Université deNantes, Nantes, France

(Received 11 September 2013; accepted 20 January 2014)

The study aims to highlight the representations that university students have aboutplurilingualism, in order to research how they can develop plurilingual competencesin an essentially monolingual French academic setting. It is based on a survey of 684students enrolled in two foreign language programmes across two year levels (firstand fourth years) at the University of Nantes (France). The questionnaire we havedesigned includes 26 items which explicitly refer to, on the one hand, a plurilingualposture and, on the other hand, a monolingual posture. The path analysis shows thatadvanced students who learn several languages have a more plurilingual posture thanbeginners or those who learn fewer languages. Differences about the two investigatedprogrammes are discussed.

Keywords: social representations and beliefs; multilingualism; plurilingualism;language learning; plurilingual competence; university students

Introduction

In spite of France’s recently declared desire to promote plurilingualism in order to keep upwith the demands of globalisation (Piquemal & Renaud, 2006), languages are still usuallytaught separately. Previous knowledge of other languages and the meta-reflection that com-parisons and code-switching could trigger are very seldom explored. Experiments havebeen conducted in France and in its neighbouring countries concerning mutual understand-ing of related languages; however, they are mostly limited to young learners (e.g. Candelier,2003; Cavalli, 2007). Research with adult learners seeks to highlight the representationsthey have about language learning in order to promote a plurilingual competence (Castel-lotti & Moore, 2002), but is often carried out in border or multilingual regions and focuseson beginner language classes offered in universities, leaving out an important factor, whichis how the institution can modify these beliefs across year levels.

French society as a whole is not seen as a multilingual society, although many languagesare in contact (Gadet & Varro, 2006). Many prejudices clutter current views on

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: christine.jeoffrion@univ-nantes.fr

Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.887724

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

multilingualism, one of them being the myth of ‘absolute bilingualism’, the belief that amultilingual person’s skills in each language he speaks are equal to those of monolingualnative speakers. This representation is based on the misconception that the nativespeaker has a perfect command of his language. This norm reflects the most common per-ception of multilingualism in France (Hélot, 2007). Languages as they are imagined to bespoken by natives, postulated as being homogeneous, are the standard. This does not,however, correspond to findings in the fields of sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics.The question then arises as to whether or not French students in a monolingual contextare ready for a plurilingual approach to language learning.

The present study aims to highlight the representations that university students haveabout language learning, and more specifically about plurilingualism, how these represen-tations change as students advance from first year to upper years, and what they expect fromtheir language courses in order to research and analyse how they can develop plurilingualcompetences in a French academic setting, and more precisely in the Loire Region ofFrance which is essentially monolingual (Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication,2011).

This article reports the results of a survey of 684 students enrolled in two foreignlanguage programmes across two levels (first and fourth years) at the university. The find-ings of this study should help to evaluate the feasibility of implementing plurilingual cur-ricula by bringing to the surface potential opportunities as well as roadblocks.1

From multilingualism to plurilingualism

Multilingualism is defined by the Council of Europe (2001) as, ‘the knowledge of a numberof languages or the co-existence of different languages in a given society’ (p. 4). Since theearly 2000s, the Council of Europe has preferred the term plurilingualism in order to high-light the notion of a plurilingual competence (Castellotti & Moore, 2002). Plurilingualismemphasises:

the fact that as an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural context expands,from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of otherpeoples [...], he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separatedmental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowl-edge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact.(Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4)

This definition focuses on the interconnectivity of language competences developed by theindividual as well as on the importance of accepting various levels of mastery of thelanguage learned.

Some researchers consider the use of plurilingualism to be a terminological choicecharacteristic of Francophone research. It may be noted in this regard that the term plurilin-gualism is ignored in the dictionaries of the English language and is 10 times less frequentlyfound on the Internet than multilingualism (Tremblay, 2010).

The distinction between multilingualism and plurilingualism is useful to the purpose ofour study in so far as taking into account the conception of multilingualism as describedabove would simply lead to the implementation of syllabi offering the opportunity tolearn different languages separately, which is already the case in French universities. Theconcept of plurilingualism offers multi-dimensional aspects of speaking and learning mul-tiple languages, i.e. sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives as interrelated. Takingboth sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic dimensions into account should facilitate the

2 C. Jeoffrion et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

conception of plurilingual learning environments in which learners would be able to drawon the diverse competences they have at various levels in the different languages they know.

The sociolinguistic perspective

In the French context, the notion of plurilingualism has been largely researched by socio-linguists in order to analyse the diversity and complexity of plurilingual situations in theworld by describing language practices and their relationships to sociocultural, historicaland political contexts, and to that extent somewhat differs from the Anglophone approach(Dagenais & Jacquet, 2008). In a state-of-the-art article giving international visibility toFrench research on plurilingualism, Moore and Gajo (2009) highlight the sociolinguisticstance. It focuses on the role of language as constitutive of an individual’s identity aswell as an instrument in power relations. Particular attention has been given to the studyof learners’ representations and to how these representations affect language acquisitionand the development of learners’ multiple identities (Castellotti & Moore, 2002, 2004).Significantly, the definition of plurilingualism in the French version of the European frame-work insists on the sociolinguistic dimension:

Plurilingual and pluricultural competence refers to the ability to use languages for the purposesof communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as asocial actor has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience ofseveral cultures. This is not seen as the superposition or juxtaposition of distinct competences,but rather as the existence of a complex or even composite competence on which the socialactor may draw. (Coste, Moore, & Zarate, 2009, p. v)

The plurilingual speaker is seen as a social actor who develops a repertoire made up ofvarious languages and varieties of languages, and different forms of knowledge (Moore& Gajo, 2009). Genesee, Tucker, and Lambert (1975) and Ben-Zeev (1977) also observedthat plurilingual speakers are more motivated to communicate and develop sensitivity toothers and are thereby able to develop humanistic values such as tolerance of the Other.

These studies have promoted holistic and integrated approaches to language teachingand learning (e.g. Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; Moore & Gajo, 2009).

The psycholinguistic perspective

The psycholinguistic perspective of plurilingualism has been less developed in France sofar. Researchers seem to agree on the following terms: (1) plurilingualism should be appre-hended holistically. The various areas of the brain that are stimulated during cognitiveactivities interact constantly, even if temporarily (Dörnyei, 2009; MacWhinney, 2008);(2) plurilingual competence is different from monolingualism since acquiring several lin-guistic systems, simultaneously or not, triggers qualitative changes in the psycholinguisticorganisation in the brain, which in turn creates new linguistic competences (e.g. Cook,1992; Herdina & Jessner, 2006; Jessner, 2008). The results of studies on the globaleffects of bilingualism agree to show a positive effect of bilingualism on the acquisitionof other languages (e.g. Bild & Swain, 1989; Cenoz & Valencia, 1994); (3) code-switchingcannot be avoided when several systems exist together. When languages are in contact, cog-nitive consequences are inevitable (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2005; Grosjean, 2008).

These studies argue for the interdependence of language learning due to a commonunderlying proficiency (Cummins, 1980) that allows the transfer of competences fromone language to the other from a both cognitive and meta-linguistic point of view. Being

Language, Culture and Curriculum 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

able to communicate in several languages makes learning another language easier, leads togreater cognitive flexibility and also enables the subject to develop his/her creativity.

Defining the plurilingual syllabus

Drawing from research in sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics, implementing a plurilin-gual programme would make educational sense for the cognitive and sociocultural devel-opment of the individual (Kramsch, 2006) and could theoretically enhance languageacquisition. A plurilingual syllabus is a Content and Language Integrated Learningcourse in which the students are exposed to input in more than one language and inwhich the input is treated through a task that the students carry out in one or more negotiatedlanguages. The results of the task are written up in more than one language. Interaction,negotiation of meaning and the production of comprehensible output should favourlanguage acquisition (Swain, 2000) and languages in contact should trigger meta-linguisticand intercultural awareness.

Before implementing a plurilingual programme, it is essential to understand how lear-ners perceive language learning and the construct of plurilingualism in order to identify thelevers and barriers to change.

Research on social representations and beliefs about language learning

Both beliefs and social representations are a predisposition to action (Moscovici, 1961;Rokeach, 1968), and this is what is important for this study. So the terms belief and rep-resentation will be used interchangeably. Learners’ representations and beliefs of what itis to learn a language are embedded in the social and cultural context in which they findthemselves. However, those representations and beliefs are part of their identity, of theway they see themselves and others and of the way they construct their knowledge andinteract with the world. They can evolve and change, but cannot be put aside, andalways influence the motivations for learning.

Main findings and materials used

Numerous studies have examined the effects of student beliefs about language learning ingeneral, but not specifically their beliefs about plurilingualism. To bring to light thesespecific beliefs, we must first explore the structure of beliefs about languagelearning through a brief review of previous studies and types of materials used, andwhen possible, point out the links that have been found between beliefs and effectivelanguage acquisition.

In 1978, Naiman and colleagues showed that effective language learners activelyinvolve themselves in the language learning process, develop an awareness of languageas a system, develop an awareness of language as a means of communication and inter-action, accept and cope with the affective demands of L2 and extend and revise the L2system by inferring and monitoring (Rubin, 1987). During the same period, Horwitz(1985) developed the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) to help identifypreconceived notions about language learning. All the different versions of BALLIsemployed a Likert-type scale in order to situate the beliefs on five dimensions: ForeignLanguage Aptitude, Difficulty of Language Learning, The Nature of Language Learning,Learning and Communication Strategies, and Motivations and Expectations. Horwitz(1988) showed that students who believe that language learning consists of translation,or vocabulary memorisation, or grammar application are not likely to adopt the types of

4 C. Jeoffrion et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

holistic strategies associated with successful language learners. Other studies using BALLIshow that (1) beginning-level students have unrealistic expectations and narrowly definedperspectives about L2 learning (Horwitz, 1988); (2) students’ attitudes towards formalgrammar instruction and error correction are considerably more favourable than their tea-chers’ attitudes (Brown, 2009) and they give more value to accent than teachers do(Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005); (3) students’ ideals for different L2 teaching strategiesmay change from their first to second year of L2 study (Brown, 2009). Kuntz (1996)pointed out three principal limits of the BALLI: statements dealing with learners’ beliefswere generated by language teachers, not by learners themselves; themes under which stu-dents’ beliefs are organised were not generated statistically from students’ responses, andthe choice of those themes and their labelling were never explained; and most of thesestudies were based on descriptive statistical analyses of each item that do not allow theidentification of factors underlying the beliefs.

Thereafter, other contexts have been explored and since the 1990s some of these studieshave begun to use multivariate statistics to analyse the data from an adapted BALLI, orfrom other questionnaires. For example, Nikitina and Furuoka (2006) performed a principalcomponent analysis (PCA) on the BALLI carried out in the Malaysian context whichbrought out four unambiguous and independent factors from only 10 items of theBALLI: Motivation, Aptitude, Strategy, and Ease of Learning. The theme concerning the‘nature of language learning’ did not form a separate factor in this study. Rieger (2009)used a modified Hungarian version of Horwitz’s inventory and added five new items.She then performed a PCA on the data and found the same themes as Horwitz but withonly 14 of the 34 items of the Horwitz questionnaire and 3 of the 5 added items. Herresults showed the existence of significant differences: the target language seems toaffect how learners perceive the difficulty of the foreign language they are studying andthe importance they attach to some approaches towards language learning. Contrary tothe results of Bacon and Finnemann (1992), no significant differences between male andfemale respondents were measured in terms of motivation or attitude to practising withauthentic materials. The findings of these studies suggest that learner beliefs aboutlanguage learning are context-specific (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005; Nikitina & Furuoka,2006).

Apart from the BALLI, other Likert-type questionnaires have been developed to inves-tigate language learners’ beliefs. For example, Bacon and Finnemann (1992) were amongthe first researchers to conduct factor analysis of the responses to their own, 109-statementquestionnaire assessing Spanish students’ beliefs in American universities. Among theirresults, they found that the women were more motivated, more open to authentic inputand had more positive attitudes to target language speakers than men. Mori (1999)brought to light two major differences among American students learning Japanese:

Students who pay attention to word parts to infer the meaning of an unknown word, forinstance, may have a strong belief in the efficacy of an analytical approach to language learn-ing, whereas those who depend on its surrounding context may strongly believe in a holisticapproach. (p. 378)

Some of her themes bore strong resemblance to BALLI. In addition, she showed that stu-dents who believe that the ability to learn is innately fixed and who avoid ambiguity tend toattain lower proficiency in a foreign language. She also showed that advanced languagelearners are less likely to believe in simple, unambiguous knowledge or the existence ofone right and unique way for speaking than novice learners. The differences in beliefs

Language, Culture and Curriculum 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

between beginner and advanced language learners suggest that the instruction receivedcould influence learner beliefs (Mori, 1999; Schommer, 1990).

Heo, Stoffa, and Kush (2012) used the SILL (Strategy Inventory for LanguageLearning: Oxford, 1986), which assesses the frequency of use of various strategies forlearning a second or foreign language by Korean students in North American universities.Using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the data, they showed that ‘the SILL primar-ily consists of a single factor, best described as a general language learning strategy’ (Heoet al., 2012, p. 241). This enabled them to take out superfluous items of the questionnaire.

Using his Attitude and Motivation Test Battery, Gardner (1985) has emphasised that‘integratively motivated students tend to be more active […] and tend to be more proficientin a second language’ than instrumentally motivated learners (p. 113). A few years later, heshowed that L2 acquisition was positively related to instrumental motivation and even morestrongly related to integrative motivation (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Dörnyei (1994) alsopointed out the overlap between integrative and instrumental motivation in foreignlanguage learning contexts because emigration to and studying in a target language commu-nity are often associated with career-related goals.

Finally, Tanaka and Ellis (2003) examined changes in students’ beliefs about languagelearning (measured by means of a self-designed questionnaire) and in their English profi-ciency (measured by means of the Test of English as a Foreign Language [TOEFL])from an empirical study of a 15-week study-abroad programme for Japanese university stu-dents. One interesting result is that strong beliefs about the importance of analytical learningwere found to be inversely related to TOEFL scores.

In the French context, Castellotti and Moore (2002) showed that most learners inFrance, whether they are adults or children, see learning a foreign language as a solitaryprocess and never integrate interaction as a means to foster learning. They also showedthat knowing several languages is associated with confusion, disorder and unwantedcode-switching. Marquilló Larruy (2000) showed that teachers in France also associateplurilingualism with confusion and mixture rather than with complementarity. Thisclearly reflects a monolingual attitude towards language learning. Individuals think oflanguages in terms of mutual exclusion (Beacco & Byram, 2003, 2007).

The study of Piquemal and Renaud (2006), which is the closest to ours, explores thebeliefs and attitudes of university students enrolled in English and other foreign languageclasses in France and how these beliefs and attitudes change from first years to upper years,in order to bring to light the factors that promote or hinder plurilingualism. Focusing theirsurvey on students’ internal and external factors, they showed thereby that the reasons first-year students typically have for studying a foreign language have more to do with internalfactors (e.g. personal attitude) than with external factors (e.g. social value) and this trendbecomes more pronounced with upper-year students.

Research questions

The objectives of this present study are to identify variables structuring the representationsthat the students have about language learning and plurilingualism:

. Do the representations vary according to the level of study? Drawing from the litera-ture, we hypothesise that beginner students will be more favourable to a normativeapproach (formal grammar instruction, error correction, etc.) than advanced studentswhose representations will be closer matched to the vision shared by researchers onlanguage acquisition.

6 C. Jeoffrion et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

. Do the representations vary according to the number of languages studied? Ourhypothesis is that the more languages the student studies, the more his/her approachto language learning will be holistic.

. Do the representations vary according to the type of programme in which the studentis enrolled? We expect that the type of programme chosen will have an influence onthe way students perceive language learning. More precisely, we hypothesise that stu-dents enrolled in LEA (Langues Etrangères Appliquées) will develop more holisticattitudes than those enrolled in LLCE (Langues, Littératures et Civilisations Etran-gères) (cf. infra in Method: Participants).

Method

Participants

In this study, 684 language students from the University of Nantes, the largest university inthe Loire Region of France, participated. All of these students are native French speakerswith no other first language than French. Before arriving at the university, they hadnever experienced plurilingual practices in their own family and social networks. Theyhave studied at least one other foreign language at school, however each language wastaught separately.

These students are enrolled in two different programmes:

(1) 427 students (62.4%) are enrolled in the first programme, entitled ‘ForeignLanguages and International Trade’ (LEA). This programme involves the studyof at least two languages (often three) applied to various business contexts. Thisprogramme strives therefore to instil in its students in-depth knowledge of theglobal economy, international trade and the differences in the corporate culturesof the target language countries. Unlike the second programme, LEA does notoffer only courses taught exclusively in the target languages but also offers avariety of courses in French regarding the business aspects of the programme. Stu-dents generally have four hours of English per week, four to six hours of another L2and four to six hours of a third language should they choose to study three.

(2) 257 students (37.5%) are enrolled in the second programme, entitled ‘ForeignLanguages, Literature and Social Studies’ (LLCE). This programme is orientedtowards academic study of language in which the target language culture istaught from a literary and historical perspective. The programme strives to instilin its students linguistic mastery through both daily practice and the study of lin-guistic theory. Students who choose this path generally study one language inten-sely (usually 12 hours per week) that they have already studied in secondary schooland another one at a beginner level (often 6 hours per week). Some students doublemajor and therefore study two languages at equal intensity (10 hours per week, perlanguage).

In both programmes, LEA and LLCE, each language is taught independently from theother.

The year levels selected for this study are first year (Undergraduate 1) (n = 523; 76.5%)and fourth year (Master 1) (n = 161; 23.5%).2

The first foreign language learned (LL1) by the surveyed students is mainly English(97.9% of LEA students and 74.8% of LLCE students), and Spanish for 22.7% of LLCE

Language, Culture and Curriculum 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

students. The second foreign language learned (LL2) is mainly Spanish (61.3% of LEA stu-dents and 37.5% of LLCE students), and Italian for 22.8% of LLCE students. Other foreignlanguages are learnt as LL1, LL2 or LL3 such as German, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese,Russian, Japanese and Arabic. Students enrolled in the LLCE programme tend to have awider spectrum of languages.

In total, 213 LEA students (49.9%) and 10 LLCE students (3.9%) learn a third language(LL3). These languages include Chinese, Russian, Italian, Japanese, Arabic and German.

Among the 684 students, 512 (74.9%) are female and 172 (25.1%) are male. Mean ageis 19.75 years (SD = 2.86) (Table 1).

All the students were surveyed at the beginning of the academic year 2011.

Material

The survey instrument was developed by the co-authors of this article based on literaturereviews and on the reviews of existing questionnaires (cf. supra).

The questionnaire consists of three parts:

(1) The first part concerns the Language Learning Representations Scale. The itemsrefer, on the one hand, to holistic and experiential approaches to language learning(called ‘Plurilingual posture’) and, on the other hand, to analytical and compart-mentalised approaches to language learning, i.e. a normative and decontextualisedconception of language learning (called ‘Monolingual posture’) (Table 2).

. Flexible ability versus fixed or innate ability: this dimension concerns the controll-ability of the ability to learn languages or general existence of specialised abilitiesfor language learning (see, e.g. Mori, 1999).

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

LEA (n = 427),n (%)

LLCE (n = 257),n (%)

Total (N = 684),n (%)

Year1 (Undergraduate 1) 299 (70.0) 224 (87.2) 523 (76.5)4 (Master 1) 128 (30.0) 33 (12.8) 161 (23.5)

GenderFemale 306 (71.7) 206 (80.2) 512 (74.9)Male 121 (28.3) 51 (19.8) 172 (25.1)

Age Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)19.82 (2.02) 19.64 (3.86) 19.75 (2.86)

Learnt Language 1English 418 (97.9) 178 (74.8) 596 (89.6)Spanish 3 (0.7) 54 (22.7) 57 (8.6)Others (German, Chinese, Russian, etc.) 6 (1.4) 25 (9.7) 31 (4.5)

Learnt Language 2Spanish 261 (61.3) 87 (37.5) 348 (52.9)Italian 26 (6.1) 53 (22.8) 79 (12)German 41 (9.6) 24 (10.3) 65 (9.9)English 8 (1.9) 32 (13.8) 40 (6.1)Others (Chinese, Arabic, Japanese,Russian, etc.)

91 (21.3) 61 (23.7) 152 (22.2)

Note: All percentages are rounded to the first decimal point.

8 C. Jeoffrion et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

. Pragmatic versus normative language learning approach: the pragmatic approach tolanguage learning pertains to the effectiveness of risk-taking to learn to communicatein a foreign language. The normative approach to language learning is based on themyth of the native speaker (see, e.g. Coste, 2010; Hélot, 2007).

. Language transfer and interference versus Reliance on L1: Language transfer is usingpreviously acquired L1 linguistic knowledge and contrastive analysis to facilitate newL2 learning. Reliance on L1 implies systematic translation in order to communicate,

Table 2. Categorisation of items in the Language Learning Representations Scale.

Holistic and experiential approaches to languagelearning, ‘plurilingual posture’

Analytical and compartmentalised approaches tolanguage learning, ‘monolingual posture’

Flexible ability versus fixed ability8. It is possible to speak a language fluently

without having learnt it during childhood1. A language can be spoken well only if it is

learned at a young age17. It is possible to learn a language successfully

even with a learning disability6. A high level of intelligence is required to learn

several languages9. Some people have a gift for languages

Pragmatic versus normative approach7. At the end of secondary school, it is possibleto communicate in one or several languages

15. It is possible to be understood in a foreignlanguage even without a good accent

24. The goal of language learning is to speak thelanguage like a native

25. Being multilingual is to be able to ‘get by’ inseveral languages

26. Being multilingual is to speak, understand,read and write several languages perfectly

Language transfer versus Reliance on L110. When learning a new language, I use my

knowledge of previously learnt languages16. I translate into my native language to

understand another language13. A person who speaks several languages can

learn others more easily18. When I learn another language, I compare it

with my native language

Open-plan view of language learning versus compartmentalised view of language learning2. There are several varieties for the same

language12. It is difficult to learn two languages without

mixing them up14. It is possible to learn several languages at the

same time20. Learning several languages diminishes the

level of mastery of each one

Learning and communication strategies19. Learning vocabulary lists helps me to better

understand and speak languages22. It is possible to speak a language well only if

you have learned the grammar

Integrative attitudes21. People who speak several languages are

more capable of adapting to other cultures3. It is possible to disassociate a language from itsculture

23. I learn a language better when I like thecountry(ies) in which it is spoken

Instrumental attitudes11. In the working world, knowing English is

not enough4. It is not necessary to know several languages inthe workplace

5. Knowing English is enough to communicateabroad

Language, Culture and Curriculum 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

whether from L2 to understand the message or from L1 to produce one (see, e.g.Cummins, 1980).

. Open-plan (decompartmentalised) view of language learning versus compartmen-talised view of language learning: according to the first dimension, a samelanguage has different varieties and the learning and practice of several languagesdevelop awareness of language variation, organisation and structure, while thesecond dimension concerns the strong belief that each language must be learnedseparately and kept in separate mental compartments (see, e.g. Beacco &Byram, 2003, 2007; Castellotti & Moore, 2002; Marquilló Larruy, 2000).

. Learning and communication strategies: the items of this dimension concern adecontextualised approach to language learning based on vocabulary memorisa-tion or grammar application (see, e.g. Brown, 2009; Horwitz, 1985, 1988).

. Integrative attitudes: the items refer to the interest for the target language’s associ-ated culture. Associating language and culture refers to a more holistic view oflanguage learning, and so to a positive attitude towards plurilingualism.

. Instrumental attitudes: the items refer to the utility of the target language for per-sonal pragmatic and utilitarian reasons (a better job, obtaining a pay raise, etc.) (forthese two last categories, see, e.g. Dörnyei, 1994; Gardner, 1985; Gardner, Trem-blay, & Masgoret, 1997; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Piquemal & Renaud, 2006).

(2) The second part concerns Expectations towards Language Teaching at University.They are described by two dimensions: ‘Language Practice’ measured by twoitems: ‘You would like to have more opportunities to practice oral language inyour programme’ and ‘You sufficiently practice languages spoken in youruniversity programme’ (reverse item); and ‘Plurilingual Programme’, whichmeasures the wish to benefit from programmes carried out in several languagesevaluated by two items: ‘Each language must be taught independently of others’(reverse item) and ‘Using several languages in a same course facilitates acquisitionof these languages’. For each item, the respondent had to check his or her positionon a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree).

(3) The third part concerns the Participant Characteristics in order to establish therespondents’ profiles: gender, age, first language, etc. For the purpose of thispaper, we have selected only the French, monolingual respondents in order tohave a homogenous sample (90% of the students who filled out the questionnaire)that matches the specific context in which the study has been carried out.

Procedure

After obtaining permission from department heads, classes were visited by one or tworesearchers. Students were informed of the general topic of the study and asked to volun-tarily complete a questionnaire, after being assured that their participation was optional andthat all responses would be confidential and would not affect their marks. The approximaterate of response was 80% for first-year students and 95% for fourth-year students.

Data analysis

In order to isolate the structure of the representations, an EFAwas conducted on the items ofthe first part of the Language Learning Representations Scale, following the example givenby Heo et al. (2012) (cf. supra). The aim of the EFA is to pinpoint the various underlyingdimensions in a set of items, and so to identify latent factors explaining the correlations

10 C. Jeoffrion et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

between observed variables (i.e. items of the scale). Scores for each obtained factor werecomputed. After that, the correlations between these factorial scores and other variablesmeasured in this study were modelled into a diagram, in order to perform a path analysis(highlighting the intensity of the relationships between variables).

Results

Exploratory factor analysis

Prior analyses to the EFAwere performed in order to verify the factorability of the pool ofitems. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was .602, exceeding the recommended value of .6,and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (= 858.67, df = 210, p < .001). Someitems are not taken into account for the EFA, because they present low communalities(<.10, which means these items do not share much variance with the other items), orthey cross-load (loadings >.30 for several factors). An EFAwas then performed with a prin-cipal axis factor extraction and a Varimax rotation in SPSS. The examination of the graph ofeigenvalues (Figure 1) led us to opt for a four-factor solution, which explained 33% of thevariance. No significant differences were found between male and female respondents.

The results are presented in Table 3. The first factor regroups items which refer tolanguage transfer (10, 13) and integrative attitudes (21). The second factor regroupsitems which refer to open-plan view of language learning (14, 20) and flexible ability (1,17). The third factor is correlated with items which refer to Reliance on L1 (16, 18).Finally, the last factor regroups items which refer to normative approach to language learn-ing (24, 25) and instrumental attitudes (4).

Path analysis

The objective of this analysis is to highlight the relationships between the representationsthat French students have of language learning and plurilingualism, and their expectations

Figure 1. Eigenvalues for each factor.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

of language teaching at the university in order to bring to light the attitudes they havetowards plurilingualism. A path diagram was therefore drawn in order to highlight theserelationships. We hypothesised that the number of languages (the variable labelled LAN-GUAGE_NB in the path diagram is a dichotomous dummy variable, taking the value of

Table 3. Rotated component matrix (N = 684).

Items

Languagetransfer andintegrativeattitudes

Open-plan viewof languagelearning andflexible ability

Relianceon L1

Normativeapproach andinstrumentalattitudes

13. A person who speaksseveral languages canlearn others more easily

.51

10. When learning a newlanguage, I use myknowledge ofpreviously learntlanguages

.44

21. People who speakseveral languages aremore capable ofadapting to othercultures

.41

14. It is possible to learnseveral languages atthe same time

.45

20. Learning severallanguages diminishesthe level of mastery ofeach one

−.41

1. A language can bespoken well only if it islearned at a young age

−.33

17. It is possible to learn alanguage successfullyeven with a learningdisability

.32

18. When I learn anotherlanguage, I compare itwith my nativelanguage

.59

16. I translate into mynative language tounderstand anotherlanguage

.54

24. The goal of languagelearning is to speak thelanguage like a native

.42

4. It is not necessary toknow severallanguages in theworkplace

−.36

25. Being multilingual isto be able to ‘get by’ inseveral languages

.33

12 C. Jeoffrion et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

1 when students learn two languages and 0 when students learn more than two languages),the chosen programme (labelled PROGRAM: also a dichotomous variable, for which 0 =LEA and 1 = LLCE) and the level of study (STUDY_LEVEL: another dichotomous vari-able for which 0 = First Year (Undergraduate 1) and 1 = Fourth Year (Master 1)) willaffect the representations of language learning categorised by the four factors presentedin Table 3: LANGUAGE_TRANSFER, OPEN_PLAN_VIEW, RELIANCE_ON_L1 andNORMATIVE_APPROACH. In return, these representations could predict the expec-tations concerning language teaching. These expectations were operationalised by twoobserved variables: LANGUAGE_PRACTICE, which evaluates the desire for morespoken practice, and PLURILINGUAL_PROGRAM, which measures the wish tobenefit from courses given in several languages. The path model includes nine observedvariables. The path analysis was performed using the SPSS-AMOS software. The analysiswas carried out in three steps. Firstly, the theoretical model, called the hypothesised model,built on the basis of the literature review, was compared to the data obtained. During thisphase, the indices were calculated to evaluate the fit between the collected data and the pro-posed model. Secondly, this model was re-specified by substracting non-significant paths toobtain the most parsimonious model possible (Model 1). Finally, during the third step, spe-cifications were realised by an additional path according to modification indices providedby AMOS (Model 2). These modification indices indicate the value which the chi-squarewould take if new parameters (path coefficients, covariances) were added to the model.They facilitate the improvement of the model and remind the researcher if parametershave been forgotten.

The indices obtained during each of these steps (Hypothesised Model, Model 1 andModel 2) are presented in Table 4. For the three models, goodness-of-fit index (GFI)exceeds the threshold of .90 (Byrne, 1994). We notice an important decrease of the valueof chi-square for Model 2, which shows that this model best matches the observed data.This same model also presents the smallest value for the root mean square error of approxi-mation (RMSEA), which strengthens its plausibility. The comparative fit index (CFI) isbelow the limit cut-off point of .90 (Byrne, 1994). Nevertheless, it is important to rememberthat these indices are merely guidelines, and a CFI value of .72 constituted an importantprogress compared with a value of .39 (Model 1). It is the global examination of severaldiverse indices which allow to opt for a path model (Bollen, 1990), in this case, Model 2.

The final model (Model 2) is presented in Figure 2. Among the dimensions related torepresentations of language learning, it can be seen that language transfer and integrativeattitudes are best explained by independent variables (STUDY_LEVEL; LANGUA-GE_NB; PROGRAM). Thus, the more advanced the student is, i.e. Master 1 (STUDYLEVEL = .13), the more languages he or she speaks (LANGUAGE_NB = .10), and themore he or she considers language learning to be facilitated by knowing other languages(LANGUAGE_TRANSFER). This is particularly the case for students enrolled in theLLCE programme (=.09).

Table 4. Summary of fit statistics for representation of language learning models.

Model X2 df GFI CFI RMSEA CI

0. Hypothesised 157.78 16 .950 .393 .114 .098–.1301. Model 1 168.99 26 .946 .387 .090 .077–.1032. Model 2 89.246 24 .974 .721 .063 .049–.077

Note: CI, confidence interval.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Students who are enrolled in the LLCE programme also tend to have a more open-planview of language learning (.16), that is to say that they consider that it is possible tolearn several languages at the same time and that this learning does not requirespecific skills. Finally, the number of languages learned is inversely related to the Relianceon L1 (−.09).

The results show one direct and positive link between master students and languagepractice (.26). That is to say that advanced students have more pragmatic attitudes thanbeginners. All the other links are mediated by two dimensions. The model shows positivelinks between language transfer and (1) plurilingual course (.20) and (2) language practice(.07). Conversely, it shows negative links between normative approach and plurilingualcourse (−.11). Finally, Reliance on L1 is negatively related to language practice (−.09),just as it is between open-plan view and language practice (−.08).

As expected, the representations that the students develop about language learning areall predictive, to varying degrees, of expectations towards teaching.

Discussion

As specified in the introduction, most research with adult learners in order to promote aplurilingual competence has been carried out in border or multilingual regions and oftenfocuses on beginner language classes offered in universities, leaving out an importantfactor, which is how the institution can modify these beliefs across year levels. Our researchhas focused on adults (university students) in a monolingual context and has taken intoaccount different variables, one of which is the level of study (year).

Consistent with the findings of Mori (1999) and Schommer (1990), our researchshows that the amount of instruction received and the number of languages learnedseem to influence learner beliefs. The results show that advanced students who learnseveral languages have a more plurilingual posture than beginners or those who learn

Figure 2. Final model of language learning representations in the French context. Notes: All pathswere statistically significant at p < .05. The values of paths are standardised. In order to make the patheasier to read, we have shortened the name of each factor by using only the first part of their titles;thus, factor 1, entitled Language transfer and integrative attitudes in Table 3 is referred to as LAN-GUAGE_TRANSFER in the path; factor 2, Open-plan view of language learning and flexible abilityin Table 3, becomes OPEN_PLAN_VIEW in the path; factor 3 – Reliance on L1 – is the same in thepath; and finally, factor 4, known as Normative approach to language learning and instrumental atti-tudes in Table 3, is called NORMATIVE_APPROACH in the path.

14 C. Jeoffrion et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

fewer languages, which suggests that implementing a plurilingual curriculum with thesestudents would be successful. In contrast, those who think that language learning consistsof translation, vocabulary memorisation or grammar application are not likely to adopt thetypes of holistic strategies associated with successful language learners (e.g. Horwitz,1985; Tanaka & Ellis, 2003). These same students do not promote language practices,contrary to those who are flexible and who wish to have plurilingual courses. Addition-ally, Piquemal and Renaud (2006) have shown that the motivation of upper-year studentsto learn a foreign language compared with that of first-year students is influenced less byperceived societal beliefs and more by intrinsic reasons. Our results are consistent withthese findings and show that advanced students have more integrative attitudes. Such find-ings show that internal or integrative attitudes seem to play an important role in explainingstudent motivation. This is an aspect to be taken into account when implementing pluri-lingual curricula.

Mori (1999) and Schommer (1990) also argued that the programme chosen has an influ-ence on learner beliefs. The differences between the two programmes in this study raisequestions for us. We expected the LEA students to have a more plurilingual attitude thanthe LLCE students. However, our results show that, on the contrary, LLCE students arethose who tend to have a more open-plan view of language learning. This discrepancycould be explained by the fact that LLCE students have more language classes per week(18–20 hours) than LEA students (12–16 hours). Mori (1999) showed that a ‘rich learningexperience seems to be associated with more refined beliefs’ (p. 406). Having more hours offoreign language courses may have contributed to a richer experience and influenced LLCEstudents’ beliefs about language learning and plurilingualism in order to facilitate the devel-opment of plurilingual attitudes in spite of the normative approach generally used in thisprogramme. Another factor which may have contributed to this discrepancy is the choiceof language. LLCE students tend to choose a wider variety of languages than LEA students(cf. Table 1). Rieger (2009) showed that the target language affects how learners perceivethe difficulty of the foreign language they are studying and the importance they attach tosome approaches towards language learning. The languages LLCE students have chosenmay have influenced their beliefs and attitudes. Further studies are necessary to morefully understand the specificities of each programme and their impact on plurilingualattitudes.

The findings of the current study have allowed us to identify roadblocks for implement-ing plurilingual curricula at the undergraduate level. Following these results, pedagogicalrecommendations can be made. If successful students are responsible for their own learningand are aware of the nature of language learning (Mori, 1999), teachers can influence stu-dents’ learning by taking into account language learners’ beliefs to appropriately planlanguage instruction (e.g. Horwitz, 1985, 1988). It is held that teachers can help to disabusestudents of deleterious misconceptions about language learning in order to help thembecome effective self-directed learners (Holec, 1987). One strategy that can be used isincluding discussions about the nature of language learning as a regular part of classroominstruction (Horwitz, 1988). This can be done by presenting research findings in the field oflanguage acquisition and by implementing teaching practices that are coherent with thesefindings. The more student beliefs about learning align with current sociolinguistic and psy-cholinguistic theories of language acquisition, the more likely it will be possible toimplement plurilingual curricula successfully. However, these recommendations assumethat teachers themselves have representations that align with the theories presented inour theoretical framework, which is not necessarily the case, as can be seen in the workof Marquilló Larruy (2000).

Language, Culture and Curriculum 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Limitations

One issue concerns the instrument used in this study. Having developed our own question-naire presents advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that this questionnairedraws from the findings and tools in the literature in order to develop a new questionnairedealing with representations on language learning and plurilingualism. This questionnaire isthe first to propose a categorisation of items which explicitly refer to, on the one hand, aplurilingual posture and, on the other hand, a monolingual posture. It has enabled us tobring to light beliefs and representations of language learning and plurilingualism withonly 26 items, whereas other existing questionnaires are much longer (see Bacon & Finne-mann, 1992; Mori, 1999). Nikitina and Furuoka (2006) brought out 4 factors from a PCAusing only 10 items of the BALLI (which includes between 34 and 46 items depending onthe version used, teacher version or student version), and Rieger (2009) found the samethemes as Horwitz but with only 14 of the 34 items used by Horwitz. This, along withthe results of the research carried out by Heo et al. (2012), shows that long questionnairesare not always necessary for precise measurements. By examining representations relativeto language learning and pedagogical expectations, we have been able to pinpoint bothopenings for plurilingual curricula and areas in which teachers can intervene in order tohelp students gain awareness about the dynamic nature of language acquisition. The disad-vantage is that the results cannot yet be compared with other studies. This is one of thereasons for which we have proposed it to other populations. Language teachers from thesame programmes and the same university studied here have been asked to complete anearly identical questionnaire in which a few questions have been adjusted, in order tocompare university students’ and teachers’ representations. Furthermore, this questionnairehas been filled out for three years at the beginning of each academic year by the same stu-dents since 2010 at the University of Nantes. This longitudinal study would thereby provideinsightful information about the change in individual beliefs. This questionnaire has alsobeen adapted to various other populations which are being investigated within the frame-work of the regional project ‘PLURI-L’: pupils in primary and secondary school, adult edu-cators and students majoring in psychology and in sociology. This could help determine thedegree to which these types of beliefs exist in other populations in the same region inFrance.

A second issue concerns using only quantitative data, resulting from closed-responsequestions. Quantitative inquiry has allowed us to perform a multivariate statistical analysisand to draw a path analysis to explore the underlying structure of language learning beliefs.This type of analysis is still uncommon in this field (Nikitina & Furuoka, 2006). However,the research framework adopted for this study and the large number of participants as wellas time and human constraints did not permit qualitative inquiry, which is often used toenrich the quantitative data (Brown, 2009).

In spite of its limitations, the study has allowed us to pinpoint opportunities for imple-menting plurilingual programmes.

Future research and pedagogical implications

This study has shown that representations change from the first university year to the fourthand that students develop plurilingual attitudes throughout their studies. Similarly, learningseveral languages increases the potential to develop plurilingual attitudes. Beginner stu-dents and those who do not learn multiple foreign languages have more monolingual atti-tudes, with beliefs that may hinder language learning.

16 C. Jeoffrion et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

This article constitutes a preliminary step towards more fully understanding students’attitudes towards plurilingualism. As a follow-up to these preliminary findings, semi-direc-tive interviews have been conducted with students. The objective of the interview study isdouble: firstly, to better understand students’ responses to the questionnaire, and secondly,to cross-reference the quantitative data with the qualitative data, using mixed methodsapproaches (Dörnyei, 2007).

Our findings will also be compared to other studies carried out within the framework ofthe research project PLURI-L in order to determine the degree to which the beliefs encoun-tered in this contribution exist in other populations in the same monolingual region inFrance.

Drawing from the results of the present survey, plurilingual syllabi are now proposed toadvanced language learning students (fifth year =Master 2) at the University of Nantes.This is a pilot programme currently under evaluation to study how students’ representationsof plurilingualism evolve when placed in plurilingual situations and how languages can bedecompartmentalised in a university setting.

Such research will improve the field by helping to better understand how to promotepositive attitudes towards plurilingualism, which we argue, as many researchers do, is aresource for creating environments that foster students’ feelings of belonging to a globalcommunity in an era of superdiversity (Taylor & Snoddon, 2013) and transnationalcommunication.

Notes1. This study has been conducted by a multidisciplinary team (social psychology, second language

acquisition and language teaching, sociology) and is part of a broad, regional research projectcalled ‘PLURI-L’ aiming at revisiting language learning practices in a monolingual region.

2. According to the university’s statistics, only one student in seven pursues his/her studies beyondthe graduate level, which explains why there are fewer students at the fourth-year level (which ispost-graduate in France).

ReferencesBacon, S. M. C., & Finnemann, M. D. (1992). Sex differences in self-reported beliefs about language

learning and authentic oral and written input. Language Learning, 42(4), 471–495.Beacco, J. C., & Byram, M. (2003). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the

development of language education policies in Europe. Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe, Divisiondes Politiques linguistiques. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/GuideIntegral_FR.pdf

Beacco, J. C., & Byram, M. (2007). De la diversité linguistique à l’éducation plurilingue – Guidepour l’élaboration des politiques linguistiques éducatives en Europe – Version de synthèse.Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe, Division des Politiques linguistiques.

Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). Mechanisms by which childhood bilingualism affects understanding of languageand cognitive structures. In P. A. Hornby (Ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social and edu-cational implications (pp. 29–55). New York, NY: Academic.

Bernat, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about language learning: Current knowledge, pedagogicalimplications, and new research directions. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language,9(1), 1–21.

Bild, E. R., & Swain, M. (1989). Minority language students in a French immersion programme: TheirFrench proficiency. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 10, 255–274.

Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256–259.

Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: Acomparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Candelier, M. (2003). Evlang – L’éveil aux langues à l’école primaire – Bilan d’une innovationeuropéenne. Bruxelles: De Boek – Duculot.

Castellotti, V., & Moore, D. (2002). Social representations of languages and teaching: Guide for thedevelopment of language education policies in Europe from linguistic diversity to plurilingualeducation. Strasbourg: Language Policies, Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/CastellottiMooreEN.pdf

Castellotti, V., & Moore, D. (2004). Cultures éducatives et construction de compétences plurilingues.Marges linguistiques. Retrieved from http://www.marges-linguistiques.com

Cavalli, M. (2007). Education bilingue et plurilinguisme des langues: le cas du Val d’Aoste. Langueset Apprentissage des Langues. Paris: Credif.

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (Issue Eds.). (2011). A holistic approach in multilingual education:Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 339–343.

Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. AppliedPsycholinguistics, 15, 195–207.

Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning, 42, 557–591.Coste, D. (2010). Diversité des plurilinguismes et formes de l’éducation plurilingue et interculturelle.

Les Cahiers de l’Acedle, 7(1), 141–165.Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (2009). Plurilingual and pluricultural competence: Studies

towards a Common European Framework of Reference for language learning and teaching.Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Retrieved from www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SourcePublications/CompetencePlurilingue09web_en.pdf

Council of Europe. (2001). A Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning,teaching, assessment (CEFR). Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf

Cummins, J. (1980). Psychological assessment of immigrant children: Logic or institution? Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development, 1(2), 97–111.

Dagenais, D., & Jacquet, M. (2008). Theories of representation in French and English scholarship onmultilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(1), 41–52.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The ModernLanguage Journal, 78(3), 273–284.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2005). The effects of intercultural contact and tourism on language attitudes

and language learning motivation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 327–357.Gadet, F., & Varro, G. (2006). Le ‘scandale’ du bilinguisme. Langues en contact et plurilinguismes.

Langage et société, 116(2), 9–28.Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and

motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of second language

learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 344–362.Genesee, F., Tucker, R., & Lambert, W. E. (1975). Communication skills of bilingual children. Child

Development, 46, 1010–1014.Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hélot, C. (2007). Du bilinguisme en famille au plurilinguisme à l’école. Paris: L’Harmattan.Heo, M., Stoffa, R., & Kush, J. C. (2012). Factor analysis of the ESL/EFL strategy inventory for

language learning: Generation 1.5 Korean immigrant college students’ language learning strat-egies. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(3), 231–247.

Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2006). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psy-cholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Holec, H. (1987). The learner as manager: Managing learning or managing to learn? In A. Wenden &J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 145–157). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreignlanguage methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333–340.

18 C. Jeoffrion et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign languagestudents. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.

Jessner, U. (2008). Teaching third languages: Findings, trends and challenges. Language Teaching,41(1), 15–56.

Kramsch, C. (2006). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kuntz, P. S. (1996). Beliefs about language learning: The Horwitz model (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED397649).MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive

linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 341–371). New York, NY: Routledge.Marquilló Larruy, M. (2000). Métaphores et représentations de cerveau plurilingue: Conceptions

naïves ou construction du savoir? Exemples dans le contexte d’enseignement Andorran.Tranel, 32, 115–146.

Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: Ameta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(1),167–207.

Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication. (2011). Rapport au Parlement sur l’emploi de lalangue française. Retrieved from http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/rapport/2011/Rapport_Parlement_2011.pdf

Moore, D., & Gajo, L. (2009). Introduction. French voices on plurilingualism and pluriculturalism:Theory, significance and perspectives. International Journal of Multilingualism andMulticulturalism, 6(2), 137–153.

Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learnersbelieve about their learning? Language Learning, 49(3), 377–415.

Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris: Presses Universitaires deFrance.

Naiman, N., Frolich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesko, A. (1978). The good language learner (Research inEducation Series 7). Toronto: Ontario Institute of Studies in Education.

Nikitina, L., & Furuoka, F. (2006). Re-examining Horwitz’s beliefs about language learning inventory(BALLI) in the Malaysian context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 209–219.

Oxford, R. L. (1986). Development and psychometric testing of the Strategy Inventory of LanguageLearning (SILL). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a182625.pdf

Piquemal, N., & Renaud, R. (2006). University students’ beliefs and attitudes regarding foreignlanguage learning in France. TESL Canada Journal, 24(1), 113–133.

Rieger, B. (2009). Hungarian university students’ beliefs about language learning: A questionnairestudy. Working Papers in Language Pedagogy (WoPaLP), 3, 97–113.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. InA. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15–30).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 82, 498–504.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborativedialogue. In J.-P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tanaka, K., & Ellis, R. (2003). Study-abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about languagelearning. Japanese Association for Language Teaching Journal, 25(1), 63–85.

Taylor, S. K., & Snoddon, K. (2013). Plurilingualism in TESOL: Promising controversies. TESOLQuarterly, 47(3), 439–445.

Tremblay, C. (2010). L’Observatoire européen du plurilinguisme: présentation et projets. In C. Clairis(Ed.), Variétés et enjeux du plurilinguisme (pp. 13–31). Paris: Harmattan.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

82.6

7.13

7.20

8] a

t 06:

26 0

4 M

arch

201

4