English language and linguistics: general interest

Summary

Background

This chapter is a critical reflection on isiXhosa for Journalism (IFJ), a course offered to students of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University in Grahamstown, South Africa. The course represents an intra-university partnership between the Department of African Language Studies (ALS) and the School of Journalism and Media Studies (JMS), but its academic home is the ALS. The chapter responds to the recognition, within research on teaching and learning in higher education, of the role that course evaluation can play in ensuring the integrity of the academic project (Trigwell 2001). The importance of evaluation is acknowledged in Rhodes University's own policy on teaching and learning (RU 2014), which states that ‘evaluation of teaching … is essential as a foundation for continuing professional and educational development within the University and as a base for quality assurance systems’. Boughey (2007) posits that such evaluation should not be performed purely as an administrative process of so-called ‘quality control’; instead, it should form part of reflexive and critical pedagogy. The discussion of the IFJ course demonstrates the importance of this reflexive understanding of evaluation to the achievement of curriculum transformation.

The chapter is organised around the discussion of three moments in the history of the planning and evaluation of this course. The first took place in 2009, when the course was approved by the Faculty of Humanities, as required for new credit-bearing courses in the university. In examining this moment we focus on the course proposal that was presented to Faculty by a task group made up of members of ALS and JMS. We argue that this proposal sought to demonstrate the role that language can play as a contributory tool for transformation of the curriculum in higher education. At the same time, it points to tensions resulting from the integration of a local language requirement in a vocational course, which we later confronted in the design and management of the course. Drawing on scholarship, we demonstrate that these tensions are inherent in the process of transformation that must occur in order to integrate multilingual practices within university environments.

Summary

To date no published textbook takes into account the changing sociolinguistic dynamics that have influenced South Africans to view society less as a cross-cultural and more as an intercultural environment. The scope of this book ranges from macro-sociolinguistic questions pertaining to language policies and their implementation (or non-implementation), to micro-sociolinguistic observations of actual language use in verbal interaction, mainly in the multilingual contexts of higher education. What also makes this book unique is that it brings together various interlinked disciplines, such as Sociolinguistics and Applied Language Studies, Media Studies and Journalism, History and Education, Social and Natural Sciences, Law, Human Language Technology, Music, Intercultural Communication and Literary Studies.

With a focus on matching claims with reality, the book offers a critical survey and constructive assessment of South Africa's democratic achievements regarding ethnolinguistic and cultural plurality and diversity since the introduction of majority rule. Given that the contributors represent various fields of academic expertise and practical experience, it is remarkable that there is an unsolicited unanimity in their views on where South Africa stands in the ongoing battle for equity, mutual respect and justice for all, as well as their views on future challenges of societal transformation and how to address them. All contributors appear to share the view that mother-tongue-based multilingual, multiliteracy and multicultural strategies in education, and higher education in particular, would help meet these challenges in South Africa and the African continent. Reflecting robust sociolinguistic and pedagogic underpinnings, such strategies would be supported by putting into practice contemporary human language technology.

The book is written in simple and accessible English and includes multilingual examples to engage students and provide a better understanding of the theory drawn from sociolinguistic textbooks and the work of scholars in Africa, Europe and America. Throughout the book, text that is not in English is italicised. This is a stylistic convention used to avoid confusion and is not intended to ‘other’ any African languages or Afrikaans.

Finally, this book is an intellectual celebration of 20 years of democracy in South Africa.

Summary

Since 1994, South Africans have conscientiously placed much value on and effort into policy creation at national, provincial and local government levels. This includes the Constitution, policies that are underpinned by the Constitution, policies which dictate how business is to be done, how we receive social welfare and under what guidelines we are to be educated – policies that dictate how we live, how we prosper or otherwise, and what happens when we die. We are now arguably at the point where the country suffers from policy fatigue. We find ourselves speeding along a national policy autobahn highway where there are few rest stops allowing us to pause, to think about the consequences of these policies and how to put them into motion. Our policy fatigue results from the lack of policy implementation. Arguably we are a nation of debaters, a strength proven in our own negotiated political settlement. However, implementation is about getting things done and this is now the challenge that faces language policy and planning initiatives.

The necessity for the intellectualisation of our African languages falls directly within this paradigm of implementation. One must nonetheless also acknowledge that there can be no successful implementation without firm policy in place. According to Finlayson and Madiba (2002: 41), ‘with … a clear policy framework, language intellectualisation … is more likely to succeed’. The chapter starts by discussing what is meant by ‘intellectualising’ African languages, then briefly highlights the relevant policy framework within which that happens. (This is dealt with in further detail in chapters 2 and 3.) Best practice in terms of policy implementation is then discussed against the backdrop of new developments such as the National Research Foundation (NRF) SARChI Chair in the Intellectualisation of African Languages, Multilingualism and Education, as well as the National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences’ (NIHSS) Catalytic Project in Concept Formation in African Languages.

Defining intellectualisation

The term ‘intellectualisation’ could be considered a controversial one when it comes to African languages. One may well ask: Are not all languages equally intellectualised, underpinned by sophisticated, rule-governed and elaborate grammatical and sociolinguistic systems, regardless of whether or not they are used as languages of learning and teaching (LoLT) or in high-status domain areas such as politics? The answer to this is probably affirmative.

Summary

The context

South African society is characterised by particular challenges relating to practically all types of multilingualism: territorial, institutional, societal and individual. In facing these challenges, South Africa is similar to other African postcolonies where, as a result of their political histories, a de jure language policy hegemonically imposes an official language which is foreign to the majority of the population. This makes the linguistic situation in the postcolonies quite distinct from that in the former colonial motherlands, such as the UK and other European countries, where the official language is the mother tongue (MT) of the vast majority of the population (albeit as the result of historical processes of equally hegemonic imposition, even if only to impose a ‘standard’ variety on a multitude of dialects). This European policy model of hegemonic monolingualism has been uncritically adopted by many post-independent African countries despite the completely different sociocultural and sociolinguistic ecology in which language policies in Africa must function, including in the higher education (HE) terrain. Following the overthrow of apartheid and guided by the country's new Constitution, South Africa has broken with the European colonialist tradition and has opted for a remarkable, multilingual official language policy which is unique in allowing for 11 official languages: nine indigenous African languages (of ‘Bantu’ linguistic stock) plus the two former hegemonic languages of European provenance, English and Afrikaans.

Multilingualism in South African society in general, and in HE in particular, is understood to be the accepted parallel use of several languages either by individual speakers with different language backgrounds and linguistic biographies, or by whole communities of speakers who have settled for patterns of communicative behaviour which are characterised by using more than one language functionally in different domains and for different purposes. Parallel use of more than one language may take different forms and instantiations, involving respective mono-, bi- and trilingual discourse patterns, including practices like code-meshing or code-switching and nonce-borrowings, now referred to as ‘translanguaging’. Such multilingual communication practices, albeit common in day-to-day verbal interaction among multilingual individuals, were regarded with disapproval and were excluded from the domains of formal education. Often in the colonial and even postcolonial African school reality, children were explicitly forbidden to use their mother tongues or home languages (L1) on school premises and were punished when caught doing so.

Summary

The context

As a country with 11 official languages, South Africa is strongly reliant on a lingua franca for communication across linguistic and cultural borders. With the hegemony of Afrikaans steadily declining since the transition to an inclusive democracy in 1994, English has, not surprisingly, emerged as the most powerful contender, its status as a global language no doubt serving as the driving force. Perceived as a status marker, for many South Africans English has become symbolic of education, affluence, internationalism and freedom (for example, see Nomlomo 2004; Sigcau 2004; Heugh 2007). It is regarded as serving not only the nation in promoting public and cross-cultural communication2 but even more so the individual, as the golden key to upward socioeconomic mobility. How this perception of the value of English will affect traditional identities, indigenous languages and cultural heritage is a moot point. Whatever the long-term effect, South Africans who at this point in time have acceptable levels of proficiency in English, certainly do benefit from it (Heugh 2007). For this reason, the conviction prevails that all South African learners should be allowed equal and sufficient opportunities to attain an enabling level of English proficiency. The reality, however, is that comparatively few South African learners have been afforded such access and, ‘whilst English is believed to be the horizontal language of access, it has in effect become the vertical language of exclusion’ (Heugh 2007: 200).

Scholars such as Nomlomo (2004) and Probyn (2005) have referred to a common misconception that being exposed to English as medium of instruction (MoI)3 for as much time as possible, regardless of the learner's first language (L1), is a secure strategy for attaining a high level of proficiency in the MoI. Although the national Language in Education Policy (DoE 1997) promotes, on linguistically solid grounds, additive bilingualism4 with the home language as MoI at least during the foundational years, it is widely agreed that this policy has not been actively implemented (Plüddemann et al. 2004; Heugh 2007; Beukes 2008). According to Probyn (2005), the African schools that adapted their language policy generally chose to incorporate English as the language of learning and teaching at an even earlier stage than is recommended.

Summary

What does knowing an individual's cultural identity tell you about that individual? If you assume that that individual is like everyone else in that culture, you have stereotyped all the many various people in that culture into one mould. You know that you are different from others in your culture. Other cultures are as diverse. The diversity within cultures probably exceeds the differences between cultures. So, just knowing a person's cultural identity doesn't provide complete or reliable information about that person.

Fred E Jandt, An Introduction to Intercultural Communication

This chapter investigates intercultural communication in literary texts. The chapter analyses Sesotho and isiZulu novels, aiming to answer the following questions: What is it that texts encourage or discourage about personal, relational and communal identities? How do texts represent cultural identities such as age, gender, religion, social class, race, ethnicity and nationality, among other aspects? Do they represent intercultural interaction that encourages the positive interplay between cultural differences and similarities? What do they present as barriers to intercultural communication, or its facilitators?

Underpinning the chapter is the contextual approach to intercultural communication proposed by Neuliep (2012). The approach is ‘based on the idea that whenever people from different cultures come together and exchange verbal and nonverbal messages, they do so within a variety of contexts, including a cultural, micro-cultural, environmental, socio-relational and perceptual context’ (Neuliep 2012: xiii).

At this stage, it may perhaps be useful to answer the question: What is ‘intercultural communication’? Intercultural communication occurs between people of different cultures and involves a ‘minimum of two persons from different cultures’ (Neuliep 2012: 24). As a field of study, intercultural communication concentrates on intercultural relationships based on the dynamics at work in those intercultural interactions (Martin and Nakayama 2007). It is from narratives of such relationships that ‘we can learn a tremendous amount about other people and their cultures and about ourselves and our own cultural background’ (Martin and Nakayama 2007: 4).

Summary

Theorising about cultural translation

The concept of ‘cultural translation’, which underlies this discussion, has its roots in the discipline of cultural anthropology. In his convincing article, ‘The Concept of Cultural Translation in British Social Anthropology’, Asad (2010: 26–27) provides a critical account of the concept of cultural translation, as follows:

The process of ‘cultural translation’ is inevitably enmeshed in conditions of power – professional, national, international. And among these conditions is the authority of ethnographers to uncover the implicit meanings of subordinate societies. Given that that is so, the interesting question for enquiry is not whether, and if so to what extent, anthropologists should be relativists or nationalists, critical or charitable, toward other cultures, but how power enters into the process of ‘cultural translation’, seen both as a discursive and as a non-discursive practice.

In the same vein, Sturge (2007: 8–9) complements this view when pointing out that:

The powerful ethnographic ‘authority’ of the text subsumes the voice of the original speakers into seamless written English partly by hiding the processes of editing and translation that have gone on … Because of the unequal relationship between the cultures concerned, the translation does not remain cordoned off inside some Western ivory tower but instead takes up a powerful position in the practical world.

In the light of the aforementioned observations, it is worth commenting briefly on imperatives related to the work of ‘transpreters'1 and their pre-statement taking and record reconstruction of sworn statements within the police service:

Summary

Background

Although access to higher education (HE) in South Africa has widened since 1994 to reflect the country's linguistic and cultural diversity, patterns of high failure and repetition rates, underperformance and low throughput rates remain typically linked to race and language (see Statistics on Post-School Education and Training in South Africa: 2011 [DHET 2013]; Review of Higher Education in South Africa: Selected Themes [CHE 2007]; Higher Education Monitor: The State of Higher Education in South Africa [CHE 2009]). Multilingualism is now a norm in South African HE, as it is an acknowledged societal norm in the country at large. However, it is a norm only as far as the linguistic composition of students and (to a lesser extent) staff is concerned. Teaching in most institutions is monolingual in the medium of English, which is a second language to most South African HE students. The choice for English as a language of learning and teaching (LoLT), especially for speakers of languages other than English, may be considered a historical legacy. On the one hand, English is historically the language of academia in South Africa, given the marginalisation of African languages in HE during the pre-1994 period. On the other hand, it is a global language and is seen as presenting opportunities for economic and social mobility. African languages are not regarded as well-developed enough for use as languages of academia (Jokweni 2004). Research on bi- and multilingual teaching and learning that embraces African languages in HE (Bamgbose 1991; Obanya 2004) is also not considered advanced enough to provide models that can be used to support cognition, and therefore success and throughput for English second language (ESL) students (Mesthrie 2008). Yet this research confirms the important relationship between language and cognition in the learning process, and illustrates that the mother tongue of a learner is critical in contributing to quality education.

The relationship between language and learning is motivated by the fact that students enter a learning process in possession of their mother tongue with its set of linguistic and conceptual knowledge. Cummins (1981), one of the proponents of mother-tongue-based bilingual learning, argues that bilingual learners should be encouraged to draw on their mother tongue to acquire new knowledge, and opportunities should be presented for the newly acquired knowledge to be contextualised within the pre-existing knowledge, and new knowledge to emerge in this process.

Summary

Defining language planning

In this chapter, we cover three themes. In this section we introduce and define language planning. In the next section, we present a brief history of language planning in South Africa prior to 1994, building on the material provided in chapter 2. In the final section, we discuss post-democratic language planning in South Africa.

Language planning has been practised for many years. However, as an academic discipline, language planning began to develop in the 1960s, generally located within the field of sociolinguistics. Today it is a discipline that boasts mainstream peer-reviewed journals such as Current Issues in Language Planning (see Kamwangamalu [2001] for an article on South Africa's language planning situation), Language Problems and Language Planning (see volume 28 number 2, 2004, for a special issue on South Africa) and Language Policy. In South African and other journals, there are numerous articles on the language planning situation in South Africa, with special attention being paid to the post-apartheid era during which the country's official language policy has been transformed from legislating only two official languages (English and Afrikaans) to legislating eleven official languages (English, Afrikaans and nine African languages), a transformation driven by the country's Constitution.

We now offer a definition (or definitions) for the key term ‘language planning’. Various definitions have been offered. For example, Cooper (1989) refers to at least 12 definitions of language planning, noting that in some literature, language planning, language regulation, language management and language engineering are used synonymously. For the current chapter, we take language planning to be a ‘deliberate, systematic, and theory-based attempt to solve communication problems of a community by studying its various languages or dialects, and developing an official language policy concerning their selection and use’ (Crystal 1992: 220). Applied to the case of South Africa, language planning entails a systematic and theory-based attempt to address the country's linguistic communication challenges. Among other things, this means taking into consideration the linguistic profile of the entire nation and coming up with appropriate language policies for particular domains, such as education, the South African Broadcasting Corporation or the military.

Summary

The context

Numerous studies have shown that South African children in rural and township schools are failing to reach grade-appropriate benchmarks in literacy and numeracy. Several educationists and researchers, including Ntuli and Pretorius (2005), Fleisch (2008) and Ramphele (Mail & Guardian 23 March 2012) have reiterated that South African schooling is in crisis. Evidence also suggests that training initiatives by government continue to have little impact on classroom practice (Metcalfe 2008; Taylor, Van der Berg and Mabogoane 2013). While thousands of preservice and in-service teachers upgrade their qualifications year after year, in many schools, little changes. Efforts made by the Department of Higher Education and Training to increase the number of qualified teachers have had little or no impact on rural and township schools. One-off training workshops, though well intentioned, still leave these learners at low levels of cognition and literacy, and locked into their everyday knowledges. University academics are often cut off from classrooms and are hardly ever able to follow up on their certificated teachers.

The failure of top-down training provokes us to point to the distinction between teacher training and teacher development models of professionalisation (Barnes 1975; Allwright 1983; Stern 1983; Ramani 1987; Gains 2010). Teacher training tends to be top-down and is often a lock-step transmission of policy statements and pedagogic procedures (as in the current highly scripted Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements [CAPS] directives, which offer minute- by-minute guidelines). Models of teacher development, on the other hand, perceive teachers as being autonomous professionals capable of integrating their own beliefs about teaching and learning with pedagogic practices and of engaging with policy in empowering ways.

However, the history of apartheid and post-apartheid South Africa shows the continuation of policies driven from above, such as fundamental pedagogics, Outcomes-Based Education (OBE), the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) and the current CAPS. While policies and textbooks are necessary, they are ineffective if not coupled with effective teacher development initiatives, sensitive to teachers’ contexts and constraints.

To date, there has been no published textbook which takes into account changing sociolinguistic dynamics that have influenced South African society. Multilingualism and Intercultural Communication breaks new ground in this arena. The scope of this book ranges from macro-sociolinguistic questions pertaining to language policies and their implementation (or non-implementation) to micro-sociolinguistic observations of actual language-use in verbal interaction, mainly in multilingual contexts of Higher Education (HE). There is a gradual move for the study of language and culture to be taught in the context of (professional) disciplines in which they would be used, for example, Journalism and African languages, Education and African languages, etc. The book caters for this growing market. Because of its multilingual nature, it caters to English and Afrikaans language speakers, as well as the Sotho and Nguni language groups – the largest languages in South Africa [and also increasingly used in the context of South African Higher Education]. It brings together various inter-linked disciplines such as Sociolinguistics and Applied Language Studies, Media Studies and Journalism, History and Education, Social and Natural Sciences, Law, Human Language Technology, Music, Intercultural Communication and Literary Studies. The unique cross-cutting disciplinary features of the book will make it a must-have for twenty-first century South African students and scholars and those interested in applied language issues.

Summary

Early contributions

This chapter begins by sketching out the story of the isiXhosa alphabet to demonstrate how it came about that we use the same alphabet of 26 letters as is used in European languages. Reverend Johannes van der Kemp was the first missionary who, in 1799, devised a specimen of the isiXhosa alphabet and a word list with 21 sections (see tables 4.1 and 4.2). Since he did not stay long among the amaXhosa, there was no follow-up on his work so his contribution to the development of isiXhosa was not generally recognised. History acknowledges John Bennie from the Glasgow Missionary Society as the first missionary to produce a published text, which he did in 1824, when John Ross arrived with a printing press at Tyhume Valley, today known as Lovedale.

In the examples shown in tables 4.1 and 4.2 below, the semi-vowel [w] is represented by the vowel [o] in words like bao = bawo, umthakabao = umntakabawo. The closed vowel [u] is signified by two vowels, which are the semi-closed vowel [o] and the closed vowel [u] as in umthounzi = umthunzi, izifouba = izifuba. Reverend van der Kemp found isiXhosa to be totally different from the other languages he knew. He also noticed that the alveolar vibrant [r] does not exist in isiXhosa and that when isiXhosa speakers pronounced a foreign word in which it occurred, they substituted it with the ordinary alveolar lateral consonant [l].

Since the name ‘Kaffir’ is used in the titles cited in the following discussion, it is important to inform the reader that at first, isiXhosa was referred to as a ‘Kaffir’ language. McLaren (1914: v), in the introduction to his A Kaffir–English Dictionary, makes reference to this as follows: ‘By the word Kaffir is here meant the language spoken by the Native people of Bantu race, living in the Eastern portion of Cape Province in South Africa.’ The use of the term was discontinued due to its negative connotation, and when some of the books were revised, the word ‘Xhosa’ was adopted. For example, McLaren's 1914 edition of A Kaffir– English Dictionary was revised by John Bennie, one of the founders of Lovedale Mission. His revision was published in 1936 as A Concise Xhosa–English Dictionary.

Summary

Sections 6 and 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) make critical provisions related to the language question – specifically, the official status of languages, the ‘right to language’ and the ‘right of a language’. According to Van der Merwe and Van der Merwe (2006), South Africans speak the following official languages: Sesotho sa Leboa, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu. Essentially, almost 70% of South Africans are speakers of African languages or have an African language as their mother tongue. On the contrary, almost 30% are speakers of either Afrikaans or English or have Afrikaans or English as their mother tongue. The rest are speakers of languages such as German, Portuguese, Mandarin, Greek, Hindu, Italian and so on. Additionally, policies and legislations such as the Language in Education Policy (DoE 1997), the Pan South African Language Board Act 59 of 1995 (amended as PanSALB Amended Act of 1999), the Language Policy Framework for South African Higher Education (CHE 2001), the National Language Policy Framework (DAC 2002) and the South African Languages Bill 23 of 2011 all articulate and support the promotion, protection and development of previously disadvantaged indigenous languages. This has been pointed out in earlier chapters.

A closer look at the educational reality leaves much to be desired. Maseko and Kaschula (2009: 130–131) point out that ‘our education system produces professionals who are largely incompetent in the languages of the clients they serve and, consequently, their service is lacking and less informed by their clients’ needs’. As a consequence of this situation, ‘students trained in South African higher education institutions [HEIs] are not able to cope in South Africa's multilingual and multicultural environment as they are not able to provide a service to the majority of the people they are supposed to serve’ (Maseko and Kaschula 2009: 130–131). These observations by Maseko and Kaschula are of particular interest in our work, for two reasons. Firstly, everything that we view, our very perception of reality, is mediated through language.

Summary

This chapter examines the development of isiXhosa lexicography, focusing on how the need to learn this language by people external to the isiXhosa speech community, particularly missionaries, gave impetus to the production of dictionaries in the language. Most isiXhosa dictionaries are, therefore, products of intercultural communication in two ways. Firstly, the need to produce most of the dictionaries, particularly the earliest ones, was due to people outside of the isiXhosa speech community whose adventures required that they interact with local communities. Secondly, the production of the dictionaries themselves relied heavily on intercultural communication between lexicographers, mostly missionaries, who were non-mother-tongue speakers of the language, and members of the local speech community who acted as informants in dictionary- making. The pitfalls of such intercultural encounters are highlighted in isiXhosa dictionaries in the form of misconceptions about the traditional cultural practices of amaXhosa.

Besides cultural misrepresentations in the early dictionaries, the nature of the dictionaries was such that isiXhosa speakers could not use the dictionaries for the purposes of learning their language since English was used as the language of explication. Neither could they use the dictionaries in order to learn English as the dictionaries were not conceived with such a purpose in mind. Although the dictionaries were bilingual, they were unidirectional, with isiXhosa being the only target of language learning. However, the promotion of official multilingualism in post-apartheid South Africa has culminated in the production of monolingual dictionaries in African languages such as isiXhosa and bidirectional bilingual dictionaries that support the learning of English together with African languages, from the foundation phase of basic education to tertiary education.

In view of the context in which isiXhosa dictionaries are produced and used today, this chapter follows McArthur (1986, 1998), who regards dictionaries as containers of knowledge, and other scholars who consider dictionaries as utility tools (Wiegand 1984; Bergenholtz and Tarp 2003; Tarp 2008). Ilson (1985: 1) considers the dictionary to be ‘the most successful and significant book about language’. Therefore, while critical of some existing isiXhosa dictionaries, this chapter is cautious about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

English language and linguistics: general interest

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

21506 results in English language and linguistics: general interest

12 - Language and media: isiXhosa in Journalism and Media Studies at a South African university

Summary

Preface

Summary

1 - Researching the intellectualisation of African languages, multilingualism and education

Summary

Abbreviations and acronyms

Contributors

Contents

Part Five - Language, culture and intercultural communication

2 - Language empowerment and intellectualisation through multilingual higher education in South Africa

Summary

7 - Managing multilingualism in education: policies and practices

Summary

Acknowledgements

16 - Language, intercultural communication and literature

Summary

11 - Language and law: ‘cultural translation’ of narratives into sworn statements

Summary

13 - Using African languages to teach Science in higher education

Summary

Part One - African language empowerment: concept formation and intellectualisation

3 - Language planning in South Africa: a history

Summary

10 - Teacher development: promoting a biliteracy approach to epistemic access

Summary

Multilingualism and Intercultural Communication

4 - Language and terminology development in isiXhosa: a history

Summary

9 - Language development and multilingualism at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology

Summary

6 - IsiXhosa dictionaries, language learning and intercultural communication

Summary

English language and linguistics: general interest

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

21506 results in English language and linguistics: general interest

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Multilingualism and Intercultural Communication

Summary

Summary

Summary