*3.3.2 Social mobility and multilingualism*

At earlier, descriptions of multilingualism emphasized on languages as abstract objects, with multilingualism being associated with having a number of independent monolingual systems. Before the industrial revolution, it was uncommon to find people who spoke more than two languages in Europe. As a result, the term multilingualism was first applied to civilizations where multiple languages coexisted, rather than to individuals. Canagarajah [36] for example refers to "national multilingualism" which he defined it as the use of many languages in a country. This concept illustrates how the presence of multiple languages can be a barrier to easy communication because people are not thought to have the ability to quickly learn new languages for trans-local contact. For many years, this perception of multilingualism resulted in its denunciation in communities and among people [37]. On the similar vein, Blommaert [6], mentions that it has since been revisited in light of the ongoing and increasing migration and globalization, which promotes the constant transfer of languages and cultures from one place to another, needing individuals to construct communicative practices that are compliant with the diversity in order to either provide or access services. The peculiar trends of communication observed in certain parts of the world such as South Asia, particularly India [2] and Africa [37] have presented linguists with a complex scenario that prompts more critical attention than just numerical consideration of languages [38]. This, as Blommaert and Heller [6, 39] mention, highlights the situated nature of language practices that makes people acquire and use bits of language that suit particular contexts.

#### *3.3.3 Multilingualism and language practices*

Franceschini [8] elaborates that the concept of multilingualism is to be caught on as the capacity of social orders, teach, bunches, and people to lock in on a customary premise in space and time with more than one dialect in regular life. This means that multilingualism is a product of the fundamental human ability to communicate in a number of languages. Operational distinctions may then be drawn between social, institutional, discursive, and individual multilingualism. This is in line with Groasjean's [33] assessment that "bilingualism" involves open interaction and contact especially involving different cultures. Franceschini [8] further addresses the unfixed nature of communities and practices by acknowledging language use in space and time, and the aspect of contact. She emphasizes the value of communities of practice (institutions and groups) which breed the environment for societal and individual practices that utilize and produce language for different purposes. Groasjean [33] on the other hand asserts that "bilingualism is not a phenomenon of language; it is a characteristic of its use." In an attempt to give a profound description of multilingualism, Cruz-Ferreira [34] emphasizes [32, 33] assertion by viewing "multilingualism" as an aspect of individuals and not of languages. Makoni and Pennycook [32] contend that multilingualism has nothing to do with languages, because languages are not multilingual, rather people are capable. This is not to say that there is not a language element to the concept of multilingualism. It all more strongly mirrors Stewart's [31] argument that language is a local practice formed by individuals' repeated activities in their many communicative interactions in various social contexts. In other words, individuals' social practices (what people do) with languages cause multilingualism [34, 40]. Thus, Makoni and Pennycook [32] suggest that in order to understand and ably describe "multilingualism," there is a need to study speakers' language practices.

#### **3.4 Types of multilingual competence**

Sociolinguists list down different competencies of multilingual speakers. In multilingual societies, not all speakers need to be multilingual. Some states have multilingual policies and recognize several official languages, such as Canada (English and French). In some other states, particular languages may be associated with particular regions in the states, when all speakers are multilingual linguists classify the community according to the functional distribution of the languages involved.

### **4. Language choice and use in multilingual settings**

Resources in a multilingual repertoire are obtained with a variation of competences for use in specific contexts [41] and for specific purposes. Henceforth, language choice is an important aspect to discuss in a study of multilingualism [42, 43]. Gumperz and Duranti [42, 44] moreover keep up that multilingual speakers in multilingual settings continually make choices as to which etymological asset to convey in a given setting and with a given group of bystanders. Gumperz [42] accepts that dialect choice depends on the realization of the communicative capacities of the questioners such that comprehensible is of center intrigued. Myers-Scotton [45] on the other hand asserts that language choice is motivated by performance of identity and negotiation of agency especially during social interactions. With this view, Myers-Scotton [45] is inclined to language choice as a function of identity negotiation whereby every time the communication situation changes and people

### *Multilingualism and Language Choice in Domains DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101660*

assume different subject positions, Kramsch [46] chooses a code that reflects their personae. Meyer and Apfelbaum [47] argue that "cognitive, social and historical aspects may play an important role in multilingual communication such as level of linguistic competence of participants and the degree of linguistic regulation of interaction spaces."

Scholars have identified a number of factors which they believe influence language choice and language use in ethnic minority settings. These are as follows: domain, interlocutors, and topic. These factors are discussed in the following sections:

