Teachers’ implementation of language policy is often approached as an either/or issue: they are denounced for adhering to monolingual policies, or applauded for resisting such policies and including linguistic diversity in class. While demands that linguistic diversity be recognised in schools are justified on principle, this panel explores the possibility that all teachers will, to varying degrees, follow as well as resist monolingual policies because they are facing contrary circumstances that are fundamental to societies inspired by an ideology of liberalism, and to do so it will revisit Billig et al.’s (1988) work on ideological dilemmas. As Billig et al. argue, liberalism is inherently dilemmatic in that it valorizes opposing themes – authority and equality, top-down teaching and bottom-up learning, the collective and the individual – but also commonsensical, constantly inviting everyday problems that require practical compromises through discursive work. Linguistically, in this view, teachers are not faced with a choice between two unrelated ideologies (monolingualism versus multilingualism) but have to navigate a single ideology that values the opposing themes of transparent communication and emancipation through a collective standard variety, as well as respect for individual difference, freedom of expression and equality. Pending a large-scale ideological shift, this may mean that teachers will chronically attend to both contrary poles, vacillate between values rather than radically choose.
The papers in this panel seek to trace the existence of linguistic dilemmas and chronic ambivalence in what teachers say and do in various educational settings. Particular questions focus on how teachers’ articulations about language relate to their everyday language and instructional practice; if contrary values for language mainly appear between teachers’ comments and practices, or also within each of these; whether the form of teachers’ instructional language (strictly monolingual, or marked by loan-words, code-switching, and so on) communicates contradictions or implement compromises; how pupils respond to, or co-construct such compromises; but also what policy proposals can be formulated that take account of conflicting values for language, and what conversation can be set up with teachers to help them negotiate a chronic professional problem.
