LESSON 1

HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL

ASPECTS OF ENGLISH-
SPEAKING COUNTRIES

Profª Jane Helen Gomes de Lima

1
INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the discipline Historical and Cultural Aspects of English-

speaking countries. We are going to explore the cultural and historical aspects
surrounding the different uses of the English language through a more
contemporary and critical lens offered by the English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)
field. In order to further discuss ELF, some prior comprehensions must be aligned,
so, the first three lessons are going to lay the foundations of our discussions.
In this first lesson, an introduction to the main points required to understand
the Historical and Cultural Aspects of English is done through the organization of
the points shown below. These topics are going to be retrieved and explored
throughout our course.
This lesson is prepared as an introduction to this class that will claim a
contemporary approach to the varied uses of the English language found
worldwide. Such understanding, once appropriated, poses the potential of
transforming teachers’ English class practices.
In light of this proposal, the organization of this lesson is presented below:

• Theme 1: Language teaching

− A brief overview of language and cognition
− The role of language teachers in the teaching and learning
• Theme 2: Language as a social construct
− A multilingual approach to language teaching and learning
• Theme 3: Bilingualism and Multilingualism
− Monolingualism x bilingualism/multilingualism
• Theme 4: Linguistic variation
− Linguistic hegemony and prejudice
• Theme 5: Counter-hegemonic contemporary views on English uses

THEME 1 – LANGUAGE TEACHING

For this first topic, we are going to explore the interrelations between
language and cognition that is essential for teachers to understand, especially the
ones working in the Language (Letras) field.
The symbolic aspect of language that allows us to talk about things not only
found in the present — but also in the past and future — will be discussed as being

2
a feature of the human language. This detachment of immediate
surroundings is not found in any other type of communication (such as of the
primates, for instance).
Taking this into consideration, we are going to reflect upon our role as
language teachers as mediators in the dyad teacher/learner of English as an
additional language.

1.1 A brief overview of language and cognition

Language is part of the human system of tools. Human beings' first use of
language is probably derived from the need to communicate with the ones
surrounding them. This way, communication is the most well-known function that
languaging (the act of using language to communicate) presents; however, it is not
the most important one. Vygotsky (1987) enlightened that language and human
cognition are deeply interrelated.
You must have already heard that animals can also communicate with one
another. Nonetheless, studies have shown that animals’ form of communication is
limited and dependent on the context. Human communication, on the other
hand, is unlimited and unbounded to the moment. Because of language,
people have the power to project plans for the future (immediate or far away), and
also retrieve memories from the past. Probably, never have you thought about the
complexity of these actions. To be able to think at all (i.e. imagine things detached
from the here and now) demands the ability “to operate on representations of
reality” (Lantolf; Thorne, 2066, p. 29). This detachment from reality can only be
done through the use of symbolic tools, being language the most representative
sociocultural tool.
The different uses of language allow human beings to organize and control
their own mental functions, while also influencing their surroundings and the people
in them. For this reason, as can be seen, language is an essential part of cultural
development.

1.2 The role of language teachers in the teaching and learning

Language being a symbolic-cultural tool, it is not inherent to human beings,

so, it cannot be directly acquired from the environment. To be honest, the process
is quite more complex than that because to learn a language, it is necessary to

3
have a more experienced peer mediating the linguistic inventories (i.e. lexical,
structures, functions, meanings, and so forth) of the language (Vygotsky, 1987)
during varied types of interactions. Here is where language teachers find
themselves.
Students cannot learn a language without interacting with someone who has
mastered it and can ‘expose’ the ‘mechanics’ of the language. Of course, it does
not mean students depend solely on teachers to learn. Nowadays, knowledge is
very accessible; for example, on the internet, it is possible to find books, sites, and
videos that can emulate the role of mediators, and through them, students might be
able to learn a language.
That said, it is important to understand that face-to-face interactions have
their own specificities that other types of (virtual/mediated) interactions cannot
replace. So, classes in general are hard to be replaced. Despite the diverse
materials available out there, students may need teachers because they might not
have reached the level of autonomy necessary to navigate their paths through the
complexity that is language learning. Moreover, in a collaborative environment of
learning, such as language classes, teachers can monitor their students' progress
and adjust the teaching to the learning observed. This is a kind of mediation that
demands high-quality interactions among people.

THEME 2 – LANGUAGE AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

We have talked that learning demands the mediation of a more experienced

peer. In language teaching, this experienced other has to mediate the linguistic
repertoire (referential meanings, phonology; morphosyntax) of the language in
focus. Put in another way, teachers must help students thrive in the language,
adjusting the interaction to an appropriate level. For this, teachers must understand
that language is a communicative activity (Lantolf; Thorne, 2006).
Languages are fluid, ever-changing, dynamic entities. Not recognizing these
aspects means going against contemporary approaches to language acquisition.
In times of the ascendence of multilingualism, a stable and homogenous
understanding of language communities must be deconstructed.

4
2.1 A multilingual approach to language teaching and learning

According to Zavala (2018), studies in multilingualism have been

challenging binary views that seem to be fossilized in the field, such as ‘first/second
language’, ‘native/non-native’, ‘speaker/non-speaker’, among others. It is
important to understand that speaking (or even writing) in a language means much
more than only being able to use the language’s system. Speaking and writing in
a language should be understood as the act of communicating and exchanging
ideas and/or information. Everyone who can be able to communicate — notice that
we are not mentioning aspects such as ‘standard language, grammar or
pronunciation’ — should be considered a legitimate language user (Jenkins,
2015).
In light of that, the teaching and learning of a language should not be directly
linked to a specific culture or country either. English language teaching and learning
have a long history of tying together the learning of this language to the cultural
values and beliefs of English-speaking countries, mainly represented by the
hegemonic dyad USA-England.
As an English teacher, have you ever questioned why only the so-called
‘American and British’ English(es) are represented in language books? Why can’t
we find Australian/Canadian/New Zealand English books? These inquiries were
(and still are) discussed by many contemporary scholars, and they highlight that
there is a hegemonic approach to the teaching and learning of languages, and for
this reason, the field seems to support intrinsic values attributed to speakers of
specific contexts (Storto; Biondo, 2016).
Based on a more critical view of language, it is understood that language
classes should drop teaching and learning processes bounded toward specific
language contexts. The focus of language educational processes should be on the
development of students’ communicational skills.
Communication does not mean linguistic rules, as defended by structural
views on language. For this, observe that the teaching and learning of grammar,
vocabulary, pronunciation, and other structures that make up a language are to be
taught and learned as they are part of speakers’ linguistic repertoires and are
needed in the flux of interactions; however, these language structures are not the
reason for a communication activity to take place. The message is! Whenever
there is an exchange among interlocutors, their main purpose is to convey an idea,

5
so, if interlocutors can keep exchanging, and communicating their minds in an
intelligible way, they are said to be capable language speakers/users.
In a multilingual approach to language, teachers should support the
development of their students’ linguistic repertoire aiming for their ability to be
intelligible in their communicational exchange, and it means that students should
learn how to explore all the potential of their linguistic repertoire — i.e. be able to
negotiate meanings whenever needed, to use a responsive body of language; to
explore mutually shared languages; among other linguistic abilities.
In sum, it is important to understand that the conceptualization of language
has been transformed, it should not be seen as a static entity but as the result of
dynamic processes. That said, language now is understood as the result of
discursive practices “in which languages occur and also involves placing speakers
at the centre of these practices as those who use, adapt and change the available
linguistic resources (language) according to their needs” (Storto; Biondo, 2016, p.
82)

THEME 3 – BILINGUALISM AND MULTILINGUALISM

In light of the previous sections, it should be clear now that an approach to

language as a social practice recognizes that it is not just a set of rules or
grammatical structures, but also a social tool used to communicate meaning,
express identity, and negotiate social relationships. Moving on, now let us think
about the meaning of multilingualism, especially when language teachers are
inserted in places that may make use of the slogan ‘bilingual education’. Do you
think this slogan is clear? Have you ever thought it can have different dimensions
and understandings? Let us now dive into this direction.
It is essential to clarify that, in this course, we are going to consider
bilingualism and multilingualism as being part of the same phenomenon: there are
“more bilingual/multilingual speakers in the world than there are monolinguals”
(Bhatia; Ritchie, 2012, p. xxi). The scholars Bhatia and Ritchie (2012) point out that
in the field of bilingualism and multilingualism, terminologies may become an
immediate issue. For this reason, these authors enlighten that bilingualism with its
bi- term is initially used to mean two, and the term multi-, found in multilingualism,
conveys the idea of more than two languages. Moreover, they indicate that the
term bilingualism alone can also cover the range of phenomena referred to by both

6
terms. To distance themselves from this issue of bi-/multilingualism, they adopt,
yet, a third term found in the field named plurilingualism.
As you can see, when referring to the phenomenon of speaking multiple
languages, different terminological choices can be made depending on the
scholars assumed by you. So, acknowledging that terminologies in the field of
bilingualism and multilingualism might be an issue, we clarify that in this course,
we will use these two terms interchangeably. This means that, at times, when
referring to the global phenomenon of using two or more languages in interactions,
we may use just one term (usually the term ‘multilingualism’), or even both of them,
with no interference in the meaning of the message being transmitted.
This is a theoretically sound choice based on studies in the field of
multilingualism. For example, Wei (2008) considers a multilingual speaker
someone who uses more than his/her mother tongue (L1); which according to the
statistics, is a good representation of how communications take place around the
globe. Improving Fishman’s (1980 apud Wei, 2008) idea, Wei assumes that
bilingualism and multilingualism can represent both an individual and a societal
phenomenon. In other words, it is inseparable, just like two sides of the same coin,
therefore, their meaning is interchangeable. This author explains that:

A multilingual individual is anyone who can communicate in more than

one language, be it active (through speaking and writing) or passive
(through listening and reading). Multilingual individuals may have
become what they are through very different experiences: some may
have acquired and maintained one language during childhood, the so-
called first language (L1), and learned other languages later in life, while
others have acquired two or more first languages since birth (Wei, 2008,
p. 4).

In this discussion, Azevedo and Lima (2022) highlight that the term ‘bilingual
education’ may cover different ideologies and meanings that plenty of rule makers
are not at all times aware of when including these terms in their documents. So,
here is where we fit this discussion. You, in the position of leading a class, should
know the features of multilingualism to construct better sound pedagogical
practices.

3.1 Monolingualism x bilingualism/multilingualism

Azevedo and Lima (2022) call attention to the fact that when
bilingualism/multilingualism is evoked in a context, this phenomenon is partially
understood and considered as the ability that an individual has to use two or more

7
distinct linguistic systems. They point out that this idea of ‘distinct linguistic
systems’ is an erroneous assumption since, as we have seen, using a language is
more about the social practices speakers engage in than the systems used
themselves. Moreover, multilingual users are speakers who in their interactions
can explore their linguistic repertoire in creative ways (Cogo, 2018); for this reason,
they should not be considered as having the ability to speak their languages as
monolinguals of those languages (Wei, 2013), having different linguistic systems.
Let us understand that in detail. We, Brazilian speakers of English, are
multilinguals. We use our linguistic resources in accordance with our necessities
and interlocutors. We are free to make use of and explore our linguistic systems
the way we feel most appropriate to convey our message and maintain the flux of
our communication. We are not to be considered as two monolinguals in one body,
our languages are not separated islands, and we do not have to develop the same
communicative competencies in all of our languages as we might use each of them
for different purposes (Zimmer; Finger; Scherer, 2008).
Savignon (2017) explains that communicative competence is a construct
dating from the early 1970s that emphasizes the purpose of learning as being its
usage. This concept enlightens us that language development and evaluation
should be based on one’s ability to use the language in focus. This concept was
groundbreaking, at the time, as the ideas of language teaching and learning were
different back then. According to this author, considering the “1960s academic
theories in linguistics and learning psychology upon which the prevailing
recommendation for classroom language teaching methods and materials were
based, [...], the introduction of communicative competence as a guide for the
teaching and evaluation of learners proved nothing short of revolutionary”
(Savignon, 2017, p. 1). Notwithstanding, some people still faced it with hostility and
skepticism.
As you can see, discussions on the ways of teaching and learning
languages are not new, however, some beliefs are so deeply fossilized that
teachers and students feel challenged when a more communicative view of
language is presented. Teachers should be open to multilingualism in class, as the
linguistic purism with the use of only target languages in classes seems odd with
this contemporary view, as well as not very effective. Multiculturalism should now
be part of English language classes as English is being used widely around the
globe.

8
 This more contemporary approach can offer numerous advantages as
teachers and students can develop and explore their abilities to communicate
using all their shared linguistic repertoire, while also negotiating new ones. For
sure, it helps increase awareness and appreciation for cultural diversity. In
summary, teachers and students must develop an understanding that language is
a social practice, not a system. This understanding emphasizes the social, cultural,
and pragmatic aspects of language use, and challenges beliefs rooted in the
language learning and teaching field.

THEME 4 – LINGUISTIC VARIATION

Our role as teachers in language classes is to mediate the linguistic

inventories of the language we teach. To reach this objective, we have to be aware
that these linguistic resources are dynamic, so they go through modifications over
time, and can be adjusted to communicative purposes in accordance with the
communicative activity taking place.
In light of what has been aforementioned, it is paramount to elucidate that
language is related to many aspects of life such as the social status and cultural
background of speakers. A journalist named Angela Carter once wrote that
“[l]anguage is power, life and the instrument of culture, the instrument of
domination and liberation (CARTER, 1997, p. 30). Studies in the field of Linguistic
Variation point out that Carter could not be more right!
Who has never heard the expression “falar errado” in Portuguese? Have
you ever reflected on what you understand by this expression? Let us do a short
activity in 8 steps.

PRACTICAL ACTIVITY
Think about someone you know that speaks ‘very proper Portuguese’. Write
on a piece of paper the features of this specific speaker that makes you consider
him/her a person who makes proper use of the Portuguese language.

Now, let us do the opposite.

To Think about someone who you know that speaks ‘broken Portuguese’
(i.e. someone who you would consider to speak a ‘Portuguese errado’). In another
piece of paper, write the features of this person’s communication that make you
consider him/her as the right person in this activitiy.

9
 Now let us reflect based on the answers given.

What are the differences in the communications of the people chosen?

Are they native speakers of Portuguese?

Are they able to convey their messages during interactions?

Are they able to understand and be understood by others?

Were they from the same social background?

Why have you considered them to have different linguistic qualities?

Reflect on what it means.

4.1 Linguistic hegemony and prejudice

Society develops through languaging. People think, communicate, and

make transformations in technology and ideas by means of languaging. In other
words, what people think, say, and do interweave language, society, and culture
in idealogical-political ways (Lucena; Rafael, 2020).
Language is a social practice, not only a system. A teaching and
learning process based solely on the latter premise tends to focus mostly on the
component parts of a language: substance, form, and meaning. McCarthy and
Clancy (2019) explain each of these three parts of the English language.

Substance refers to the sounds the language uses (phonic substance),

for example, its vowels and consonants, and the symbols used in writing
(graphic substance). Next, we have three basic types of form: grammar,
lexis and phonology. In the case of grammar, English forms include past-
tense endings, modal verbs and prepositions, along with rules for putting
these together (syntax). The lexical forms consist of words, which follow
rules for vowel and consonant combinations, how they combine with other
words in collocations, fixed expressions, etc. and how they interact with
the grammar. Phonology gives us the forms for pronunciation, stress (the
syllable with most intensity) and intonation (e.g. whether the voice rises
or falls). The third component, meaning, refers to what the combinations
of form and substance signify (the semantics). In English, the form was
speaking signifies past time, green and blue signify particular colours and
rising intonation often signifies a question. If we reverse this perspective,
meaning is what we intend to say, form is how we assemble the message
using appropriate words, grammar and sounds (or written symbols), and
substance is what we actually say or write (MacCarthy; Clancy, 2019, p.
201, italics in the original).

No one can ever say that these three features of languages are not
important, but it is essential to emphasize that THEY ARE NOT THE PURPOSE
of the language. By now, we should already have internalized that communication
is the goal of language use. Being so, the teaching and learning of languages

10
should have as their objective the development of communication; language does
not exist in a vacuum, after all (MacCarthy; Clancy, 2019).
Considering this scenario, language teachers must reflect on, and
acknowledge the varied modes of speech students bring to class as being
legitimate parts of their linguistic repertoire and identity. Standard language norms
should be understood as one possibility of languaging, not the only one. Standard
English — or, for us, even Standard Portuguese — is not the norm of everyday
communication; nonetheless, it is the benchmark for social segregation and a tool
used for the maintenance of the hegemony of few speakers.
It is in this context that Brazilian English teachers must fight discourses and
beliefs such as ‘they are not as good English teachers as English native speakers’,
and ‘there is only one type of English to speak’. These are issues that relate English
language teaching and learning to discussions of identity, for instance. Be aware
that these types of segregating discourse may be transferred from English teachers
into their students unconsciously, which may perpetuate the hegemony of
standardized language norms and speakers. Languages are not homogenous and
static entities. These beliefs hegemonize the standard English form and native
English speakers over all others ones.
The negation of linguistic variation as a natural feature of languages only
supports the linguistic prejudice found in our society, which is largely reproduced
in our school practices. English teachers must know that English standard variation
is a cultural construction that has been historically associated with a prestigious
variety. Standard English is a variety, it is a sociocultural tool frequently used to
determine “which linguistic forms will be more or less close to an ideal form of
language” (Lucena; Rafael, 2020, p. 63). But notice it, Standard English is itself a
social construct — not a pre-existent entity.
Standard English is a linguistic form that is, majorly, part of the repertoire (if
so!) of those speakers who already have some social prestige. For Saviani (2018;
2013a; 2013b), and Saviani and Duarte (2012), Standard languages are varieties
in the domain and service of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is a small class that
holds social and economical power, so it has interests in perpetuating prejudice
towards the different uses of language because it is a form of keeping their class
social and linguistic hegemony.

11
THEME 5 – COUNTER-HEGEMONIC CONTEMPORARY VIEWS ON ENGLISH
USES

English is used globally, so in all countries, it is possible to observe the

English language taking its role in communications. It was aforementioned that
non-native English speakers (NNES) have outnumbered English native speakers
(ENS) by far, a fact that demands an update in the field of English as a
Foreign/Second/Additional Language.
Based on Snodin and Resnik (2019), it is possible to indicate that English
language professionals must acknowledge that ‘separating’ English speakers ‘into
boxes’ is not very productive. The same can be said for the labeling of English
users into natives and non-natives, as pedagogically done so far. Since English is
a widespread language, such distinctions become highly controversial. Moreover,
it is also incompatible with the multilingual comprehension that English language
users should be considered in their own rights.
Teachers need to reconstruct their identities as English speakers,
incorporating the contemporary understanding that English is now an international
language that belongs to all its speakers. Only after language workers deconstruct
old beliefs will they be able to rebuild scholarly language practices. Following this
idea, Snodin and Resnik (2019) point out the fact that it is unreal to have as the
reference of our pedagogical practices a monolingual group since, in fact, we are
from the beginning all multilinguals — like Brazilian teachers and learners of
English.
Think about it. Our students have already acquired Portuguese if not also
other languages when they come to be part of our English classes. Studies in
multilingualism have shown that languages interact, they influence one another.
Yet, pedagogical settings tend to bear the monolingual native English speaker as
the benchmark of linguistic achievements. Not even all native speakers use
language the same way, with the same abilities and features. Now, reflect if this is
a possible goal for multilingual speakers. Aligned to this thought, Snodin and
Resnik (2019) inquire: “why ENS [English native speakers] still seem to be a highly
important reference group in the EFL [English as a Foreign Language] classroom”?
(p. 240).
Attempting to give a proper answer to this question, research fields such as
World Englishes (WE), English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), and English as an

12
Internacional Language (EIL) were developed, illuminating aspects of the English
Language Teaching and Learning field so far assumed as given. They are part of
the Applied Linguistic field, WE, ELF, and EIL paradigms explore and discuss the
purposes and uses of the English Language. These three fields understand
language as a social practice.
In this discipline, we will assume the lenses of ELF, which means that we
will discuss English in the status of a lingua franca. In the next lessons, we will
define and explore the ELF perspective further.
To summarize this lesson, let us revisit your answers to the practical activity
done on Theme 4.

Revisiting the Practical Activity in Theme 4

Can you relate the aspects of language use of both people you have
chosen to the discussions carried out in this lesson?

Have your answers displayed a more communicative or systematic

approach to language communication?

Would you reconsider the answers given after our lesson?

5.1 Summarizing

In this lesson, we have discussed the relationship between language and

cognition, and the implications it presents to the language teaching and learning
field.
We have also discussed the assumed position that languaging — the
different uses of language — is a social practice. This is an understanding that
views language beyond its linguistic system. To comprehend the social aspects of
languages we have discussed: language and cognition; the role of language
teachers in teaching and learning; Language as a social construct; a multilingual
approach to language teaching and learning; Bilingualism and Multilingualism;
Linguistic variation, and some counter-hegemonic contemporary views on English
uses.

13
REFERENCES

AZEVEDO, Bruno; LIMA, Jane Helen Gomes. Pressupostos Filosóficos-

Pedagógicos acerca da Elaboração de uma Formação de Professores para o
Ensino Bilíngue. Porto das Letras, v. 8, n. 3, p. 171-193, 2022.

BHATIA, Tej. RITCHIE, William. Introduction. In: BHATIA, Tej. RITCHIE, William
(Eds.). The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2 ed. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2012, p. xxi-xxiii.

CARTER, Angela. Shaking a Leg: Collected Writings. New York: Penguin Books,
1997.

COGO, A. ELF and multilingualism.In: JENKINS, J; BAKER, W.; DEWEY, M. (org.).

The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxon: Routledge,
2018, p. 357-368.

JENKINS, Jennifer. Repositioning English as multilingualism in English as a Lingua

Franca. Englishes in Practice, v. 2, n. 3, p. 49-85, 2015.

LANTOLF, James; THORNE, Steven. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of

Second Language Development. Oxford University Press, 2006.

LUCENA, Leandro Santos; RAFAEL, Edmilson Luiz. Linguistic Variation and Social
Representation in Portuguese Language Classes in High School. Signum: Estudos
da Linguagem, v. 23, n. 3, p. 59-77, 2020.

McCarthy, Michael; Clancy, Brian. From Language as system to Language as

Discourse. In: WALSH, Steve; MANN, Steve (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of
English Language Teacher Education. London: The Routledge, 2019, p. 201-
215.

SAVIANI, Dermeval. Escola e Democracia. 43. ed. rev. Campinas: Autores

Associados, 2018.

SAVIANI, Dermeval. Educação: do Senso Comum à Consciência Filosófica. 19. ed.

Campinas: Autores Associados, 2013a.

SAVIANI, Dermeval. Pedagogia Histórico-Crítica: Primeiras Aproximações. 11.

ed. rev. Campinas: Autores Associados, 2013b.

SAVIANI, Dermeval; DUARTE, N. Pedagogia Histórico-Crítica e Luta de Classes

na Educação Escolar. Campinas: Autores Associados, 2012.

14
SAVIGNON, Sandra. Communicative Competence. In: LIONTAS, John;
DELLICARPINI, Margo (Eds.). The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2017, p. 1-7.

SNODIN, Navaporn; RESNIK, Pia. WE, ELF, EIL and their Implications for English
Language Teacher Education. In: WALSH, Steve; MANN, Steve (Eds.). The
Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education. London: The
Routledge, 2019, p. 239-252.

STORTO, André Coutinho; BIONDO, Fabiana Poças. The Mobility Between

Languages and the Fluxes of Globalization: Reviewing Paradigms, Transcending
Paradoxes. Revista da Anpoll, n.40, p. 77-89, 2016.

VYGOTSKY, Lev. The collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1: Problems of

general psychology. New York: Plenum Press, 1987

WEI, Li. Conceptual and methodological issues in bilingualism and multilingualism

research. In: BHATIA, T. K.; RITCHIE, W. C. The handbook of bilingualism and
multilingualism. 2 ed. Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2013, p. 26-51.

WEI, Li. Research Perspectives on Bilingualism and Multilingualism. In: WEI, Li;
MOYER, Melissa (Eds.). The Backwell Guide to Research Methods in
Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Oxford: Backwell Publishing, p. 3-17, 2008.

ZAVALA, Virginia. Language as Social Practice: Deconstructing Boundaries in

Intercultural Bilingual Education. Trabalhos em Linguistica Aplicada, v. 57, n. 3,
p. 1313-1338, 2018.

ZIMMER, Márcia; FINGER, Ingrid.; SCHERER, Lilian. Do bilinguismo ao

multilinguismo: intersecções entre a psicolinguística e a neurolinguística. ReVEL,

v. 6, n. 11, p. 1-28, 2008.

15