Museums & Social Issues

A Journal of Reflective Discourse

ISSN: 1559-6893 (Print) 2051-6193 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymsi20

Redefining Multilingualism in Museums: A Case for

Broadening Our Thinking

Cecilia Garibay, Steven Yalowitz & Guest Editors

To cite this article: Cecilia Garibay, Steven Yalowitz & Guest Editors (2015) Redefining
Multilingualism in Museums: A Case for Broadening Our Thinking, Museums & Social Issues, 10:1,
2-7, DOI: 10.1179/1559689314Z.00000000028

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/1559689314Z.00000000028

Published online: 17 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1260

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymsi20
museums & social issues, Vol. 10 No. 1, April, 2015, 2–7

Redefining Multilingualism in
Museums: A Case for Broadening
Our Thinking
Cecilia Garibay1 and Steven Yalowitz2, Guest Editors
1
Garibay Group, Chicago, IL
2
Audience Viewpoints, Herndon, VA

Museum professionals have long advocated for museums as valuable spaces for edu-
cation, civic engagement (Archibald 2004; DSP-groep 2011; Hein 2005) and even as
places that inspire social change in our communities (Brown, Wood, and Salgado
2009; Sandell 1998). Yet paradoxically, as we argue for the very real value of
museums in society, we also struggle with actually engaging all members of our com-
munities regardless of class, gender, age, race/ethnicity, or even linguistic back-
ground (see, for example, Farrell and Medvedeva 2010).
In the case of language, we have arguably been slower to recognize and identify
strategies for including multilingual audiences. The reasons for this vary and
include, among others, the belief that linguistic diversity is not common, the predic-
tion that youth will primarily speak the dominant language of the nation (meaning it
is not necessary to invest in learning how to serve multilingual groups), the view that
someone in a group can translate (for instance, children in a family group), and the
opinion that developing multilingual resources is too challenging and
cost-prohibitive.
The prominence of one, or a few, dominant languages used in “official” capacities
such as government or business tends to give the impression that linguistic diversity
is uncommon. Yet this is far from true. Within Europe’s 48 countries, for instance,
approximately 250 indigenous languages are spoken, and migration has made
Europe increasingly more multilingual. London, for example, counts more than
300 languages spoken as “home languages” (Gorter et al. 2009). In the United
States, more than 60 million people speak a language other than English at home;
of this population, one in five are school-aged children. Moreover, many U.S. resi-
dents who speak a language other than English at home are not immigrants; 44%
of those individuals were born in the United States (Ryan 2013). And, this does
not count the estimated 70 million people around the world who use sign language
as their first language (World Federation of the Deaf, nd).

© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2015 DOI 10.1179/1559689314Z.00000000028

 GARIBAY AND YALOWITZ 3

This special issue of the journal explores an increasingly salient question in the
museum field: As we become more aware of linguistic diversity in our communities,
how can we meaningfully engage and serve multilingual audiences?

Definitions
The definitions of “multilingualism” and “bilingualism,” like that of the word
“diversity,” are complex and often confusing, since they are often defined in a
variety of ways within different academic fields and contexts (Kemp 2009). For
our purposes in this collection of articles, it is useful to distinguish how the terms
are used at individual and societal levels. On an individual level, “bilingual/bilingu-
alism” refers to those who use two languages and “multilingual/multilingualism”
refers to the use of three or more languages. “Monolingual/monolingualism,” in
contrast, refers to those who communicate in just one language.
On a societal level, the term multilingualism refers to communities (up to and
including states or countries) where a number of languages, or variations of a
language, are used by some individuals, although all members of the community
do not necessarily use more than one language (Kemp 2009). In this issue, we use
the term “multilingual audiences” to refer to those who communicate either in a
language other than that of the dominant culture (English, for example, being the
dominant language in the case of the United States) or who use two or more
languages.

Reconsidering Language and Multilingual Audiences

While significant research on multilingualism exists in a broad range of fields such as
sociology, linguistics, psychology, anthropology, and education, the topic is a rela-
tively new area of inquiry for museums; very few museum studies on the issue
have been conducted. The studies that do exist focus primarily on the extent to
which museums provide bilingual or multilingual resources (e.g., audio guides,
labels), how visitors perceive the availability of these resources or use them (see,
for example, Garcia-Luis, McDonald, and Migus 2011; Garibay 2006, 2009a; Yalo-
witz, Craig, and Hershorin 2012), or the extent to which bi- or multilingual labels
successfully communicate an exhibit’s intended messages (see, for example, Allen
2007; Garibay 2009b).
In fact, most of the questions posed by museum professionals regarding multilin-
gual audiences concern the need for, or the logistics of, providing written resources
in multiple languages. Some of the most common questions, for example, are: Do we
need to translate everything in an exhibit? What is the best way to translate text?
What are best practices for translation or for bilingual label development? Can
including other languages increase attendance? How do you decide which languages
to translate? The focus, then, has been on providing written access to the content and
ideas the museum wishes to transmit.
While these important and valid questions reflect museum professionals’ concerns
with the efficacy and best practices for producing bi/multilingual written resources,
4 REDEFINING MULTILINGUALISM IN MUSEUMS

their foci are quite narrow and, we argue, can unintentionally limit the ways in
which we understand and consider the needs of multilingual audiences. The focus
on written content, for example, obscures the complexity of linguistic practices
within groups, including the social and cultural dimensions of language.
Recent scholarship has helped underscore that language is a social practice
(Barratt-Pugh and Rohl 2000; Campbell and Green 2000) rather than an auton-
omous pre-existing system. That is to say, language is embedded within the
broader socio-cultural contexts in which we participate and our language practices
and choices reflect our social relationships and understanding of the world (García
2009; Gutiérrez and Rogoff 2003; Pennycook 2010).
Gutiérrez, Baquedano-Lopez, and Tejeda (1999), for example, describe ways in
which bilingual groups may mix two languages—not only to communicate, but
also to make meaning, affirm ties with other group members, and establish social
identity. For instance, young bi/multilingual children will typically choose which
language they use to communicate with others based on their relationship to
them. They may reserve one language solely for parents or those with whom they
have intimate bonds (Grosjean 1982). In the museum context, Garibay (2004,
2011) described the importance that Spanish-speaking parents placed on leisure
activities that provided opportunities for their children to use their Spanish as a
way to build cultural identity.
Using a socio-cultural framing to understand language practices helps us to recog-
nize the multiple and varied ways in which multilingual audiences may use language
in their lives and in the museum. Furthermore, situating linguistic diversity within a
broader social context can also reveal the power structures and dynamics surround-
ing the use of language and how they play out in the museum setting.

Expanding Perspectives
Our goal for this issue was to bring together a set of articles that collectively expand
our understanding of linguistic diversity and that push the museum field’s thinking
on the question of engaging multilingual audiences. The articles in this issue examine
the topic from various perspectives. Some ask us to consider power dynamics and/or
the ways in which our often unspoken assumptions and theoretical frames influence
our decision making. Others help draw our attention to the complexity of linguistic
practices and the need to consider the social and cultural dynamics involved. Still
others situate the topic within the context of organizational decision making and
help us see how embarking on inclusion of multilingual audiences can deepen organ-
izational learning and cultural competency.
Huerta-Migus and Soto Huerta examine the question of linguistic access through
a critical theory perspective, positioning the issue in the context of broader societal
systems and power dynamics. They argue that museums typically reflect the prac-
tices of the dominant culture and discuss the ways in which these practices can
create closed social boundaries that exclude those outside the “mainstream.” This
article illuminates the power politics of privileging one language over others and dis-
cusses ways museums can either uphold existing societal power structures or adjust
 GARIBAY AND YALOWITZ 5

their practices to be more inclusive. Such thinking leads us to consider how museums
fit into the larger society.
Shelley explores the question of how museums can be inclusive in situations where
the potential audience includes communities who speak different languages.
Drawing on linguistic and performance theories, this article examines interactions
between museums and audiences in terms of “live performance” and provides
examples from six museum programs in Belgium to illustrate ways that museums
engage multilingual audiences through diverse communicative forms. Shelley
argues for the “polyglot” museum—one that moves beyond simply offering trans-
lation into a variety of languages and instead becomes one that communicates
across many languages. This article also serves to remind us of the importance of
thinking about multilingual opportunities through different theoretical lenses that
can influence our decision making.
Next, Yalowitz, Garibay, Renner, and Plaza discuss findings from their research of
intergenerational Spanish-speaking families’ experiences in bilingual STEM-based
exhibits. They describe the ways in which families used both Spanish and English
resources, the groups’ extensive code-switching between languages, and how the
availability of bilingual resources empowered parents in supporting their children’s
learning. This piece illuminates the complex linguistic practices within visitor groups
and how the bilingual museum experience reflects broader social and cultural
dynamics present in a group interaction. It also pushes us to reflect on how impor-
tant visitor groups’ social and cultural norms are—both in the learning process and
in museum experiences.
Goss, Kollman, Reich, and Jacovelli, challenging the assumption that multilingu-
alism is confined to spoken languages, present their research with d/Deaf or hard of
hearing communities. They describe participating groups’ interactions during their
museum visit, including the ways they used language resources and the variation
among groups in their use of spoken English and American Sign Language (ASL),
and examine the personal and social contexts of participants’ interactions. This
article not only helps to expand our definition of multilingual audiences but also
urges us to reconsider our view of serving d/Deaf communities not through “disabil-
ity engagement” but rather through linguistic diversity. Study findings about the dif-
fering uses of English and ASL also serve to remind us of the diversity within all
community groups, including in their language practices.
In the next contribution, Renner, Garibay, Yalowitz, and Plaza examine current
museum approaches to bilingual exhibits and the extent to which STEM-focused
institutions have considered, addressed, and incorporated bilingual approaches in
their practices. Among the most significant findings from this study is that those
institutions making a formal commitment to bilingual exhibits, incorporating
more bilingual approaches into their organizations, had a more sophisticated and
in-depth understanding of their bilingual audiences. This article raises interesting
questions about how a museum’s formal commitment to engaging linguistically
diverse groups can deepen the institution’s own practice and understanding of multi-
lingual audiences.
Martin and Jennings help us consider issues of organizational practice through the
Children’s Discovery Museum’s journey to engage Vietnamese and Latino families.
6 REDEFINING MULTILINGUALISM IN MUSEUMS

Reflecting on the Children’s Discovery Museum’s work in this area, which ranges
over decades, the authors describe the importance of taking into account larger
social and cultural issues when engaging multilingual audiences. Part of the lesson
is that attempting to engage linguistically diverse groups simultaneously helps an
organization deepen its staff’s cultural competence and positions the institution to
engage a broad range of multilingual audiences.

Reflecting on Practice
We hope that this issue challenges existing assumptions about the topic, broadens
the museum field’s thinking about language and what language practices look like
in multilingual communities, and provides insights about museum practices.
Clearly, as a field we need to deepen our understandings and reflect on our practices
in engaging multilingual audiences. The following are some actions museum pro-
fessionals can consider in order to further conversations within their organizations:
• Identify the languages spoken in surrounding communities and initiate conver-
sations with community members about their experiences and perspectives on the
interplay between language and culture.
• Encourage conversations within the organization about linguistic diversity and
language practices. Invite colleagues who speak two or more languages, for
example, to discuss how their experiences as bi/multilinguals shaped them. How
do they use language, for instance, within their family and in different contexts?
What do practices such as shifting between languages and code-switching mean
for them?
• Explore assumptions about the need for and function of bi/multilingual resources.
Consider, for example, whether museums would typically produce an exhibition
without any labels in the dominant language (e.g., English in the United States)
and the effect of such a decision for general museum visitors. Then consider the
implications of lack of linguistic access to other members of the community. Simi-
larly, one might ponder whether museums include exhibition labels in the domi-
nant language with the expectation that including labels will increase
attendance. If not, what does it mean that this is one often-cited expectation
from bi/multilingual labels?
• Experiment with pilot programs or other activities that can deepen the organiz-
ation’s experience engaging multilingual communities.

References
Allen, S. 2007. Secrets of Circles Summative Evaluation Report. Prepared for the Children’s Discovery Museum
of San Jose. Unpublished technical report.
Archibald, R. 2004. The New Town Square: Museums and Communities in Transition. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta
Mira Press.
Barratt-Pugh, C. and M. Rohl eds. 2000. Literacy Learning in the Early Years. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Brown, C., E. Wood and G. Salgado, eds. 2009. Inspiring Action: Museums and Social Change: A Collection of
Essays. Edinburgh: MuseumEtc.
Campbell, R., and D. Green. 2000. Literacies and Learners: Current Perspectives. French’s Forest: Prentice Hall.
 GARIBAY AND YALOWITZ 7

DSP-groep. 2011. More than Worth it: The Social Significance of Museums. Amsterdam: Netherlands Museums
Association.
Farrell, B., and M. Medvedeva. 2010. Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums. Washington,
DC: American Association of Museums.
García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell.
Garcia-Luis, V., H. McDonald, and L. H. Migus. 2011. Multilingual Interpretation in Science Centers and
Museums. Association of Science-Technology Centers, Washington, D.C. and the Exploratorium, CA:
San Francisco. http://www.astc.org/resource/equity/Multilingualism%20Report_Final.pdf
Garibay, C. 2004. Oregon Museum of Science: Animal Secrets Bilingual Labels Formative Evaluation.
Unpublished manuscript.
Garibay, C. 2006. National Museum of American History: Washington Metropolitan Area Latino Research
Study. Unpublished technical report.
Garibay, C. 2009a. Latinos, Leisure Values and Decisions: Implications for Informal Science Learning and
Engagement. Informal Learning Review. Jan–Feb, 94:10–13.
Garibay, C. 2009b. Palm Springs Art Museum: Bilingual Label Study. Unpublished technical report.
Garibay, C. 2011. Responsive and Accessible: How Museums are using Research to Better Engage Diverse
Cultural Communities. ASTC Dimensions: 4–6.
Gorter, D., J. Cenoz, P. Nunes, P. Riganti, L. Onorfri, B. Puzzo, and R. Sachdeva. 2009. Benefits of Linguistic
Diversity and Multilingualism. Cultural Diversity as an Asset for Human Welfare and Development,
Sustainable Development in a Diverse World, Eurodivision. http://www.susdiv.org/uploadfiles/RT1.2_PP_
Durk.pdf (11/01/2014).
Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gutiérrez, K. D., P. Baquedano-López, and C. Tejeda 1999. Rethinking Diversity: Hybridity and Hybrid
Language Practices in the third Space. Mind, Culture, and Activity 6: 286–303.
Gutiérrez, K. D., and B. Rogoff. 2003. Cultural Ways of Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice.
Educational Researcher 32 (5): 19–25.
Hein, G. 2005. The Role of Museums in Society: Education and Social Action. Curator: The Museum Journal 48
(4): 357–363.
Kemp, C. 2009. Defining Multilingualism. In The Exploration of Multilingualism, edited by L. Aronin and
B. Hufeisen. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a Local Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ryan, C. 2013. Language use in the United States 2011: American Community Survey Reports. U.S. Census.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf (11/01/2014).
Sandell, R. 1998. Museums as Agents of Social Inclusion. Museum Management and Curatorship 17 (4):
401–418.
World Federation of the Deaf (ND). Sign Language. http://wfdeaf.org/human-rights/crpd/sign-language (11/01/
2014).
Yalowitz, S., E. Craig, and K. Hershorin. 2012. National Museum of Natural History: Against all odds: Rescue
at the Chilean mine bilingual study. Unpublished technical report.