The changing concept of language Hannele Dufva, Minna Suni, Mari Aro & Olli-Pekka Salo, University of Jyväskylä This paper is a slightly edited version of an earlier article, entitled Languages as objects of learning: language learning as a case of multilingualism, published in Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, Vol. 5, 1, 2011, 109 – 124. This paper considers multilingualism from the point of view of language learning and teaching. We discuss the ‘monological’ thinking in linguistics and in research into language learning and teaching and argue that the monological stand, more often than not, also embeds a monolingual bias. As an alternative to monologism, we discuss the dialogical notion of language and argue that this inherently involves a multilingual stand. 1 Introduction In this paper, we discuss conceptualizations of language in the context of second and foreign language learning and teaching i , aiming to comment on both research and classroom practices. We will argue that these conceptualizations have frequently been monological (Bakhtin 1981, 1986; Linell 2009: 387-423), but also monolingually biased (e.g. Block 2007). Consequently, the development of second and foreign languages, like other instances of bilingual and multilingual language use, has been regarded in terms of ‘double monolingualism’ (e.g. Hinnenkamp 2005) or ‘parallel monolingualisms’ (e.g. Heller 1999). Drawing on the dialogical philosophy of language discussed by the members of the Bakhtin Circle (for a fuller discussion, see Brandist 2002; Dufva 2004b), Bakhtin and Voloshinov, but referring also to recent work within critical applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and language education, we argue for ‘multilinguality’ as the default assumption in the description of language and also as a starting point in discussions about language learning and teaching. Mihail Bakhtin saw his philosophy of dialogue as an alternative to the monological views he criticized: these were perspectives suggesting a unity controlled by a singular voice or authority (Bakhtin 1984: 78-100). Bakhtin (1993: 12-13, 22) also criticized theoretism, by