“Their heritage language suddenly plays a role” – Teachers’ beliefs on integrating multilingual linguistic landscapes in the plurilingual language classroom

The aim of this article is to analyse teachers’ beliefs on integrating multilingual linguistic landscapes into the plurilingual language classroom. In an empirical study, a focus group interview was conducted with teachers of Spanish, French and Latin who have worked with linguistic landscapes in the realm of a language project day. Since teachers have generally positive beliefs towards plurilingualism, it remains underexplored what beliefs underlie their perspectives, namely heteroglossic and/or monoglossic perspectives. Using discourse and content analysis, beliefs can be placed on a continuum from a hetero-glossic perspective (on plurilingual groups, interdisci-plinarity and connecting languages) to a monoglossic perspective (on the special status of certain languages). Within this continuum, there are tensions in terms of ideologies, school structures, and teachers’ critical awareness that have the potential to lead to the co-construction of knowledge and learner-centred pedagogies.


INTRODUCTION
Multilingual linguistic landscapes (LL) represent today's complex multilingualism that can be analysed from a (socio-)linguistic or a language-pedagogical perspective."Linguistic landscapes are the ensemble of linguistic, semiotic and sensorial cues in public and private spaces" (Brinkmann, McMonagle et al., 2022, p. 5).LL can be used as a pedagogical tool for the foreign language classroom with a monolingual or plurilingual focus or both (Melo-Pfeifer & Silva, 2021).
This study addresses teachers' beliefs as part of their professional identity that can be influenced by working with multilingual LL.This possible influence was identified as a research gap in Lourenço and Melo-Pfeifer (2023).In this empirical study, a multilingual focus was chosen to approach LL.Its aim is to research teachers' beliefs and their underlying heteroglossic and/or monoglossic perspectives on the integration of multilingual LL in the foreign language classroom.Multilingualism refers to language from a societal perspective, while plurilingualism denotes an individual perspective, describing a linguistic repertoire (Vallejo & Dooly, 2020).Both concepts can be underpinned by either a monoglossic or heteroglossic perspective."Heteroglossia as a theoretical term, then, is by definition heteroglossic.As such, it reflects the mobility and flux" (Blackledge & Creese, 2014, p. 4) of languages, language users and the environment.In contrast, monoglossia refers to an understanding of languages as countable, separable entities (Blackledge & Creese, 2014), which has also been referred to as "named languages" by Otheguy et al. (2015, p. 283).
An action-based research project was designed involving a language teacher and researchers from the university within the research project LoCALL 1 .In May 2022, seven language teachers organised a Language Project Day, aimed at exploring LL with a plurilingual focus.After that day, a focus group interview was conducted with some of the teachers involved in the project in order to analyse teachers' beliefs on the integration of multilingual LL in the plurilingual classroom (that is a classroom where several linguistic repertoires come together), and the heteroglossic and/or monoglossic justifications they use.
In the theoretical part of this paper, a monoglossic versus a heteroglossic approach to integrating multilingual LL into the language classroom is presented.This is followed by an examination of the state-of-the-art on teachers' beliefs about the integration of LL into the language classroom.In section 4, the empirical study, an overview of the context and of the participants is provided, followed by a description of the Language Project Day and the methods used.The final section presents the findings of the content and discourse analysis from the interaction during the focus group interview.

A MONOGLOSSIC VS. HETEROGLOSSIC APPROACH TO INTEGRATING MULTILINGUAL LL INTO THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
This section examines how the pedagogical use of multilingual LL in the language classroom can be linked either to separable and separated languages in the LL embedded into rather monolingually driven language instruction (the monoglossic perspective) or to the idea of a linguistic repertoire that functions as a whole and of languages as used and mixed by speakers, in other words as hybrid realities (the heteroglossic perspective).
A monoglossic perspective on plurilingualism considers one language at a time and little interdisciplinarity.In contrast, a heteroglossic perspective stands for multiple codes, i.e. multiple discourses and voices, of language (users) (Blackledge & Creese, 2014;Creese & Blackledge, 2011;Melo-Pfeifer, 2018a).As stated in the introduction, there is no single definition of heteroglossia.Therefore, we may speak of heteroglossic approaches or perspectives that indicate diversity in speaking and languaging.The essential idea of heteroglossic approaches involves the social, political, and historical implications of language use (Blackledge & Creese, 2014).It thematises and theorises human interaction and the difficulties of establishing limits across languages by socially constructing them.Therefore, the phenomenon involves agency and becomes a social resource.The processes of translanguaging and heteroglossia come together in the concept of flexible bilingualism, describing a complex way of using languages and placing the language user in the centre of an interaction (Creese & Blackledge, 2011).In a heteroglossic understanding, language is essentially embedded into the context where it emerges, which is itself generated in the actions taken by speakers (García & Wei, 2014).Finally, heteroglossia allows us to relativise the native speaker norm (speaking correctly a named language) while legitimising others codes of languages (Creese & Blackledge, 2011).
In school, monoglossic ideologies of language(s) and the "monolingual habitus" (Gogolin, 1994) present an obstacle to students' plurilingualism.Integrating LL from a heteroglossic perspective would draw mostly on a multimodality of signs and ways of communication, translanguaging practices and softening the borders between named languages.

CLASSROOM
Regarding the integration of LL, teachers are active decision-makers who mediate between societal or school ideologies and individual students.Therefore, teachers' beliefs about plurilingualism and their underlying monoglossic or heteroglossic approach are relevant to our object of enquiry and are discussed in this section.Researching teachers' beliefs is important in understanding teachers' actions and decision-making in the classroom (Barkhuizen, 2016;Biesta et al., 2015;Haukås, 2016;Makarova et al., 2021;Pajares, 1992;Zheng, 2015).Pajares (1992, p. 316) therefore calls them "teachers' educational beliefs".These are complex in that they include a wide range of convictions and modalities that do not have to be consensual or coherent.They are also dynamic since they differ according to one's experiences in teaching and changes in teaching environments.Taking these characteristics together, beliefs turn out to be an interrelated, heterogenous system (Zheng, 2015).Having a closer look at the literature, the heterogeneity of language teachers' beliefs on plurilingualism can be seen as "shades of grey" (Jaspers, 2022, p. 4).Indeed, while some teachers may be generally against monolingual policies, at the same time they may maintain them in their discourse or practise them in the language classroom.
In a qualitative interview study, Makarova et al. (2021) explored beliefs about integrating language awareness and translanguaging activities in the language classroom.Both teachers and teacher trainers showed mostly positive views on these approaches for minority language teaching.However, challenges emerged in determining when and where to integrate language awareness.Brinkmann et al. (2021) found similar results in their study on pre-service language teachers' beliefs, with positive attitudes towards plurilingualism but concerns about time constraints for implementing plurilingual activities.
Araújo e Sá et al. ( 2023) conducted a mixed-methods study on (pre-service) teachers co-constructing the concept of LL.The outcome was a homogenous yet complex understanding of LL.Complementing this, Brinkmann & Melo-Pfeifer (2023a) reported diverse interpretations of LL but shared positive beliefs on enhancing language awareness and diversity.Chimirala (2022) investigated schoolscapes and language pedagogies in minority language contexts, highlighting the discrepancy between language policies and actual practices in Indigenous tribal communities.The teachers interviewed identified the schoolscape as a potential learning resource but also as a source of reductive and silencing practices.Brinkmann, Duarte et al. (2022) explored the use of LL in language classrooms, finding positive effects on language awareness and empowering minority language users and plurilingual students.These findings were supported by Duarte et al. (2023) and Brinkmann and Melo-Pfeifer (2023b).
Although teachers reveal rather positive beliefs on the integration of plurilingual pedagogies using LL in the language classroom, it must be kept in mind that these beliefs are ambiguous and unstable, revealing possible pedagogical tensions and insecurities (Melo-Pfeifer, 2018a).While teachers are using LL in the classroom and display positive attitudes towards plurilingualism and plurilingual pedagogies, less is known of the beliefs about languages -heteroglossic and/or monoglossicthat underlie them.The present study aims to close this gap by addressing the following research question: How can teachers' beliefs on the use of multilingual LL in the plurilingual classroom reveal their monoglossic and/ or heteroglossic perspective of teaching languages?To answer this question, an empirical study was conducted that is described in the following section.

Context and participants
The empirical study was carried out in the summer of 2022 at a grammar school3 .The teachers at this school have a working group on plurilingualism in languages other than English (French, Latin, and Spanish).One teacher (M1, see table 1) has integrated LL into her French language classroom since 2020 in collaboration with the University as part of the LoCALL project, and brought in other colleagues from the grammar school.
Seven teachers are involved in the working group at that school.For this empirical study, four of them participated in a focus group, together with another third-language teacher (T2) and one external guest teacher (T5) who wanted to learn about the functioning of the working group.Their profile is presented in Table 1.* In Germany, teachers have to study and teach two subjects that can be combined as they wish (Gogolin et al., 2019).** 'M' indicates that this teacher moderated the focus group.She played a double role since she summarised and asked questions, but she also expressed herself reflecting her own beliefs', which were included in the analysis.
One researcher from the LoCALL project, the author of this article (M2), was also part of the focus group.M2 joined M1 in moderating the focus group.M2's role in the project was to gather data on the participants' beliefs about plurilingualism and their professionalisation processes in using LL in the language classroom.

Description of the Language Project Day and teaching materials
The focus group aimed at discussing the Language Project Day that had been designed by the working group in June 2022.The Language Project Day aimed at raising students' language awareness in grade 6 (students aged 11-12).The main pedagogical ideas underpinning this event centred on: • a plurilingual and interlinguistic approach to the curriculum, connecting French, Latin, Spanish and other languages; • a co-ethnographic approach, meaning that the students become researchers of the LL; • an approach of "learning in the LL" (Brinkmann, Duarte et al., 2022) with a multilingual focus; • a pedagogical integration of the main group in which the students are taught and the language courses (French, Latin, and Spanish); • bridging indoor and outdoor as well as formal and informal learning (as proposed in Brinkmann, McMonagle et al., 2022).
To carry out the Language Project Day, the working group teachers followed three stages: preparation, action, and presentation.M1 and M2 explored together neighbourhoods that could be interesting for the students and rich in languages and modalities.The working group teachers designed materials to structure and scaffold the language awareness activities.Once the preparation was completed, the materials were presented to the pedagogically responsible teacher of the main group so that these teachers could also contribute to the Language Project Day in the action stage and inform students' parents.The procedure is presented in Table 2. To research teachers' evaluation and beliefs on the use of multilingual LL in the plurilingual classroom, the method of focus group interview (Liebig & Nentwig-Gesemann, 2009) was used.In line with the action-based research context, M1 took on a leading role.The focus group was framed as "Evaluation of the Project Language Day".It was conducted in the participants' L1 (German) and took place one month after the action phase in the school.Ethical guidelines were followed, including inter alia teachers' voluntary participation, informed agreement, anonymity, and confidentiality.During the focus group interview, M1 asked T1-T5 about how well the preparation, action, and presentation stage went while M2 added questions on their professionalisation to M1, T1-T5.The teachers participating discussed both their own experiences as well as those of their students.The 51 minutes of discussion were recorded and transcribed.To analyse the data discourse analysis and an integrated content analysis were used (Hardy et al., 2004).While M1 analysed the contents of the discussion and deduced improvements, M2 coded the whole interview inductively using MAXQDA.The resulting inductive main codes and their distribution are represented in Figure 1.In this paper, only the last main code "heteroglossic vs. monoglossic perspective" is of interest to answer the research question.The excepts assigned to this main code were analysed again in detail and the subcodes "heteroglossic perspective", "monoglossic perspective" and "heteroglossic and monoglossic perspective mixed" were found.To gather the underlying, implicit meanings that teachers attribute to the content, concrete examples were selected for each subcode and analysed in detail using discourse analysis.Here, the word choice was the predominant element of analysis.Furthermore, the transcription guidelines by Kuckartz (2010) enabled a discourse analysis regarding emphasis (underlined), unfinished sentences ("/") and pauses ("(…)").In the following section, these subcodes, examples, and their discourse analysis are presented.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this final section of the article, the participants' beliefs on the use of multilingual LL in the plurilingual classroom will be analysed and discussed according to their underlying heteroglossic perspective (5.1.),monoglossic perspective (5.2.), and a mix of both (5.3.).

Heteroglossic perspective
The extracts which show that the participants had a heteroglossic perspective on multilingual LL in the plurilingual classroom will be presented first.Three aspects shape this perspective: plurilingual groups, interdisciplinarity, and linking languages.

Plurilingual groups
One of the aspects the teachers discussed the most was the fact that the groups analysing the multilingual LL should be plurilingual or, in their own words, "mixed" (T1, T44 ) or "diverse" (T4).The participants discuss that for a follow-up of the Language Project Day, the French, Latin, and Spanish teachers should play the main role, but English teachers, who had not been part of the project on that first language project day, should be involved too.T4 suggests "team teaching in pairs in front of the class, I think you can complement each other quite well anyway".She emphasises that team teaching should take place "in pairs" of a French/ Latin/ Spanish language teacher with an English language teacher.She uses the adverb "anyway" to indicate that it is not only in moments of the Language Project Day that it would make sense to teach in teams and bringing the languages together to complement languages and teachers' linguistic competencies.
The teachers continue to discuss the idea of integrating English teachers in the project.T2 states: "But I think it will be more mixed if we include it in the English classroom … [and] better, because then we have a better mix".M1 answers that "Maybe we can organise it in such a way that the teachers of the second foreign language join them in one lesson, I think that's the best thing for this kind of teaching and learning anyway."Finally, T4 states that for her this would be the "ideal case" and "perfect".In this excerpt, "anyway" is used again to indicate that team teaching is a good option, but this time it does not only relate to the language project day but to any plurilingual learning and teaching scenario.Additionally, many positive adjectives were used, such as "perfect", "best", and "better".
To sum up, the teachers' beliefs display a heteroglossic perspective consisting of a positive evaluation of bringing together both languages and students or teachers of languages.

Interdisciplinarity
Interdisciplinarity is an aspect only mentioned by M1.As she is the leader of the focus group and of the working group on plurilingualism, she created a moment of professional development for the other teachers.She links interdisciplinarity to bringing languages together and elaborates on research-based learning, where students learn through researching, by saying that: And then, of course, interdisciplinary research.This is already included in the multilingualism concept, but also in relation to geography and history, which is something that comes along naturally and automatically when you are travelling through the city with the students (M1).
For M1, interdisciplinary research appears obvious as she uses the adverb "of course" and "then", indicating a (logic) sequence.Plurilingual pedagogies are by definition interdisciplinary, expressed by her as "already included".She goes on to connect the ethnographic walking to other subjects and understands this connection with the adverbs "naturally" and "automatically" that describe the action of bringing geography, history and multilingualism together.In another extract, she mentions the cooperation with the university as a way to give and receive mutual input, inspiration and reach innovation by co-researching.
Although M1 is the only teacher expressing (positive) beliefs on interdisciplinarity to support heteroglossic work with languages at school, she thoroughly describes the learning of languages across subjects and in a plurilingual manner, and the importance of collaborating with the university.For her, interdisciplinarity is natural and she frames it within the concept of research-based learning.

Linking languages
Linking languages is about recognising, or being able to infer, similarities, exchanging content between languages, promoting motivation, and creating transfer situations.When the participants describe these aspects, they do not name explicit languages, but assume a coherent, interrelated linguistic system.At another moment, the connectedness of different languages became the discussion topic, as illustrated in the following quote about introducing internationalism: "Where the students could then link French and English terms with Latin, and in that context, I think that was a very purposeful (.), purposeful preparation for them" (T2).The teacher repeats "purposeful" as the main characteristic of linking languages.He names languages (French, English, Latin) to provide examples.Regarding the impact of linguistic languages, M1 states that the students "suddenly see: 'Oh yes, it is actually useful for me to learn another foreign language in addition to English.I will then also understand other foreign languages'.So, if it doesn't stand on its own didactically, but really has an integrative component" (M1).The "integrative component" is the main element of linking languages for M1.Through LL, the students have a discovery or Eureka moment described with the adjective "suddenly", the use of free speech in the first person singular and the interjection "Oh yes".When she talks about intercomprehension or understanding more languages even when learning only one, she uses the adverb "also" and the qualifier "other" to emphasise the various benefits of language learning.
To sum up, participants' beliefs on linking languages range from discovery moments and purposeful connectedness of language, to the benefits of language learning for the individual learner.

Monoglossic perspective
In this sub-section the teachers' monoglossic perspective is presented with regards to the inductively identified aspects of underscoring the interconnectedness and special statuses of languages.

Rejecting the interconnectedness of languages
T2, the only language teacher in this focus group interview who is not part of the working group on plurilingualism, does not see how he can connect the French and the Latin language in general in the classroom and therefore highlights what would be a main issue in the discussion: the interconnectedness of these languages.He states "I can't contribute anything to French, that's really the case.Not at all (laughs), that's why (...) I would find (..) that quite good, I think, if the/" (T2).In this statement, T2 makes it clear that he "really" cannot contribute "anything", "not at all", emphasising negation with another negation.He laughs, interrupts his speech, pausing and leaving his sentences unfinished, which can indicate either a negative feeling such as shame -e.g. that he did not feel competent in French in contrast to the others, because he constructed it as an isolated language -or insecurity, e.g.indicating that he has just become aware of the fact that he cannot contribute to the French classroom or that he lacks knowledge of how to make Latin relevant.He transfers his beliefs onto the students and says "they don't have much to do with French, so nothing, so to speak, and then (..)/".Once again T2 used two negations ("don't" and "nothing") to reinforce his statement.Again, he pauses and does not finish the sentence, perhaps for the same reasons as explained above.T2 is the only participant rejecting the connectedness of languages, which may be caused by negative feelings or insecurities.

Special status: English and Latin
The participants treat some languages as having a special status.The English classroom, for instance, is seen as less plurilingual and English language teachers as different from those of other languages.
But of course, we also have English colleagues who […] can't do anything with any of the second foreign languages, so, I don't know, Jan5 (...), I don't know, Anna is still a bit proficient, I think, but there are many who here they do at all/ but they couldn't deal with this diversity of the second foreign language, no (T1).
T1 doubts that the English language teachers she speaks of can deal with plurilingualism and linguistic diversity, although she is insecure about this statement, which can be deduced from the use of "I don't know", the pause and the unfinished sentence.She starts with the expression "but of course", indicating that for her the difference between the English and the third-language teachers is obvious.In her discourse, English teachers are constructed as being unable to deal with more than one language (they "can't").Her observation is made for the specific plurilingual event "here" (emphasised), creating a contrast to the monolingual language teaching situation.
The Latin teacher attributes a similar special status to Latin because for him it lacks plurilingualism.He says: "Of course, Latin is a bit on the outside in this whole language-linking thing, I would say, especially when you are looking for Latin words in everyday life" (T2).He also begins his sentence with the expression "of course", meaning that Latin's special status "on the outside" appears natural to him.Linking languages is for him "a thing", i.e. something undefined that he cannot grasp.This understanding is emphasised in the expression "this whole … thing", referring to the linking of languages as an abstract or complex concept that is difficult to understand.He adds "I would say", probably showing awareness that his opinion differs from the other participants.Thus, in this focus group interview, the participants' monoglossic perspective within their beliefs on plurilingualism is related to the special status assigned to English and Latin as not plurilingual and L1 as not foreign (enough).In addition, T2 articulates his opposition to the linking of languages when it comes to Latin.His position on the linking of languages is very likely related to the special status he attributes to Latin.

Heteroglossic and monoglossic perspectives mixed
In this sub-section, the tensions between and co-existence of the heteroglossic and the monoglossic perspective will be examined and exemplified with two quotations.The first quotation shows how the heteroglossic and monoglossic perspectives are intertwined: You gain a completely different view of the students when you suddenly don't communicate with them in the language of instruction or in the subject, but suddenly it's about languages that they either know and bring with them from home or that you find in the city.Suddenly, the students develop a different motivation or they show themselves in a completely different way when, for example, their heritage language suddenly plays a role.So, I find that encouraging because I think it is an enrichment for the lessons, that the students realise once again that their own language influences their identity and their self-perception.So, it's a change for them and also for the teacher.So, students who otherwise just sit there as my French students, they change in my perception, [...] That they then show up in a completely different way, and I think that's great that this works so easily through language.And I think that helps the students to realise that they have different access points to foreign languages, even if they have difficulties in French, for example, and in this sense, I think that is also a pedagogical gain in a broader sense (M1).
Here, M1 discusses the integration of heritage languages and the languages in the city (LL) within formal language education.She links this integration with important psychological processes and outcomes such as the influence on the students' identity and self-perception, on the teachers' perception (she emphasises "my perception"), and the heterogeneity of ways to access language(s) and to develop motivation.She uses the active verb "develop" instead of a static verb like "be" and the adjective "motivated", which highlights students' agency in the foreign language classroom.In general, she uses active verbs (e.g., "communicate", "bring with them", "realise") to indicate active processes.She addresses a change in this language learning process that is underpinned by the adjectives and adverbs "completely different", repeated four times, and "suddenly", repeated two times.Finally, she evaluates what she says with positive and empowering connotations such as "enrichment", "encouraging", "great", or "gain".
In this extract, the duality of the heteroglossic and monoglossic perspective can be seen again in words like "enrichment" that suggest that plurilingual pedagogies are rather an additional than an integrated element of the language classroom.Furthermore, M1 expresses a surprise that her students' (meta)linguistic performance "change in my perception" from weak in French to invested in plurilingualism, which can be read as another example of monoglossic and static beliefs about language teaching and learning.The adverb "suddenly" also indicates a monoglossic view opposed to an understanding of plurilingualism as something natural that surrounds us continuously and does not pop up suddenly.
M1 also refers to a correctness norm or deficit-orientation, as she mentions students who "have difficulties in French".This can be contrasted with the heteroglossic view on plurilingualism , expressed when she refers to heritage languages and languages that students bring with them from home.She builds a bridge between the school and the world outside, especially the students' homes.
As a result of their participation in the Language Project Day, T3 sharpened her view on languages, when she specifies that: You put on your glasses and look more: What languages do I see here now and oh, I don't know what that means at all, or in Asian languages I think: I don't know in which country that is really spoken or written.And then maybe you also want to educate yourself and have another look: Well, I've never looked into that language.Would I perhaps have time for that?Also the Scandinavian ones.[…] So I think that as a teacher, you perceive it just as much as the students do and try to sharpen your view.
T3 contrasts Asian and Scandinavian languages with language learning and language awareness in general.She indicates a surprise, emphasised by the interjection "oh", of not knowing some languages, especially Asian ones.She lumps together the languages of a continent into a single group.Then, she talks about a specific language using the definite pronoun "that" in the singular form.She claims to not know the "Asian languages", as an undefined group, which seems to cause difficulties in her role as a teacher who should have the answers to "in which country that is really spoken and written".The use of "really" in this phrase might indicate a scenario where students have an answer, but she is not sure they are right.
Regarding the unspecified language, she implies that it has a spoken and a written form, and that it is spoken in/by one nation.In the end, she describes that teachers and students can learn from LL to sharpen their view of linguistic diversity and languages.She emphasises this by using the phrase "just as much".
To sum up, the teachers intertwine their heteroglossic and monoglossic perspectives on multilingual LL in the language classroom, exemplified in the insights from the Language Project Day.The participants state that languages should not be isolated but understood as a holistic natural system, while maintaining the idea of language correctness.

DISCUSSION
Through analysing the focus group interview, different areas could be identified of how teachers' beliefs on multilingual LL in the plurilingual classroom can reveal the monoglossic, heteroglossic perspective on language teaching.Their beliefs are diverse in that they can be underlined by: • a heteroglossic perspective that is based on interdisciplinarity, language linking, and plurilingualism, regarding students and teachers as plurilinguals; • a monoglossic perspective according to which teachers assign a special status to specific languages or reject the interconnectedness of languages, and; • a combination of both perspectives, characterised by tensions between the idea of singular ('correct') language learning and plurilingualism as a natural way of language learning.
Their beliefs reveal that these perspectives co-exist and become intertwined.They vary inter and interpersonally.No teacher displays purely heteroglossic or monoglossic perspectives.We may therefore understand the heteroglossic and monoglossic perspectives as a continuum rather than as an opposition, in which teachers' beliefs move dynamically within the continuum.
In section 5.1.and 5.2., we saw that T2 on the one side favours linking languages and on the other side rejects it.When it comes to learning Latin, to which he assigns a different status than the other Romance languages, he does not take into account the potential of intercomprehension in language learning (Melo-Pfeifer, 2018b) especially with language families such as the Romance languages.The extracts of section 5.3.showed that the teachers posit their beliefs within the continuum of monoglossic and heteroglossic perspectives on language teaching according to the frame they are referring to.
When M1 refers to the curriculum of the target language classroom, she follows partly the native speaker norm (Creese & Blackledge, 2011).She also draws on the correctness of speaking the target language and contrasts it with the change in students' competencies when moving away from the "monolingual habitus" (Gogolin, 1994) to a plurilingual classroom.
When T3 refers to language(s) in society, she is legitimising only a reduced number of codes (Creese & Blackledge, 2011).She reproduces the common myth of one nation, one language (Billig, 1995).Both M1 and T3 follow the idea of named languages.
When M1 refers to individual speakers and their heritage languages, she draws on the connection between one's languages, identity, and (self and external) perception.In doing so, she refers to the integration of heritage languages, which has the potential to empower plurilingual students (Brinkmann, Duarte et al., 2022).She names the languages, notably minority or heritage languages, that she wants to integrate into her target language classroom to reach social justice and empowerment.This belief demonstrates M1's critical awareness and it can be assumed that her experience with integrating multilingual LL in the plurilingual classroom encouraged her "critical awakening" (Prada, 2021), because she sees the effect of including her plurilingual students and the benefits of connecting languages.Thus, instead of referring to students' entire linguistic repertoire and translanguaging practices -what Creese & Blackledge (2011) describe as flexible bilingualism -, she values the languages by explicitly naming them.
When M1 and T3 refer to their extracurricular initiative of the Language Project Day, they understand plurilingualism as a bridge between the school and the world outside.Especially the students' homes reflect the potential of LLs' bridging formal and informal learning (Brinkmann, McMonagle et al., 2022).Co-ethnography plays a key role on the Language Project Day.T3 indicates that both students and teachers become co-ethnographers of the LL (Lourenço & Melo-Pfeifer, 2023) and experience similar discoveries and learning opportunities.In general, she understands her own lack of knowledge as an opportunity to learn continuously and "educate yourself", like the performative dimension of language awareness (James & Garrett, 2014).For M1, the experience and outcomes of integrating heritage languages into the formal language classroom are rewarding because the heritage language speakers feel empowered and the other students and she as a teacher can learn from them.Thus, the language classroom becomes a space of co-constructions of meaning.This understanding of the heteroglossic and monoglossic perspective as a continuum is summarised in Figure 2, indicating which frame and context draw teachers from one place of the continuum to another.Figure 2 shows that there are elements, such as named languages, that coexist in different frames, which means that it may not be necessary to simply overcome a monoglossic perspective, but instead, we could take its tensions with the heteroglossic perspective into account.Especially regarding heritage language speakers, the discussion showed that a rather monoglossic perspective on language teaching expressed through named languages and a rather heteroglossic perspective expressed through flexible bilingualism create fruitful tensions.

CONCLUSION
Teachers' beliefs on multilingual LL in the plurilingual classroom revealed that there is a continuum of the monoglossic perspective and heteroglossic perspective on language teaching.A possible compromise between the two perspectives could start from making students, student teachers, and teachers aware of the monoglossic perspective on language teaching that leads to (re)producing the structure of singular target languages in teacher's education at university, continuous professional development, and in the curriculum.Integrating a heteroglossic perspective on language teaching would mean either disrupting the structures through extracurricular initiatives or making the learner the centre of language education.Here, the integration of LL into the language classroom has the potential to offer the teachers a new learning and teaching ground, full of linguistic input, and not only the target language.Using LL in the LL classroom can help students to become coethnographers and enable teachers to not understand themselves as unique knowledge owners.In teacher education, a pedagogical implication would be that also teacher educators invite the (student) teachers to co-construct knowledge about language(s) through researching individual (student) teachers' linguistic biographies and the language(s) displayed in the public space.
In terms of perspectives for future research, follow-up studies could focus on an analysis of the evaluation of the Language Project Day that takes into account the context of this action-based study and attempts to triangulate the findings on teachers' beliefs with teachers' actual teaching practices retrospectively which could reveal either reinforcements or discrepancies between beliefs and actions and the role LL play within their teaching actions.In addition, teachers' beliefs could be triangulated with students' beliefs and their perspectives on multilingual LL and plurilingualism.This would allow us to investigate possible origins and the impact teaching experiences have on teachers' beliefs.

Figure
Figure 1.Code system

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Overview of the continuum of heteroglossic and monoglossic perspectives on language teaching

Table 2 . Overview of the Language Project Day
(Altrichter et al. 2018) is action-based research due to the cooperation between M1 and researchers from the University.This type of research enables accessing the research field of teachers' beliefs on integrating multilingual LL into the plurilingual classroom.Action-based research has both a knowledge and a research perspective(Altrichter et al. 2018)because it is "a form of enquiry that enables practitioners in every job and walk of life to investigate and evaluate their work"(McNiff &  Whitehead, 2011, p. 7).In this study, teacher M1 decided to organise, evaluate and research the Language Project Day.She invited M2 to do scientific research while she supervised her learning group.Jointly, they evaluated (M1's aim), researched the event's outcomes from the teachers' perspective (M2's aim) and analysed the results.