In order to meet the demands for inclusion but also for learner-centredness and efficiency in language learning, many new approaches have been developed in the last 15 years for a more integrated consideration and teaching of languages (cf. Le Pape Racine 2007, Hufeisen 2011, Meißner 2004 etc.). However, they have in common that on the one hand they have deficits in describing plurilingual competences of learners on the basis of empirical data, on the other hand they are often limited to certain languages and do not start from the actual linguistic repertoire of the pupils.

Against this background, it seems all the more relevant to deal with the individual plurilingualism of speakers in the school context in order to generate important impulses for the further development of multilingual didactics and also language theory (cf. Lüdi 2006).

An ethnographic approach including the description of language repertoires seems promising in this respect. Based on Gumperz (1964) and Busch (2012), this approach serves to capture the linguistic profiles of speakers in a holistic way and to understand their development and potential. In addition to that, the Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures (FREPA) (Candelier et. al 2010) and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2017) are based on the understanding that linguistic knowledge and transfer processes based on multilingualism can be used as strategic (pre-)knowledge for the learning of (additional) languages. This language awareness does not include the sum of individual languages as countable "set categories" (Busch 2012: 506), but rather the entire linguistic and meta-linguistic knowledge as well as (inter)cultural competences. These plurilingual skills are particularly evident in coping with multilingual communication situations (Lenz / Berthele 2010) and preferably studied in a multilingual context of education.

In this context, the South Tyrolean context represents an ideal field of research, as this region is characterised by a very diverse linguistic landscape and there are already many approaches to multilingualism and (multiple) language learning. Due to its geographical location and historical development, the province has always been a multilingual region, which is also eveident today by the presence of the three official languages Italian, German and Ladin. There is also an inner multilingualism, which is connected to all three languages in different forms, manifested by a variety of dialects and varieties (Egger & Lanthaler 2001:12). In addition to this traditional or "old" multilingualism, we find also "new" languages – especially English, French and Spanish as modern foreign languages in schools and also in the tourism sector, as well as Albanian, Arabic, Russian, Urdu, and many other so-called heritage languages of immigrants (Colombo & Stopfner in press). Using the potential residing in this linguistic diversity is one of the challenges that the educational system of the province is facing (Engel & Stopfner in press).

For gaining more empirical insights on this issue, the project “RepertoirePluS” has been set up in 2016 in order to study the linguistic repertoires of students aged 12 to 15 attending lower and upper secondary schools of the German, Italian and Ladin language groups. The 3-year project aims to investigate the diversity of the students’ linguistic repertoires, answering the following research questions: What is the scope of the linguistic repertoires of students in South Tyrol? Which plurilingual competences do they have and how can these be described? How do the students use their “plus” of plurilingualism in interactive multilingual scenarios and how do they perceive this experience?

Our study is designed to allow for in-depth research on individual linguistic repertoires of students aged between 12 and 15 in South Tyrol, attending lower and upper secondary schools of all three linguistic groups. Basing our endeavour on existing theoretical frameworks such as FREPA, the CEFR, whole-school language curricula (Hufeisen 2011), curricula for multilingualism (Krumm & Reich 2013), but also on national and regional guidelines, data was collected in two phases: Initially, students of 14 school classes completed a detailed written semi-structured questionnaire. It included several parts such as a language portrait, a language biography, a language use network, a languages self-assessment grid, more than 40 question items on linguistic domains, language perception, use of the linguistic repertoire, and imagined situations of language use. Subsequently, 7 of these classes were selected by purposive sampling for a second phase of data collection. As language behaviour and thus also the use of language repertoires as a whole of "mobile resources" (Busch 2012: 10) can be observed and investigated within the framework of multilingual scenarios, the study’s second survey consisted in an experimental design of a “language village” (Adrighem, Härtig, Chlosta & Iordanidou 2006). Here, we studied to what extent plurilingual students can actually access their linguistic repertoires in specifically designed scenarios and make use of them in mastering and reflecting upon different situations of multilingual interaction. This language village includes five different tasks that integrate communicative strategies as mediation, intercomprehension and polyglot dialogue. Student activities are audio-visually recorded and enhanced by methods of observation. In addition to this, all students afterwards participate in focus group interviews for discussing central issues of their “language village” experience and the perceived use of their linguistic repertoires. The data from both survey phases have been digitalised, processed and are analysed using quantitative and qualitative methods. The results are brought together via data triangulation (Flick 2011), interpreted in terms of content and examined for correlations in order answer the question of how linguistic repertoires as well as plurilingual competences and resources can be described in a more holistic and empirically grounded way.

Drawing on current developments in the field of multilingualism research, the study of “RepertoirePluS” allows for a change of perspective, which does not focus on measuring single language competences but rather on the description of individual linguistic repertoires and thus innterconnected plurilingual competence (Zanasi & Platzgummer in press). By focusing on plurilingual people with their respective resources and competences and on the use of their heteroglossic repertoire in multilingual scenarios, it becomes clear that their abilities are no longer measured against monolingual or bilingual "ideal speakers". Thus, the focus moves further away from the deficit approach to a competence orientation, to individualisation and inclusion. Our project also promotes the appreciation of all competences associated with the use of languages and can thus make an important contribution to the further development of linguistic theories that focus on the multilingual individual as a standard (cf. Lüdi 2006). In the course of research into language repertoires, a deeper understanding of the extent to which multilingual repertoires can be understood as a commodity (cf. Heller 2003) is achieved and thus their value and benefits should be recognized and promoted. We will demonstrate how to analyse and characterise linguistic repertoires as well as plurilingual competences and resources in order to facilitate further development of integrated language didactics and learning theory, which are also needed for designing multilingual curricula. The results of the project will be able to connect both in the field of science and teacher training and offer new impulses for the development of language curricula by expanding existing, deductively developed descriptors of multilingual competence with empirical knowledge and making them even more practical.

Adrighem, Irene van; Härtig, Judith; Chlosta, Christoph & Iordanidou, Charitini (2006): „Taaldorp - Von der Idee zu den ersten Versuchen“. http://www.daf-netzwerk.org/arbeitsgruppen/ag4/ Busch, Brigitta (2012): “Linguistic Repertoire Revisited.“ In: Applied Linguistics 33 (5). 503–523. Council of Europe (2017): Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Candelier, Michel et al. (2010): Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures. Graz: ECML. Colombo, Sabrina & Stopfner, Maria (in press): “Alte und neue Formen der Mehrsprachigkeit in Südtirol.” In: Danner, M. & Mauser, P.(eds.): Formen der Mehrsprachigkeit. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Egger, Kurt & Lanthaler, Franz (eds.) (2001): Die deutsche Sprache in Südtirol. Einheitssprache und regionale Vielfalt. Wien: Folio. Engel, Dana & Stopfner, Maria (in press): “Communicative Competence in the Context of Increasing Diversity in South Tyrolean Schools.“ In: Jessner-Schmid, Ulrike & Vetter, Eva (eds.): Multilingualism and Third Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Flick, Uwe (2011): Triangulation. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Gumperz, John (1964): ”Linguistic and social interaction in two communities.” In: American Anthropologist 66 (6/2). 137–153. Heller, Monika (2003): “Identity and commodity in bilingual education.” In: Mondada, Lorenza; Pekarek Doehler, Simona (eds.): Plurilinguisme. Mehrsprachigkeit. Plurilingualism. Enjeux identitaires, socio-culturels et educatifs. Tübingen/ Basel: Francke. 3-14. Hufeisen, Britta (2011): “Gesamtsprachencurriculum: Überlegungen zu einem prototypischen Modell“. In: Baur, Rupprecht/ Hufeisen, Britta (eds.): "Vieles ist sehr ähnlich." ‐ Individuelle und gesellschaftliche Mehrsprachigkeit als bildungspolitische Aufgabe. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren. 265–282. Krumm, Hans-Jürgen & Reich, Hans H. (2013): Sprachbildung und Mehrsprachigkeit. Ein Curriculum zur Wahrnehmung und Bewältigung sprachlicher Vielfalt im Unterricht. Münster: Waxmann. Le Pape Racine, Christine (2007): “Integrierte Sprachendidaktik – Immersion und das Paradoxe an ihrem Erfolg.“ In: Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung 25 (2). 156-167. Lenz, Peter & Berthele, Raphael (2010): Assessment in Plurilingual and Intercultural Education. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Lüdi, Georges (2006): ”Multilingual repertoires and the consequences for linguistic theory.” In: Bührig, Kristin; Thije, Jan D. ten (eds.): Beyond Misunderstanding: Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 11–42. Meißner, Franz-Joseph (2004): “EuroComprehension und Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. Zwei einander ergänzende Konzepte und ihre Terminologie.“ In: Rutke, Dorothea; Weber, Peter (eds.): Mehrsprachigkeit und ihre Didaktik. Multimediale Perspektiven für Europa. Bausteine Europas, Bd. X. St. Augustin: Asgard. 97-116. Zanasi & Platzgummer (in press): “Repertori linguistici in contesti di plurilinguismo.“ In: Proceedings sul Convegno Internazionale Educazione plurilingue: ricerca, didattica e politiche linguistiche, Istituto Italiano di Studi Germanici, Roma 26-27 gennaio 2017.