In volume 103 of Modern Language Journal, Stephen May suggested that the multilingual turn has not fully delivered on its promises, pointing out second language acquisition (SLA) researchers? continued focus on parallel monolingualisms rather than on dynamic bi/multilingualism, the lack of theorization of historicity in sociolinguistic research on the latter, the balkanization of academic knowledge preventing transdisciplinary scholarship, and West-centered methodological nationalism. While I agree with his points, I believe the solution requires more than critical reflexivity, reading beyond our areas of interest, and relinquishing fast-held methodological principles. Scholarly hegemony and disciplinary elitism exist because we are more than minds touting theories and epistemologies. We must acknowledge how we, as researchers, seek cultural prestige and economic well-being by affiliating with the global North and its mechanisms for knowledge production. Given this, I discuss what scholars in both the global North and South can do to reform the discipline to address May's concerns, in terms of 1 action those in the global South must consistently attempt, and 4 responsibilities of those in the global North.

中文翻译：

---

协商 SLA 中的多语言转向：对 Stephen May 的回应

在 Modern Language Journal 的第 103 卷中，Stephen May 指出多语言转向尚未完全兑现其承诺，指出第二语言习得 (SLA) 研究人员？继续关注平行的单语制而不是动态的双语/多语制，后者的社会语言学研究缺乏历史性理论化，学术知识的分裂阻碍了跨学科研究，以及以西方为中心的方法论民族主义。虽然我同意他的观点，但我相信解决方案需要的不仅仅是批判性的反思、超出我们感兴趣的领域的阅读以及放弃快速持有的方法论原则。学术霸权和学科精英主义之所以存在，是因为我们不仅仅是吹捧理论和认识论的头脑。我们必须承认我们作为研究人员，通过与全球北方及其知识生产机制建立联系来寻求文化声望和经济福祉。鉴于此，我讨论了全球北方和南方的学者可以做些什么来改革学科以解决梅的担忧，即全球南方必须始终尝试的 1 项行动和全球北方的 4 责任。