Analytical Procedure
The analytical process followed an iterative, multi-stage interpretive strategy designed to move beyond
descriptive synthesis toward conceptual integration and critique. In the first stage, studies were
systematically categorized according to their theoretical orientation (e.g., critical sociolinguistics,
bilingualism theory, translanguaging, decolonial perspectives), methodological approach (qualitative,
ethnographic, policy analysis, mixed methods), geographical focus, and educational level.
In the second stage, thematic coding was employed to identify recurring concepts, dominant narratives,
tensions, and silences across the corpus. Particular attention was paid to how English was framed (as
opportunity, threat, neutral tool, or political instrument), how Indigenous languages were positioned
within educational models, and how multilingual practices were legitimized or constrained.
In the third stage, findings were interpreted through critical sociolinguistic and decolonial lenses,
drawing on theories of language as power, linguistic coloniality, and epistemic injustice. This
interpretive move enabled the analysis to uncover underlying ideological assumptions, such as
monoglossic norms, deficit discourses, and neoliberal rationalities, that often remain implicit in policy
and pedagogical research.
Through this analytical strategy, the review does not merely catalog existing studies but critically
examines how the field has been constructed, whose knowledge has been centered, and which
research trajectories have been foreclosed. This approach positions the review as both a synthesis and
a critical intervention aimed at reshaping future research agendas.
Mapping the Theoretical Landscape
Research on English in Indigenous multilingual education is structured around several intersecting
theoretical traditions, among which three frameworks have been particularly influential: critical
sociolinguistics, bilingualism theory, and multilingual/translanguaging perspectives (Fabre-Triana et
al., 2025; Wang et al., 2021).
From a critical sociolinguistic standpoint, language is understood as a social practice embedded in
relations of power, ideology, and symbolic capital (Wang et al., 2023; Wodak et al., 2012). English, in
this framework, operates within a global linguistic market in which certain languages are legitimized as
carriers of knowledge, mobility, and prestige, while others are systematically devalued (Chang et al.,
2022). Scholars drawing on Bourdieu, Cummins, and Hornberger argue that bilingual education is never
neutral: it can either reproduce linguistic hierarchies or function as a site of resistance, depending on
how languages are positioned within policy, curriculum, and classroom practice (Ağırdağ, 2013;
Vernaudon & Fillol, 2009).
A central analytical axis in this literature is the distinction between additive and subtractive bilingualism
(Maluch & Kempert, 2017). Additive bilingualism refers to educational contexts in which additional
languages are acquired without displacing the learner’s first language, fostering cognitive, academic,
and identity-related benefits (Edmonds, 2024; Jalal, 2019). Subtractive bilingualism, by contrast,
describes situations in which the acquisition of a dominant language—most often English—occurs at
the expense of Indigenous or minoritized languages (Edmonds, 2024; Maluch & Kempert, 2017).
Research consistently demonstrates that Indigenous communities are disproportionately exposed to
subtractive models aligned with standardization, accountability regimes, and global competitiveness
discourses (Kusumaningsih, 2022; Phyak & Sah, 2022).
More recently, translanguaging and critical multilingualism have emerged as theoretical and
pedagogical responses to the limitations of traditional bilingual Education (McDougald, 2019). These
perspectives challenge monoglossic ideologies by conceptualizing multilingual speakers’ repertoires
LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Asunción, Paraguay.
ISSN en línea: 2789-3855, abril, 2026, Volumen VII, Número 2 p 1433.
