There are three slightly different ways that language and languages can be considered in relation to the idea of assemblage: assemblages as combinations of linguistic items (language assemblages), assemblages as semiotic gatherings (semiotic assemblages) and assemblages as material arrangements that involve language (sociomaterial assemblages). Looking at language in terms of assemblages emphasizes the processes of communication as people draw on varied resources to make meaning. The notion of semiotic assemblages opens up ways of thinking that focus not so much on language use in particular contexts – as if languages pre-exist their instantiation in particular places – but rather on the ways in which particular assemblages of objects, linguistic resources and places come together. This is to approach language not as a pregiven or circumscribed entity but rather as something that is constantly being put together from a range of semiotic and resources. Sociomaterial assemblages similarly focus on things and places in relation to linguistic resources and consider language to be embodied, embedded and distributed, where language is not so much an abstract system of signs as changing sets of material relations.

This chapter draws cross-linguistic comparisons among the patterns reported in Chapter 5 for three linguistic variables that occur in at least three languages in the project: (VOT), (CASE), and (PRODROP). Conditioning factors, both linguistic and social, are discussed. Collapsing across rate and constraint hierarchy for each variable, we note any indication of change in either. Half the context we examine exhibit stability. Of the eight that indicate difference, half of these can be attributed to English (including both convergence and divergence). With few differences between homeland and heritage speakers to work with, we find few generalizations about what parts of the language, or which languages, change. We do see more change in one morphosyntactic variable, (CASE), than in the phonetic variable (VOT), but less in the other morphosyntactic variable (PRODROP).

Linguistic citizenship is anchored in a decolonial critique of knowledge construction and power relations. It is an act of innovation but also an act of opposition. By wanting to strengthen agency it is inventive. But it also threatens to reclaim spaces that managers seek to control. Studies have referred to universities as ‘colonial enterprises’ and 'ruthless corporations' where complaints against racism are routinely dismissed. If universities are not multicultural spaces where diversity of communication modes is acceptable and practical ways to accommodate them are explored and if necessary constantly revised, then as institutions they cannot play a credible role in leading the promotion, construction and defence of multicultural and multilingual spaces in their immediate civic environments. The university cannot be a civic university if it refuses to decolonise. Multilingual Manchester (MLM) succeeded in shaping a novel concept of linguistic citizenship. Elements of the city language narrative are likely to stay. But there is a real risk that their content will be diluted as they are appropriated to serve corporate branding and profitability interests.

Academia can instigate policy debates. Data collection instruments like the Census are framed in a monolingual mindset that makes it difficult to obtain a full picture of language diversity, while the smart city concept can be applied to language to capture a wider range of data. In using language to determine origin and entitlement to refugee status, we interrogated prevailing concepts and enriched judicial procedures by offering new methods of analysis and interpretation, helping to ensure a more just consideration of claims. The chapter also describes the managerial culture of control over the public narrative around the value of modern languages that aimed essentially at protecting the sector and existing ontologies. The chapter concludes with a consideration of locality studies as a new, alternative framework through which to engage in the study of local languages and forge international connections.

The chapter reviews approaches to decoloniality and critical evaluations of the relaunch of the civic university idea in the twenty-first century, and the risks of commodifying diversity and community links and objectifying communities in pursuit of a neoliberal agenda. In 2010 the Multilingual Manchester (MLM) project was launched as a model of non-linear, reciprocal partnership combining teaching, research and public engagement. It set up multiple partnerships with local service providers and community groups, a student volunteer scheme, digital resources and a policy engagement strand and created public spaces to engage with the city’s multilingualism. Ironically it was the crystalisation of a neoliberal university agenda that gave the initiative momentum: MLM was seen as a useful tool to market degree programmes by offering a unique student experience and employability prospects, a way to maximise impact (in 2014 and 2021 more than half of the relevant unit of assessment’s impact submissions were linked to MLM) and to demonstrate connections with the locality.

The pro-Brexit campaign leading up to the 2016 referendum in the UK and in its aftermath was accompanied and driven by a narrative that was hostile to immigration and its cultural implications. Language played a role, with Leave campaigners criticising the presence of multiple languages in UK society and government agencies embarking on an 'English first' campaign that linked community languages to lack of integration and social incoherence. At the same time some arguments in support of foreign language learning embraced the Brexit narrative claiming that language skills will help post-Brexit Britain gain global influence. The chapter surveys different strands of UK language policy and concludes with an assessment of latest Census figures on language pointing to the increase in multilingualism.

City institutions engage with language provisions in order to ensure equal access to services. Global provisions are intertwined with local knowledge resources introduced by individual agents. As UK austerity measures post-2012 led to a reduction of resources and specialised provisions, institutions began to rely more and more on the deployment of local individualised knowledge in response to communication challenges. Multilingual spaces became in some areas improvised and driven by the agency of both institutional agents and clients. The city’s day-to-day operations can be seen as a space of resistance to monolingual ideologies, born out of the necessity to provide front-line services to all and tightly embedded into the shared experience of a multilingual reality. But city-based institutions have limited powers to legislate or to fund operations.