Applied Linguistics Review

Applied Linguistics Review 2 2011

Applied Linguistics Review 2 2011 Editor

Li Wei

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-023932-4 e-ISBN 978-3-11-023933-1 ISSN 1868-6303 ISSN online 1868-6311 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Typesetting: PTP-Berlin Protago TEX-Production GmbH, Berlin Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Editor

Associate Editors

Li Wei Department of Applied Linguistics & Communication University of London, Birkbeck College 26 Russel Square, Bloomsbury London WC1B 5DQ UK E-mail: [email protected]

David Block University of London, Institute of Education Bencie Woll University College London Itesh Sachdev University of London, SOAS

International Advisory Board Keiko Abe Kyoritsu Women’s University, Japan

Alex Housen Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

Kingsley Bolton City University of Hong Kong, China

Andy Kirkpatrick Hong Kong Institute of Education, China

Vivian Cook Newcastle University, UK

Claire Kramsch University of California, Berkeley, USA

Donna Christian Center for Applied Linguistics, USA

Mayouf Ali Mayouf University of Sebha, Libya

Annick De Houwer University of Erfurt, Germany

Tim McNamara University of Melbourne, Australia

Patricia Duff University of British Columbia, Canada

Ben Rampton King’s College London, UK

Diana Eades University of New England, Australia

Elana Shohamy Tel Aviv University, Israel

Yihong Gao Beijing University, China

David Singleton Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Ofelia Garcia City University of New York Graduate Center, USA

Anna Verschik Tallinn Pedagogical University, Estonia

Susan Gass University of Michigan, USA Fred Genesee McGill University, Canada Nancy Hornberger University of Pennsylvania, USA

Terry Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics, USA Lawrence Zhang National Institute of Education, Singapore

Contents

Li Wei Editor’s note

ix

Suresh Canagarajah Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy

1

Massimiliano Spotti Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities: Looking at the multilingual classroom through a post-Fishmanian lens

29

Kingsley Bolton Language policy and planning in Hong Kong: Colonial and post-colonial perspectives

51

Lin Pan English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing

75

Andy Kirkpatrick English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary): Implications for local languages and local scholarship

99

Siân Preece Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

121

Anne Pauwels Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

147

viii

Contents

Larissa Aronin, Muiris O´ Laoire and David Singleton The multiple faces of multilingualism: Language nominations

169

Raphael Berthele On abduction in receptive multilingualism. Evidence from cognate guessing tasks

191

Annick De Houwer Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

221

Margo DelliCarpini The role of phonemic awareness in early L2 reading for adult English language learners: Pedagogical implications

241

Piia Varis, Xuan Wang and Caixia Du Identity repertoires on the Internet: Opportunities and constraints

265

Crispin Thurlow and Adam Jaworski Tourism discourse: Languages and banal globalization

285

Jeff Bezemer, Alexandra Cope, Gunther Kress and Roger Kneebone “Do you have another Johan?” Negotiating meaning in the operating theatre

313

Editor’s note LI WEI

The inaugural issue of Applied Linguistics Review was published in June 2010. All the evidence suggests that it has been very positively received. Some of the articles have not only been cited by other researchers but also made onto the reading lists for students. This second volume includes another fine selection of articles on a range of topics in applied linguistics, from critical analysis of classroom interaction and language teaching ideologies to tourism discourse and interactions in the operating theatre. Together the articles demonstrate the breadth and strength of applied linguistics as a field of transdisciplinary, critical enquiry. This year we received a lot more articles than we could possible include. It is always a shame not to be able to accept all the submissions. But we do want to ensure high quality of the published articles. I am very grateful to the contributors for the most interesting work they present in their articles. I am also grateful to my co-editors, especially David Block, for their work in putting this volume together. Several of my immediate colleagues at Birkbeck have reviewed the papers for this volume, along with other invited reviewers and members of the advisory board. Brigid O’Connor acted as the copy editor. I thank them all. As ever, the work by the staff at the Mouton office must be acknowledged. Without their enthusiasm, this publication would not have been possible. London January 2011

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities: Looking at the multilingual classroom through a post-Fishmanian lens MASSIMILIANO SPOTTI

Abstract This paper focuses on the construction of immigrant minority pupils’identities in a regular multicultural primary school classroom in the Netherlands. It presents three ethnographic data sets. The first set features the evaluative discourse of a Dutch medium primary school teacher and it focuses on the ways in which this class teacher indexes pupils’ identities on an axis of (linguistic) disorder versus order on the basis of an attributed monolingual upbringing. The second set features the evaluative discourse of Moroccan girls of both Berber and Arabic-speaking origin. Although the Dutch language is a given in their lives, their identity belongings are strongly anchored on the axis of purity versus impurity, established on the basis of their language skills in the immigrant minority language. The third set features a sabotage move perpetrated by two pupils of Turkish background, who assert the validity of ’international’ languages as opposed to their home language and who use ‘fake’Arabic to escape the pressure exerted on them by the classroom researcher. The paper concludes by proposing a revisited understanding of multilingualism that can give justice to the complexity of the pupils’ own sociolinguistic repertoires and identity performances. This renewed understanding is based on a post-Fishmanian awareness that sees language use and identity construction as polycentric semiotic performances not necessarily bound to groups. Key words: Identity, multilingualism, Fishman, immigrant pupils, primary education, the Netherlands, interpretive ethnography

1. Introduction Cultural and linguistic diversity in Dutch mainstream society have been the object of heated public and political debates for decades, with increased attention being paid to the need for integration (more recently addressed as ‘participa-

30

Massimiliano Spotti

tion’) of immigrant minority group members within mainstream Dutch society. This integration is marketed and sold as something to be achieved through the means of Dutch alone (Extra and Spotti 2009). As a result of immigration, the Dutch educational system has also been confronted with complex new patterns of multilingualism and the identities of immigrants and their offspring, and primary education is one of the institutionalized environments in which monoglot policing has taken place. That is, it is one of the institutional environments in which government policy has enabled the Dutch language, rather than being side kicked by immigrant minority languages, to be the only language of instruction in the curriculum (Bezemer and Kroon 2007). This situation, however, is in sharp contrast with the findings of ethnographic research that reconstruct a discontinuity between monoglot language policies and the heteroglot language repertoires of immigrant minority pupils (cf. Bezemer 2003; Spotti 2006). With the above as backdrop, this paper focuses on the construction of immigrant minority pupils’ identities in a regular multicultural primary school classroom in the Netherlands. It presents three ethnographic data sets. The first set features the evaluative discourse of a Dutch medium primary school teacher and it focuses on the ways in which this class teacher indexes pupils’ identities on an axis of (linguistic) disorder versus order on the basis of an attributed monolingual upbringing. The second set features the evaluative discourse of Moroccan girls of both Berber and Arabic-speaking origin. Although the Dutch language is a given in their lives, their identity belongings are strongly anchored on the axis of purity versus impurity, established on the basis of their language skills in the immigrant minority language. The third set features a sabotage move perpetrated by two pupils of Turkish background, who assert the validity of ‘international’ languages as opposed to their home language and who use ‘fake’ Arabic to escape the pressure exerted on them by the classroom researcher. The paper concludes by proposing a revisited understanding of multilingualism that can give justice to the complexity of the pupils’ own polylingual sociolinguistic repertoires and identity performances. The central concepts here are modernist language ideologies, indexicality, and identity. Together, these three concepts help construct a viable conceptual pathway for the study of identity construction. It is therefore necessary to outline my understanding of these three concepts at the outset of this paper.

2. Modernist language ideologies, indexicality and identities Modernist language ideologies are belief systems that have served, and still serve, nation-states and their institutional ramifications – such as education – in

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities

31

setting up and perpetrating national order (Baumann and Briggs 2003; see also Silverstein’s 1996, 1998 work on a culture of monoglot standard). Modernist language ideologies present languages as codified in specific artefactualised linguistic objects: grammars, dictionaries etc. (Blommaert 2008) – that have a name (e.g. Dutch, Turkish, Arabic, etc.), and whose speakers have clearly definable ethnolinguistic identities, i.e., ‘I am a speaker of language X and therefore I am a member of group Y’. These ideologies, seen as contributing to the maintenance of national order, revolve around two tenets: the establishment of a standard or norm for language behaviour that is common to all inhabitants of a nation-state, and the rejection of hybridity and ambivalence in any form of linguistic behaviour. Of these two closely related tenets, the former is the goal towards which the latter is seen to contribute. That is, the rejection of hybridity is embedded in the search – whether in writing or in pronunciation – for a ‘standard’ (see Agha 2003 for a comprehensive explanation of the emergence of Received Pronunciation of English [RP] as a product of characterological discourses). The standard is presented as the norm and, as such, is sold and marketed as the uncorrupted variety of the official/national language and often associated with the righteous moral values of its users (see Agha 2003: 231–273). Finally, given that languages are understood as finite entities bound by syntactical rules and grammars, their usage can be assessed. From this it follows, then, that there will be language users whose use of language can be evaluated as better than that of others. As for education, categorising pupils on the basis of how skilful they are in the usage of the standard variety, or even in the usage of the school variety of a certain language, holds deep implications for identity construction. This leads us to the concept of indexicality. Any bits of language that someone uses carry an ideological load in that, in addition to their referential meaning, they also carry either pragmatic or social meaning (i.e. have ‘indexicality’). In other words, any bits of a language that one uses are potentially subject to evaluation against the standard/norm from others who inhabit the same socialisation space. A poignant example of this indexicalisation process is the evaluation of accents, which can be embedded in people’s discourse on language use (e.g., ‘he speaks like a farmer’ or ‘he surely is from the capital’), and that are drawn on grounds of – often implicit – shared complexities of indexicality within a certain centering institution (see Dong 2009: 72–73). For instance, an accent can be evaluated as ‘funny’ because it indexes distance from the authorised standard accent which in turn is an index of prestige and constructs the identity of those performing it as an identity of someone who is ‘well schooled’. Indexicality is therefore the connective cement that links language use to social meanings, and all this is done through institutionally authorised evaluative discourses. This means that in any act of

32

Massimiliano Spotti

language use, there is always identity work involved and that indexicality points to the grassroots displays of ‘groupness’. Consequently, every utterance, even when not explicitly about identity, is an act of identity performance. This leads us to the third and final concept of the conceptual framework employed here: that of identity. Space constraints do not allow for a complete review of the concept of identity (see Block 2006; Dong 2010; Joseph 2003; Spotti 2007). For the present purpose, it should suffice to pin down three things. First, identity is not something that someone possesses. Rather, it is something that someone constructs in social practice within a space of socialisation. Second, identity is not monolithic. Instead, it consists of a series of performative acts that take place according to the socialisation space one occupies. We can therefore talk of ‘identities’ instead of ‘identity’ and identities are constructs that are built on the basis of semiotic resources at one’s disposal within a certain socialisation space. Third, identities are inhabited as well as ascribed. Inhabited identities refer to self-performed identities through which people claim allegiance to a group. Conversely, ascribed identities are attributed to one by others on the basis of evaluative criteria that make one either well-fitted or ill-fitted for a socially circumscribed category (e.g., ‘the good neighbour’, ‘the bad student’, ‘the college beauty’, ‘the nerd’; see also Goffman 1981). How do modernist language ideologies, indexicalities, and identities work together, then? Borrowing from Bakhtin (1981: 293), in any stratified urban society, languages, the connections between language varieties and the identities of different groups are not as straightforward as modernist language ideologies would have us to believe. Varieties are indexes of diverse, often conflicting, symbolic meanings of social, cultural and ethnic belongings. More simply put, the bits of language that someone uses are not only a means for the direct expression of someone’s intentions but they are also objects that index identity belonging both in one’s own eyes (inhabited identity) and in the eyes of others (ascribed identity). Language(s) and their words therefore carry an ideological load (see Rampton 2005: 75) because they are subject to the values at play at the time and in the space in which they are uttered (Blommaert 2005: 222–223). It is according to the centring institution that someone is either part of, or tries to gain access to, that one’s identity is constructed as that of a ‘good’ (insider) member or a ‘bad’ (outsider) member. This is done on the basis of either how successfully, or unsuccessfully, one manages to embrace the complexity of indexicalities present within that specific socialisation space. The evaluative discourses that construct identities result from either the respect or trespass of situated language norms. These, in turn, revolve around the central values of the centring institution in which bits of language have been deployed. A case in point would be a pupil

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities

33

learning standard Dutch who, engaged in mapping graphemes onto phonemes in a primary school classroom, fails to use standard Latin script and, consequently, is assessed as having ‘sloppy’ orthographic skills, (mis)recognised as having ‘faulty’ literacy skills and, finally, ascribed the identity of an ‘illiterate’ pupil (see Blommaert, Cleve and Willaert 2006). The phenomenology of super-diverse migration movements that makes up for a new form of diversity that impinges upon the group oriented diversity that has characterized (Western) Europe from the 1970s onwards, shows that mobility of people involves mobility of linguistic and semiotic resources. It follows, that a sedimented understanding of language and identity as finite entities, and an understanding of language use according to sedentary patterns is now complemented by ‘translocal’ forms of language use (see Jacquement 2005). The combination of both holds unexpected sociolinguistic effects and it has outreaching consequences for people’s identity performances.

3. The study The study was part of a larger interpretive ethnographic inquiry on identity construction in one Dutch and one Flemish multicultural primary school classroom. Both case studies aimed at analysing evaluative discourse ethnographically to understand how immigrant minority pupils’ identities are constructed in the discourse authored by policy documents, school staff members and pupils, as well as in classroom interactions. The data consists of field notes, long open-ended interviews with staff members, focused group discussions with the pupils and audio recordings of classroom interactions. Approximately 55 hours of classroom interactions were observed and audio taped. The observer never sought to actively participate in the classroom interactions. Interviews followed the plot of the ‘long open-ended interview’ (McCracken 1988), and they were structured around general topics like the educational and professional background of the teacher, the knowledge that s/he held of the pupils’ sociolinguistic background, of their ethno-linguistic, cultural and religious belongings as well as about events that were observed during the unfolding of the classroom’s daily life. The first interview was conducted with the classroom teacher after a week’s visit in the classroom and another three interviews were conducted either to further elucidate the teacher’s evaluative discourse (indicated below with ‘S02’) or to gain the retrospective view of the teacher on the taped classroom episodes. Central to the analysis here are also the focused group discussions carried out with the pupils (below indicated with ‘GD01’). The groups were formed based on the quantity of contact that pupils

34

Massimiliano Spotti

had with each other. The discussions turned out to be friendly chats where pupils could express their views on topics that emerged from the questionnaires administered to them to gather some initial information on their ethnic, linguistic and religious belongings and from the field notes drawn during the observation period. All discussions took place in the afternoon, mainly in the schools’ staff room and lasted between 30 to 45 minutes for each group. The discussions were all audio taped and the pupils were made aware that the audiotape recorder was on as the group ‘chat’ started. Their discussions touched upon various topics. Starting from the pupils’ knowledge of their parental patterns of migration, the discussion moved to the exploration of the pupils’ own understanding of their identity belongings. As in the interviews with staff members, my position in all the discussions was limited to giving them prompts and asking them to either expand on or clarify their statements. I showed my curiosity in what they had to say and tried to limit, when needed, the intervention of the more talkative ones to allow each group member to participate. As for classroom interactions, a pool of the recordings was selected and transcribed1 from the synopsis drawn out of the field notes and audiotapes. These were thought to have the potential to be selected as incidents that shed light on how identities of immigrant minority pupils are constructed in interaction and contribute to construct “a description so that others may see what members of a social group need to know, understand, interpret, and produce to participate in appropriate ways” (Green and Bloome 1997: 186). The transcriptions of the recordings are presented in English, with the Dutch text underneath in italics. These transcriptions were combined together with the field notes gathered during the observation time for a tentative analysis and interpretation along the lines of the ‘key incident approach’ (Erickson 1986; Kroon and Sturm 2000). As Erickson (1986: 108) points out in illustrating the meaning of the term ‘key’: [a] key event is key in that the researcher assumes intuitively that the event chosen has the potential to make explicit a theoretical ‘loading’. A key event is key in that it brings to awareness latent, intuitive judgments the analyst has already made about salient patterns in the data. Once brought to awareness these judgments can be reflected upon critically.

The reviewing of the pool of incidents initially selected on the basis of the researcher’s intuitive assumptions has given way to a first tentative analysis that was then either discarded or taken further in a more coherent and deeper analysis and interpretation of the incident in hand.An incident is selected as ‘key’in that it represents tangible instances of the working of the cultural ecology (the normal) of a certain sociocultural space and of its social organization. Its analysis has

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities

35

helped to shed light on how identities are performed in the discourses present in the classroom under investigation (cf. Guba and Lincoln 1989: 176; Polanyi 1989). 3.1. The school, the classroom and the pupils The data that I present here were collected in the school year 2004–2005 at St. Joseph’s Catholic Primary, a regular multicultural primary school in Duivenberg, a medium-sized city of approximately 200,000 inhabitants in the south of the Netherlands. At that time, the school had a high concentration of immigrant minority pupils and an exclusively Dutch-speaking teaching staff. On February 15th 2005, Form 8a at St. Joseph’s Catholic Primary amounted to eighteen pupils in total, eight boys and ten girls. The age of the pupils ranged from eleven to thirteen years due to some pupils having repeated one or more school years. None of the pupils had been enrolled during the ongoing school year; thirteen of them had attended St. Joseph’s Catholic Primary since Form 1. All pupils reported to be of immigrant minority background. According to the school register, all pupils but one had been assigned an educational weight of 1.902 i.e. they were all registered as pupils in need of additional educational support as a consequence of their parents’ low educational and socio-economic background (the ‘norm’ for educational weight being 1.0). The exception is Walid, who has an educational weight of 1.0 and whose parents were both born in Morocco and are highly educated. All pupils reported to speak a language other than or another alongside Dutch at home. Concerning the country of birth of the pupils, thirteen out of the eighteen pupils were born in the Netherlands. Out of the remaining five pupils, three were born in the Dutch Antilles, one in BosniaHerzegovina and one in Morocco. Half of Form 8a came from the Moroccan immigrant community and of these pupils only Walid and Khalid were born to parents of Moroccan Arabic-speaking background, while the rest was born to Berber parents. Among the latter, Hajar – born in the Netherlands to a father of Arabic-speaking background and a mother of Berber background – understands and speaks Berber. However, her network of classroom friendships claims to address her mostly in Moroccan Arabic. Affifa was the only pupil born to a second-generation Moroccan Arabic-speaking father and a first-generation Moroccan Arabic-speaking mother. In order to gather information on the home languages present in the classrooms under investigation, all pupils have been asked by their class teacher to fill in a home language survey (cf. Broeder and Extra 1998). Table 1 reports the home languages, gender and names of the pupils as gathered from the home language survey carried out in this class. All names of the pupils are fictive.

36

Massimiliano Spotti

Table 1. Gender, names and home languages of the pupils in Form 8a Boys Khalid Sofian Roble Cemal Walid; Zakariya Joshwa Osman

Girls Samira; Lemnja; Siham Rhonda ¨ Ozlem Hajar; Affifa Lejla Meryem Micheline

Home language(s) Dutch and Arabic Dutch and Berber Dutch and Papiamentu Dutch and Somali Dutch and Turkish Dutch, Arabic and Berber Dutch, Bosnian and Croatian Dutch, Papiamentu and English Dutch, Turkish and Arabic Dutch, Papiamentu, English and Spanish

The data gathered from Form 8a home language survey are not in agreement with the annotations made in the class register by the Form 8a class teacher. She, in fact, relied on her own ‘well-educated guess’ about the pupils’ (supposed yet untapped) ethnic affiliation and home languages as well as on the information given in the pupils’ enrollment forms. The gender, names and home languages of the pupils as they appeared in the class register are reported in Table 2. Table 2. Gender, names and home language(s) of the pupils following Form 8a register Boys Osman Walid; Zakariya Joshwa Roble Cemal

Girls Affifa Samira; Lemnja; Siham Lejla Rhonda ¨ Meryem; Ozlem Micheline

Home language(s) Dutch Dutch and Moroccan Dutch and Bosnian Dutch and Papiamentu Dutch and Somali Dutch and Turkish Dutch, Papiamentu and English

The class register does not report any information on Hajar, Khalid and Sofian. It also indicates that Osman, born in the Netherlands to Turkish parents, and Affifa, born in the Netherlands to a second-generation Moroccan father and a first-generation Moroccan mother, only have Dutch as their home language. Further, while the home language survey indicates Berber as one of the home languages for eight pupils of Form 8a, in the class register the home language of these pupils is given under the umbrella term ‘Moroccan’. The class register also does not report the use of any language other than Turkish for the pupils coming from the Turkish group. In the home language survey, though, Arabic

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities

37

is also mentioned by half of the pupils with a Turkish background who attend Qu’ran classes at the weekends.

4. Multilingualism through a modernist lens: the class teacher Miss Sanne, the class teacher of Form 8a, is 23 years old. She was born in Duivenberg to Dutch native parents, she holds Dutch nationality and she has lived in Duivenberg all her life. Sanne was brought up in a multicultural neighborhood. In Sanne’s view “there is simply nothing special about foreign people; they are just, you know, they live here too” (S03: 57) and she believes that her way of thinking about foreigners has been strongly influenced by her upbringing as she learned that “we all live here (. . . ) we live in the Netherlands and we have to do it all together with each other [. . . ]” (S03: 59). In recalling her primary school experience that started in 1986, she states that there were indeed a few children from immigrant minority groups in her class, but not so many as at St. Joseph’s, and that they were all just able to get on with each other. Miss Sanne’s statement ‘I have not a single Dutch child in my class’ is used as an explanation for why her pupils perform worse than those pupils at other schools in Duivenberg. The lack of parental qualifications and these parents being non-native Dutch are the basis for Miss Sanne’s own reasoning in explaining St. Joseph’s extra investment in the Dutch language with a particular focus on vocabulary. We now move further in the analysis of Miss Sanne’s evaluative discourse and we encounter the cases of two pupils, i.e. Mohammed and Lejla, whose language attributions marked the opposite ends of the ascriptive category ‘immigrant minority pupil’. 4.1. Mohammed Miss Sanne starts with Mohammed, a thirteen-year-old Somali child who was in Miss Sanne’s class during the previous school year. At that time, Mohammed, who had been in the Netherlands since he was eight years old, “was fluent in the Somali language” (S02: 314). However, in Sanne’s discourse, proficiency in the Somali language turned out to be detrimental to Mohammed’s Dutch language development because: Sanne: So he had (. . . ) when he was eight so he had to learn a second language Dus die heeft (. . . ) toen ie acht was heeft ie dus een tweede taal moeten leren Max: (hmm) Sanne: and the Somali language has a different sentence structure (. . . ) en Somalische taal heeft een andere zinsopbouw (. . . )

38

Massimiliano Spotti Max: (hmm) Sanne: than the Dutch language so he always spoke in twisted sentences. dan de Nederlandse taal dus hij sprak altijd in kromme zinnen Max: (hmm) (S02: 316–321)

At the age of eight, Mohammed was already fluent in Somali – his mother tongue – and he had to learn Dutch as a second language. As Miss Sanne reports in the coordinate phrase that follows (318), the Somali language has a different sentence structure to Dutch. This has led Mohammed to use Somali syntax in Dutch and to always speak ‘in twisted sentences’, i.e., abnormal sentences compared to standard Dutch or, at least, the local variety of Dutch spoken in the city where the school is located. Mohammed’s difficulties in speaking Dutch ‘properly’ are explained with the syntactical interference hypothesis where the second language learner inappropriately transfers structures of his first language to the second. Miss Sanne adds: Sanne: And if you get it also at home, because that mother, she, of course, was also having problems with that [Dutch language: MS] herself En als je dat ook van thuis uit, want die moeder, die was, natuurlijk, daar ook mee aan het stoeien Max: (hmm) Sanne: and that father too, he also spoke hardly any Dutch. en die vader ook die sprak ook nauwelijks Nederlands Max: (hmm) Sanne: so he could not hear it properly from home either so he (. . . ) yes he used let’s say the Dutch language with the structure Dus hij kon het ook niet van thuis uit goed aanhoren dus hij (. . . ) ja hij gebruikte zeg maar de Nederlandse taal met de opbouw Max: (hmm) Sanne: from the Somali language. vanuit de Somalische taal. (S02: 323–329)

Mohammed not only uses ‘twisted sentences’ in Dutch because his language use is based on the structure of Somali, a language that uses SOV-order in its main clause in comparison with the Dutch SVO-order (cf. Saeed 1999). Also, as introduced by the causative conjunction ‘so’, both Mohammed’s parents are responsible for the syntactical interference between the two finite linguistic entities that in the dichotomy presented by the teacher are part of Mohammed’s repertoire, i.e., Somali and Dutch. The father, in fact, spoke no Dutch and the mother also ‘suffered’ from Somali sentence structure in her use of Dutch. The

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities

39

parental lack of Dutch proficiency has consequences for Mohammed’s identity, as the lack of Dutch in the home is indexical of a pupil with a language disadvantage. 4.2. Lejla Miss Sanne’s discourse dealt also with Lejla, an eleven-year-old girl born in Bosnia- Herzegovina to Bosnian parents who came to the Netherlands when she was three years old. Miss Sanne explains: Sanne: Lejla is also (. . .) let’s see she has lived here ever since she was three or so, therefore also still really very young when she already . . . . . . ?? a new language (. . .) look and small children can pick up a (. . .) another language really easily that is simply, yeah, scientifically proven. Lejla die is ook (. . . ) even kijken die woont hier al sinds dat ze drie is of zo dus ook nog heel erg jong dat ze al een nieuwe taal (. . . ) kijk en kleine kinderen kunnen heel makkelijk een andere taal oppikken dat is gewoon, ja, wetenschappelijk bewezen Max: (hmm) Sanne: And indeed she is also better at Dutch than other children and that is also because her parents have also just spoken Dutch at home from the beginning. En zij is ook inderdaad beter in het Nederlands dan andere kinderen en dat komt ook omdat haar ouders ook gewoon vanaf het begin af aan hier gewoon ook thuis Nederlands praten. (S02: 443–445)

In the utterances above, Lejla is in an advantaged position in picking up a second language because she came to the Netherlands at a very young age. Further, Miss Sanne tries to obtain objectiveness for her claim. In the utterance ‘look and small children can pick up a (. . .) another language really easily’, she uses the imperative ‘look’ to substantiate the evidence of her claim. Further, she calls upon the critical age hypothesis, implying that a putative language learning function is much more developed in younger children who approach the learning of a second language more easily than those who approach a second language at an older age (see Singleton 1994, 1–29 for a comprehensive discussion of the age factor in second language acquisition). Not only is the age at which Lejla came into contact with Dutch relevant; her parents’ language behaviour is also now regarded as a key element in Lejla’s ‘good’ language development. It is noteworthy that Lejla’s parental language behaviour is accompanied by the adverb ‘simply’. The use of this adverb may indicate that the practice of

40

Massimiliano Spotti

speaking Dutch at home is regarded by Miss Sanne as nothing more than what parents should do by default with their children at a young age. However, at home, Lejla and her parents have a language repertoire that includes Croatian, English, Dutch and Bosnian, the latter being the language Lejla denotes as her language, and in which she claims to have both passive and active literacy skills that she reports to use for verbal exchanges with her younger siblings and with her parents. Miss Sanne therefore looks at Lejla’s multilingual repertoire through a monolingual lens that sees one language in the home, that is Dutch, being key to Lejla’s being ‘good’ at Dutch. This is in contrast to Mohammed whose parents’ Dutch, or the lack thereof, caused him to use a ‘twisted’ sentence structure and therefore deviate from the ‘standard’form of expression. However, in terms of their institutional identities, the sociolinguistic difference between the repertoires of these pupils is erased as they are both categorised as 1.90, i.e. as pupils who are almost twice as ‘heavy’ to teach compared to a pupil with Dutch-native parents.

5. Multlingualism through a modernist lens: the Moroccan girls In spite of Miss Sanne’s general view about the poor results of her pupils in Dutch, the immigrant minority pupils’language use in Form 8a showed a marked preference for Dutch in daily language exchanges both within and outside the classroom. Arabic and Berber, being the most popular home languages in the classroom, of course also had their own space, although mostly outside formal instruction time. During a gym lesson, for instance, when the girls were playing handball, one could indeed find a more prominent rate of home language use than in the classroom, and, as can be expected, Arabic and Berber were popular in derogatory exclamations and imperatives such as ‘pass me the ball’. The marked preference for Dutch was quite different when the girls were engaged in a focused group discussion concerning the diacritics of identity belonging, i.e. language use and ethnic affiliation. The discussion I had with them unfolded as follows: Lejla:

Max:

Them live in the Netherlands also and are a hundred percent Moroccan too. Hun wonen toch ook in Nederland en zijn ook honderd procent Marokkaans. Is that so girls? Is dat zo meisjes?

[The other girls agree loudly]

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities Max: Lemnja:

Max: Hajar: Lemnja: Hajar: Lemnja: Max: Hajar:

Lemnja: Hajar:

41

Yeah right, behave properly. Ja hallo, doe normaal. What do you mean a hundred, what do you mean a hundred, a thousand right? Wat honderd wat honderd, duizend of niet? A thousand percent Moroccan, what do you mean? Duizend procent Marokkaans, hoe bedoel je? Simply. Gewoon. A million. Miljoen. My whole life. M’n heel leven. Uncountable. [At the same time as Hajar] Ontelbaar. Uncountable Moroccan? Ontelbaar Marokkaans? Oh no, oh no, one percent is for Dutch as I speak I do talk that mostly. Oh nee, oh nee, één procent is voor Nederland want ik spree ik praat dat wel het meeste. Yes one little percent then. Ja één procentje dan. One comma zero zero percent. E´en komma nul nul procent.

(GD01: 05–017)

Lejla compares her own ‘being Bosnian’ with her fellow classmates, stating that even though they were born in the Netherlands, these girls are also ‘a hundred per cent Moroccan’. When the girls, who are all of Berber origin, react to Lejla’s statement they all voice an outspoken, i.e., more than a hundred per cent, affiliation to the umbrella term Moroccan: ‘what do you mean a hundred, a thousand right?’, ‘all my life’, ‘uncountable’. This unquantifiable affiliation to being Moroccan is tempered by the role that Dutch has in these girls’ everyday lives. Hajar, in fact, admits that Dutch is the language she speaks the most and this leads her to attribute ‘one comma zero zero percent’ to Dutch; a point also raised by Lemnja who states ‘one little percent then’. When dealing with the role of Berber and Arabic in Form 8a, Lemnja and Hajar eagerly explained the difference between these two languages and how they came to be the languages of Morocco. After that, the discussion continued as follows: Max:

Yes and then the Arabs came there. So you speak Berber? Ja en dan de Arabieren zijn daar gekomen. Dus jullie spreken Berbers?

42

Massimiliano Spotti Siham: Yes. Ja. Lemnja: Pu[:]re Berber. Pu[:]re Berbers. Hajar: Pu[:]re Berber. Puu[:]r Berbers. Siham: They, they are half Arabic they are (. . .) [Looking at Samira and Lemnja] Zij, zij zijn half Arabisch zij zijn ( . . . ) Hajar: I, I, I (. . .) Ik, ik, ik ( . . . ) Samira: Half Berber. [Shouting out] Halve Berbers. Hajar: I, I, I am, I speak them [Berber and Arabic MS] both. Ik, ik, ik ben, ik spreek ze allebei. Max: Hey, hey, hey, hey, can I say something myself? Hey, hey, hey, hey, mag ik zelf iets zeggen? Lemnja: No. Nee. Hajar: I am one hundred percent Berber but I simply speak Arabic because I cannot speak Berber that well. Ik ben honderd procent Berber maar ik spreek gewoon Arabisch want ik kan niet zo goed Berbers. (GD01: 183–193)

In the discussion above, Siham ascribed the identities of Lemnja and Samira, but not that of Hajar, as ‘half Arabic’. In response to Siham’s identity ascription, Samira counteracts with ‘half Berber’. At the opposite end, Hajar – who in the beginning also claimed to be ‘pure Berber’ – has to defend her Berber affiliation. She explains the cause of her language use and disentangles a limited proficiency in Berber, compensated with the use of Arabic, from being ‘less Berber’. Being ‘pure’ Berber is therefore coupled with being a user of the Berber language alone, while the speaking of Arabic and/or a limited knowledge of Berber, as in Hajar’s case, is seen as not ‘pure’. Hence the category ‘they are half Arabic’. Contrary to what one could expect for immigrant minority group members, we see that the discourses proposed by these girls are constructed within a modernist ideology of language use and national/ethnic belonging. The macro language politics at play in the Maghreb world are thus being (re)proposed within the verbal micro-interactions of this super-diverse group of pupils giving way to processes of identity misrecognition, sanctioning and contestation. For instance, Samira, who was ascribed by Siham as ‘halfArabic’, objects to being constructed

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities

43

at the periphery of the Berber group and reiterates her ‘Berber Arabic’ affiliation where the use of Berber first and Arabic second may be done with the purpose of contesting Siham’s initial ascription of her as ‘half Arabic’. Hajar, instead, stresses with her upset remark that she has been ascribed as not Berber. In contrast to other research on the language use of Moroccan youngsters (Jaspers 2005: 287), the link between Arabic and Berber was strongly emphasised by the girls in question. The use of Berber and the link between monolingualism and being ‘pure Berber’ is an act of identity performance that is assessed, weighed and measured socially. In this case, though, the social measurement does not happen on the basis of language hierarchies along a majority versus minority divide. The status of Arabic and Berber and the need to express competence in Berber might be a reaction product to the symbolic hierarchy that exists between these two codes in the Maghreb world (De Ruiter, Saidi and Spotti 2009) and within the local immigrant minority community in Duivenberg, to which these two girls belong. However, as one of the girls points out in the discussion, Berber is no match for Arabic in the existing religious and pan-Arabic political frameworks, and the fact that Arabic is usually spoken in cities as opposed to the rural areas – where most of the parents of these pupils originate from – can be a reason for the low appreciation that Arabic has and for the identity ascription as ’half-Arab’ of those girls who either do not know or have a limited proficiency in Berber.

6. Escaping from the modernist lens of authority We now come to the third data set which features a conversation between myself and two boys, Osman and Cemal, both of Turkish immigrant minority background. The conversation focused on these pupils’use of Turkish across different institutional environments and it unfolded as follows: Max:

And do you, do you do that often, Turkish, at school? En doe je, doe je dat vaak, Turks, op school? Osman: Yes. Ja. Max: Oh. Osman: At break. In de pauze. Max: Yes? [Turning to Cemal] So do you also speak Turkish with everyone because it makes you look very tough? Ja? Dus spreek je ook met iedereen het Turks want het maakt je heel stoer?

44

Massimiliano Spotti Cemal: It is not tough. Het is niet stoer. Max: No? Nee? Cemal: Not for me. Simply it [Turkish: MS] is a normal language. Voor mij niet. Gewoon is normale taal. Max: It is simply a normal language. Het is gewoon een normale taal. Cemal: If it was English it would have been a bit tough perhaps, it is a famous language. Als het Engels was een beetje stoer misschien, het is een beroemde taal. Max: Oh that is what you mean. Oh zo. Cemal: Or French, and Turkish is not so well-known so (uh) (. . .) yes (. . .) Of Frans, en Turks is niet zo beroemd dus (uh) (. . .) ja (. . .) (GD01:349–362)

Community languages are often referred to as a we-code that (in this case) places the pupils who speak these languages in an advantaged position compared to those with a they-code (cf. Gumperz 1968), i.e., in this case, all the pupils who do not have a knowledge of Turkish. However, in Cemal’s case Turkish is addressed as ‘simply it is a normal language’ because it is not so ‘famous’ or ’well-known’ as English or French, both ’international’ languages. In Cemal’s discourse, the macro- politics of language are encapsulated in a micro-discursive practice of language ranking and of construction of order (Foucault 2007). In other words, Cemal is presenting a hierarchical ranking of the languages that he thinks do count there, and leaves Turkish in the neutral position as he addresses it as a ‘normal language’. This (implicit) denial of the we-code character of Turkish, though, surprises the researcher and is in conflict with what happens in the following episode between Osman, Cemal and myself before the beginning of a physical education lesson. The conversation proceeded as follows: Max:

So then do you speak a bit of Moroccan? Zo dan spreek jullie een beetje Marokkaans? Osman: No, no a real Turkish man speaks only just Turkish. Nee, nee een echt Turks man spreekt alleen maar Turks. Cemal: Shouf shouf habibi. [Giggles] Shouf shouf habibi. Osman: Yes, shouf shouf habibi. [Giggles] Ja, shouf shouf habibi. [They both tie their shoelaces and run off to the gym hall laughing: MS]

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities

45

The sentence ‘No, no, a real Turkish man speaks only just Turkish’may indicate a patrimonium-loaded connotation that, as reported in the home language survey, corroborated the fact that Osman only spoke Turkish with his father (cf. Pujolar 2001: 137). However, contrary to the language practice just claimed by Osman for ‘a real Turkish man’, Cemal utters the Arabic words ‘shouf shouf habibi’. These words, apart from being (‘incorrect’) Arabic, have an emblematic function in that they call upon something like Arabic – they are in fact the title of an, at the time, popular Dutch TV comedy on the lives of three young men of Moroccan ancestry in a city in the Netherlands who run into all kinds of adventurous situations that are mainly connected to their immigrant condition in a Dutch environment. Further, in agreement with Cemal, Osman utters the same ‘Arabic’ sentence, after which they run off to the gym hall laughing. Cemal and Osman’s linguistic practice therefore can be interpreted as nonauthentic (Jaspers 2005: 116) because it is incongruent with what, following Osman, a ‘real Turkish man’ would do languagewise, i.e., speak Turkish only. The use of a semiotic artefact, i.e., an emblematic ‘Arabic’utterance that belongs to the youngsters’ knowledge of a specific piece of Dutch popular culture, may instead be interpreted as an example of language sabotage employed to take off the pressure exerted on the boys by the authority, i.e., the gullible researcher who is exploring their linguistic practices. At the same time the episode shows that, although there is no explicit policy regulating them, immigrant minority languages and hybrid forms of semiotic expression(s) that go beyond straightforward ethnic affiliations do play a role in the institutionalized everyday life of these pupils. As such, ‘shouf shouf habibi’ could be qualified as an authentic expression of late modern mixed language repertoires in which languages are no longer artefactualised matters and where languages are not exclusively bound to specific immigrant groups (see Rampton 2006) but can be and are actually used ad libitum.

7. Discussion and conclusions Multilingualism has been the flagship of sociolinguistics for decades. This has entailed advancing the claim that, in general and in principle, multilingualism and the preservation of ethno-linguistic identities is a positive thing. Furthermore, sociolinguistics has addressed human beings as users of either one or more languages or language varieties, with language(s) being understood either as distinct denotational codes or linguistic systems and their users studied on the basis of the question who speaks (or writes, or signs) which language (or language varieties), to whom, when, where and possibly to which end (see Fish-

46

Massimiliano Spotti

man et al. 1968; Fishman 1972, 1989). This approach was valid in that it has given way to powerful notions such as language maintenance, language loyalty, language shift, language (repertoire) change, language death, etc. Furthermore, it has paved the way towards the study of language use and of identity construction as a matter of the internal organization of particular speech networks. Building on these notions, some sociolinguistic research has focused on the use of immigrant minority languages in the homes of immigrant minority pupils, advocating their use to be evidence for the ethnolinguistic vitality of groups (Extra and Yaˇgmur 2004), or on the role that a language or one of its varieties plays in a given nation. Certain varieties have also been seen as endangering the existence of other less powerful languages (i.e. indigenous minority languages), and official languages as hindering the language rights and the display of ethnolinguistic identities of minorities (Das Gupta 1970; Huss 1999; Svonni 2008). The sociolinguistics of this era has produced an understanding of multilingualism and its identity byproducts as an agglomeration of fairly neat monolingualisms that can be linked to certain groups. In other words, it has addressed monolingualism as a majority thing and multilingualism as a minority thing. Moreover, this branch of sociolinguistics has tackled multilingualism as a problem that it should address for the benefit of (immigrant) minorities and their identity maintenance, and with an eye to the maintenance of the national order. This kind of sociolinguistics seems to have failed to address the grassroots realities of multilingualism and identity construction in three ways. First, it has not managed to solve the tension between immigrant minorities’ own linguistically heterogeneous repertoires and the general tendency in education to see immigrants contributing positively to mainstream society by learning the language of the majority, preferably in its school variety. Second, it has missed noticing that institutional ideologies of homogeneity are also part and parcel of the discourses of immigrant minority group members themselves when dealing with their identity diacritics, i.e., language use and ethnic belongings. Third, it has overlooked the fact that crossing, hybridity and ambivalence in language use and identity construction are an endemic condition of pupils inhabiting (urban) globalised educational environments. What I hope to have illustrated here is that modernist language ideologies are not only top-down phenomena (i.e. appropriated only by the majority to attribute certain identities to minorities). Rather, micro-crystallisations of these ideologies can be found both in discourses of the majority (e.g. certain pupils’ Dutch is poor because at home their parents do not use Dutch only), as well as minorities (e.g. one is not a ‘pure’ Berber because one does not have a ‘good’ knowledge of Berber and, consequently, is ascribed the identity of a ‘half-Arab’). As the conversation between Osman, Cemal and myself illustrated, linguistic

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities

47

diversity is not to be seen as directly related to group membership alone and that an (ethnic) group and an (ethnic) identity now seem to be a great deal less clear and less relevant than what they have been in the past two and a half decades of sociolinguistic research (see also Rampton 2006: 17). These findings therefore not only question the assumptions of institutional key figures about the identities of their immigrant minority pupils; more generally, they suggest that not all forms of multilingualism are productive and empowering. Some – accordingly to the institutional space – are unwanted, disqualified, and actively endangering to people. We should therefore look at language use and identities through the lens of a post-Fishmanian awareness, addressing the two as polycentric semiotic performances confronted with the demands of specific language and identity markets set in specific times and spaces where different, often conflicting, orders of indexicalities are at play.

Notes 1. The transcription uses (. . . ) for a pause, (-) for an abrupt stop, [:] for emphasis, [xx] for inaudible fragment, and [text MS] for a comment. 2. In 2005, the Dutch educational system used to assign to each pupil an educational weight. A pupil born to Dutch parents and raised in the Netherlands was assigned an educational weight of 1.00. A pupil with at least one of his parents having been born abroad and where the household breadwinner would be a manual labourer, was assigned a 1.90. That is, this pupil is almost twice as heavy a burden on the educational system as a pupil of Dutch origin.

References Agha,Asif. 2003. The social life of cultural value. Language & Communication 23. 231– 273. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bauman, Richard & Charles Briggs. 2003. Voices of modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bezemer, Jeff. 2003. Dealing with multilingualism in education. Amsterdam: Aksant. Bezemer, Jeff & Sjaak Kroon. 2006. “You don’t need to know the Turkish word”. Immigrant minority language teaching in policies and practice in the Netherlands. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 6(1). 13–29. Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, Jan. 2008. Artefactual ideologies and the textual production of African languages. Language & Communication 28(02). 291–307.

48

Massimiliano Spotti

Blommaert, Jan, Lies Creve & Evita Willaert. 2006. On being declared illiterate: Language-ideological disqualification in Dutch classes for immigrants in Belgium. Language & Communication 26(1). 34–54. Block, David. 2006. Multilingual identities in a global city. London stories. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Broeder, Peter & Guus Extra. 1998. Language, ethnicity and education. Case studies on immigrant minority groups and immigrant minority languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Das Gupta, Jyoritinda. 1970. Language conflict and national development. Berkeley: University of California Press. De Ruiter, Jan Jaap, Saidi Redouan & Massimiliano Spotti. 2009. Teaching minority languages: The case of Arabic in Europe. Report for the DG Education and Culture. PLUSVALOR Project (144368-2008-IT-KA2-KA2MP; www.plusvalor.eu). Dong, Jie 2009. The making of migrant identities in Beijing: Scale, discourse, and diversity. PhD Thesis defended at Tilburg University. Dong, Jie. 2010. The making of migrant identities in Beijing: Scale, discourse, diversity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Erickson, Frederic. 1986. Qualitative methods on research on teaching. In Merlin Wittrock (ed.), Handbook on research on teaching, 119–161. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Extra, Guus & Kutlay Yaˇgmur. 2004. Urban multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant minority languages at home and school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Extra, Guus & Massimiliano Spotti. 2009. Language, migration and citizenship: A case study on testing regimes in the Netherlands. In Gabrielle Hogan-Brun, Clare MarMolinero & Patrick Stevenson (eds.), Discourses on language and integration: Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in Europe, 61–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fishman, Joshua. 1972. The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers. Fishman, Joshua. 1989. Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, Joshua, Robert Ferguson & Jyoritinda Das Gupta (eds.). 1968. Language problems of developing nations. New York: Wiley. Foucault, Michel. 2007. Security, territory, population: Lectures at the College de France 1977–1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Green, Judith & David Bloome. 1997. Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated perspective. In James Flood, Shirley Brice Heath & Diane Lapp (eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts, 181–202. New York: Macmillan. Guba, Egon &Yvonne Lincoln. 1989. Judging the quality of fourth generation evaluation. In Egon Guba and Yvonne Lincoln (eds.), Fourth generation evaluation, 228–251. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities

49

Gumperz, John. 1968. The speech community. International encyclopedia of the social sciences, 381–386. London: MacMillan. Huss, Leena. 1999. Reversing language shift in the far north. Linguistic revitalization in Northern Scandinavia and Finland. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralia Upsaliensia 31. Uppsala. Jacquement, Marco 2005.. Transidiomatic practices: Language and power in the age of globalization. Language & Communication 25. 257–277. Jaspers, Jürgen. 2005. Linguistic sabotage in a context of monolingualism and standardization. Language & Communication 25. 279–297. Joseph, John. 2003. Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kroon, Sjaak & Jan Sturm. 2000. Comparative case study research in education: Methodological issues in an empirical-interpretive perspective. Zeitschrift f¨ur Erziehungswissenschaft 3(4). 559–576. Polanyi, Livia. 1989. The American story: A cultural and structural analysis. Norwood: Ablex Publications. Pujolar, Joan. 2001. Gender, heteroglossia and power. A sociolinguistic study of youth culture. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rampton, Ben. 2005. Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. Manchester: St. Jerome. Rampton, Ben. 2006. Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saeed, John Ibrahim. 1999. Somali reference grammar. Wheaton, MD: Donwoody Press. Silverstein, Michael. 1996. Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In Donald Brennels & Ronald Macaulay (eds.), The matrix of language, 284–306. Boulder: Westview. Silverstein, Michael. 1998. Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annual Review of Anthropology 27. 401–426. Singleton, David. 1994. Introduction: A Critical Look at the Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition Research. In David Singleton & Zsolt Lengyel (eds.), The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition, 1–29. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Spotti, Massimiliano. 2006. Constructing the other: Immigrant minority pupils’ identity construction in the discourse of a native Dutch teacher at a Dutch Islamic primary school. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 1(2). 121–135. Spotti, Massimiliano. 2007. Developing identities. Amsterdam: Aksant. Svonni, Mikael. 2008. Sámi in the Nordic Countries and Russia. In Durk Gorter & Guus Extra (eds.), Multilingual Europe: Facts and policies, 233–249. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Massimiliano Spotti, [email protected], has defended his doctoral thesis on the construction of immigrant minority pupils’ identities in multicultural primary school classrooms in the Netherlands and Flanders in 2007. At present, he is a researcher at Babylon, Centre for Studies of the Multicultural Society at Tilburg University. He also covers the post

50

Massimiliano Spotti

of researcher within the FiDiPro (Finland Distinguished Professor) scheme, at the Department of Languages, University of Jyv¨askyl¨a. His current research activities include Dangerous Multilingualism, Language Testing Regimes (Extra, Spotti & Van Avermaet 2009) and Institutional Responses to Superdiversity.

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong: Colonial and post-colonial perspectives KINGSLEY BOLTON

Abstract Hong Kong ceased to be a colony of Britain on June 30th , 1997, thus entering a new stage of its development and evolution as a uniquely-constituted city state and urban metropolis. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China (HKSAR) inherited a linguistic ecology that owed much to its previous existence as a British colony, where the Chinese language had had no de jure status until 1974. From 1995, the stated policy of government has been to promote a “biliterate” (Chinese and English) and “trilingual” (Cantonese, Putonghua and English) society, and various measures have also been taken to promote the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in schools. Immediately after the change in sovereignty, Putonghua became a compulsory school subject for the first time. This paper will examine the issue of language planning and policies partly from an historical perspective, but also through a consideration of current policies and practices across a range of domains, including government, law and education. One major conclusion that emerges from this discussion is that, from a language policy perspective, the relationship between Chinese and English in the Hong Kong context is potentially far less contentious than that between Cantonese and Putonghua.

1. Introduction Although questions of language policy and planning have received much attention in Hong Kong over the last two decades or so, these issues continue to engage both academic commentators and the wider population. Perhaps one major reason for this has been the speed of economic, political and social change in modern Hong Kong society, which, between the 1960s and 1990s, saw Hong Kong transform from a colonial backwater to a post-colonial global city. This

52

Kingsley Bolton

chapter attempts to review current issues in language planning from a number of perspectives. First, the chapter starts with a brief survey of language planning from the perspective of sociolinguistics, proceeds to a discussion of the history of language planning and policies in colonial Hong Kong, and then focuses on contemporary language policies in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of China.

2. Language planning theories and their relevance to Hong Kong According to Mesthrie, Swann, Deumert and Leap (2000), the term “language planning” was originally coined by the Norwegian-American sociolinguist Einar Haugen (1959), and might be broadly defined as “all conscious efforts that aim at changing the linguistic behaviour of a speech community” (Mesthrie et al. 2000: 384). The same author also explains the term “language policies”, as referring to “the more general linguistic, political and social goals underlying the actual language planning process” (Mesthrie et al. 2000: 384). An obvious problem here, however, is the similarity of the two terms, “language planning” and “language policies”, which are frequently used in overlapping fashion. More explanation is offered by Spolsky and Lambert (2006) who attempt to disambiguate these two expressions. For them, language policy may be explained thus: The language policy of a speech community [. . . ] consists of the commonly agreed set of choices of language items – whether sounds or words or grammar – or language varieties – whether codes or dialects or named languages – and the beliefs or ideologies associated with those choices. It can be found in language practices and beliefs or in formal policy decisions such as laws, constitutions, or regulations. (Spolsky & Lambert 2006: 561)

In contrast, “language planning” (or “language management”) may be defined as follows: Language management, planning, engineering, cultivation and treatment are actions taken by formal authorities such as governments or other agencies or people who believe that they have authority, such as parents, teachers, or academies, to modify the language choices made by those they claim to have under their control [. . . ] Language management itself has three components: the development of explicit language plans and policies, their implementation (by rules or laws or resource allocation), and the evaluation of results and effects. (Spolsky & Lambert 2006: 561)

There seems to be agreement that the term “language policy” seems to have a broader application in referring to the more general beliefs, considerations

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

53

and ideologies relating to the orientation of such decision-making bodies as governments and educational authorities. The term “language planning” is thus more specifically applied to the actions of such decision makers. Spolsky and Lambert further note that most analyses of language policies and planning have been concerned with examining “formal, governmentally backed activities at the national or regional level aimed at controlling language knowledge and use within a country or region” (Spolsky & Lambert 2006: 562–563). Following Kloss (1969), they also highlight the distinction between “status planning” versus “corpus planning”, while also accepting Cooper’s (1989) addition of a third-level of “acquisition planning”. For Kloss, status planning referred to the choice of official and national languages, etc., while corpus planning concerned itself with the establishment and regulation of particular aspects of language, such as dictionaries, grammar and writing systems. Cooper’s (1989) notion of “acquisition planning” was crucially concerned with “the determination of which languages should be taught to those who do not speak them and how” (Spolsky & Lambert 2006: 563). Perhaps what is most typical of the kind of approach adopted by Spolsky and Lambert, however, is the underlying assumption that functional models can adequately account for, and usefully illuminate, the kinds of choices made by governments in language planning, in terms of principles, procedures and processes. Language policy/planning (LPP) studies, as an area of sociolinguistic research and practice, began to achieve prominence in the 1960s, and were often associated with language surveys in developing nations, particularly those in the early stages of post-colonial independence (Fishman, Ferguson & Gupta 1968). Other sociolinguists, including Cooper (1989), Neustupn´y (1970), and Kaplan and Baldauf (1997), among others, followed Fishman in attempting to build rational models of language planning suitable for implementation in the developing world and other multilingual settings. In broad terms, these were often written as almost apolitical structural-functional explanations of the dynamics of decision-making, in those societies under discussion. From the 1990s onwards, however, new approaches to language planning were clearly visible, characterised by a strong interest in issues related to language and inequality and influenced by critical and postcolonial theory. Thus, for such scholars: Linguistic theories adopted by language planners, rather than being neutral, objective, scientific tools, were viewed [. . . ] as detrimental to the development of equitable language policies in complex multilingual settings. This realization led to a rather broad calling into question of received ideas about the nature of language itself, and of the degree to which scholars of language were perpetuating assumptions that had the effect of rationalizing the support of colonial languages,

54

Kingsley Bolton and concomitant economic interests, at the expense of indigenous languages and local economic development. (Ricento 2006)

In this context, scholars such as Tollefson (1991), Phillipson (1992), and Pennycook (1998) have done much to promote critical perspectives on language, greatly extending earlier sociolinguistic approaches by promoting an explicit awareness of issues relating to inequality, power and the politics of language.

3. Language planning in Hong Kong: the historical context For much of its recorded history, language planning in Hong Kong was a byproduct of the British colonial system, which governed Hong Kong between 1842 until 1997. During most of that period, English was not directly challenged as the language of government and law in Hong Kong society until the era of late colonialism from around 1970 until 1997, when issues of language planning and policies were brought into sharp focus through a number of debates on language issues, as well as through government legislation and interventions. Such debates and interventions have continued to the present, although the reunification of Hong Kong with China has added a number of new complexities to such issues, including, not least, the relationship between Hong Kong language planning and policies and those of mainland China. During the First Opium War, in January 1841, the island of Hong Kong was ceded by the Chinese government to the British. The following year, this was ratified by the Treaty of Nanking, and the British trading and missionary community that had previously taken residence in the Portuguese enclave of Macao soon transferred to the island. From 1842 to 1845 the population of the island grew remarkably from around 5,000 to more than 20,000, reaching 40,000 by 1853, and topping 120,000 by the early 1860s. The vast majority of such immigration into Hong Kong came from neighbouring Guangdong province, and were typically classified as belonging to four distinct groups: the Punti, “locals”, i.e. “Cantonese”; the Hakka; the Tanka, boat dwellers; and the Hoklo, from eastern Guangdong province (Munn 2001: 71). In 1860, the British annexed the Kowloon Peninsula and, in 1898, added an additional swathe of its hinterland known as the “New Territories”, so that, by the early twentieth century, British Hong Kong had come to include all three territories, which together constituted the territorial entity of colonial Hong Kong throughout most of the twentieth century, until the celebrated 1997 “Handover”, which finally returned sovereignty over Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China.

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

55

British colonial language policy has been explained by a range of historical commentaries of varying accuracy and perspectives. In the post-colonial imaginary, British colonial language policy worldwide has been linked to a blatant linguistic imperialism which sought to impose the language of the imperial power on colonised communities in Africa, Asia and elsewhere (Phillipson 1992, 1994). Other, more nuanced, accounts have explained British colonial language policy in terms of strategies of divide and rule, pointing to the British predilection in many colonial territories for reserving English-medium education for an elite, and propagating “vernacular” education for the masses (Pennycook 1998). In its bluntest form, the Phillipson/Pennycook perspective on colonial language policy has seen the spread of English as a tool of colonial control and subjugation, either explicitly and overtly through the imposition of English, or, more subtly, through the establishment of systems of parallel languages in such societies. A related argument is that – in many former colonies – the legacy of such policies has extended to the present, through the “deep and indissoluble links between the practices, theories and contexts of ELT [English Language Teaching] and the history of colonialism” (Pennycook 1998: 19). The critical perspectives of both Phillipson and Pennycook have influenced discussions of the history of language policies put forward by a number of local scholars in recent years, including Tsui (2004) and Hopkins (2006). A rather different picture has emerged from recent research by others, who have attempted to provide a much more detailed picture of the development of the colonial educational system, including the work of Sweeting and Vickers (2005, 2007) and Evans (2008a, 2008b), following Brutt-Griffler’s (2002) reconceptualisation of British colonial language policy as an historically “contested terrain”, where local elites often campaigned or negotiated for access to English-medium education. For example, what emerges from Evans’ careful (2008a) discussion of language policy in Hong Kong between 1855 and 1900 is the picture of a complex patchwork of government Chinese, government Anglo-Chinese, aided Chinese, aided English, and aided Anglo-Chinese schools. Within this system, moreover, by far the largest enrolments were in the aided Chinese schools. For their part, Sweeting and Vickers (2005) also emphasise the complexity of the nineteenth century school system in the colony, noting that for a number of decades “there was no top-down imposition of a clear, consistent language policy”. Later, after the government’s Central School (which later became “Queen’s College”) was founded, both Chinese and English were used as instructional languages for a number of years, which also mirrored the situation in many missionary schools in the territory. Sweeting and Vickers also report that vernacular education expanded substantially in the first decades of the twentieth century, and that educationalists and government spokesmen

56

Kingsley Bolton

repeatedly acknowledged the importance of both languages in the education system. The work of Evans and Sweeting in retrieving the historical record is crucial in providing some kind of balance, not only to the discussion of the history of language issues in Hong Kong, but also as a key to the present. So far, only part of this project has been completed. For example, whereas their work has now done much to illuminate the complexity of government policies on language education in the nineteenth century, very little detailed work (to my knowledge) has been carried out on the influence of missionary and religious schools in Hong Kong, which have deployed both Chinese and English in various types of schools in the territory.1 Indeed, a detailed historical narrative of language education in Hong Kong remains to be written, although recent work by local historians such as John M. Carroll has emphasised the collaborative nature of colonialism, and the role played by local Chinese elites in policy-formation in many key areas of society (Carroll 2007). Despite the lack of a clear historical narrative of high colonial history in Hong Kong, a greater clarity arguably exists for the period from the 1960s until the 1990s, an era that could broadly be described as “late British colonialism”. During the 1970s, after the disturbances of the Cultural Revolution in China and social unrest and riots in Hong Kong in 1966 and 1967, the government began to give greater recognition to the Chinese language. In 1974, Chinese was recognised as a co-official language in the territory, while, around the same time, the colonial authorities also established a system of free, compulsory primary and secondary education, as well as extensive systems of public housing and public health. Until the 1970s, the English language had been the sole official language of government, the official language of law and, de facto, the more prestigious medium of secondary and university education. The Official Languages Ordinance of 1974 established that Chinese and English would thenceforth “enjoy equality of use” and, subsequently, measures were taken by the government to promote this policy. A decade or so later, after the negotiations between Beijing and London determined the arrangements for the 1997 “Handover”, the position of Chinese was further strengthened by the publication of The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Article 9 of which stated that: “In addition to the Chinese language, English may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislative and judicial organs of the Hong Kong Administrative Region” (Chinese Government 1992: 7). In 1995, the Hong Kong Government announced that its new language policy would be “to develop a civil service which is ‘biliterate’ in English and Chinese and ‘trilingual’in English, Cantonese and Putonghua” (Lau 1995: 19), an official

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

57

policy statement which is still in force. In the run-up to 1997, an increasing proportion of Cantonese was used in Legislative Council speeches, and since then the Legislative Council has almost exclusively used Cantonese to conduct its affairs. Since the early 1990s the government has been trying to establish training courses in Putonghua for Hong Kong civil servants but, at present, Cantonese, rather than Putonghua, is still the dominant variety. Similar changes have taken place in the legal system in Hong Kong and, from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, amendments to the Official Languages Ordinance have promoted “legal bilingualism” in the law courts. In December 1995, the first civil High Court case was heard in Putonghua and, in August 1997, the first criminal case was conducted in Cantonese in the High Court (Cheung 1997, 2000). Immediately before the 1997 change of sovereignty, there was widespread concern that the post-colonial period would see the immediate downgrading of English and the rise of Putonghua in key official domains. As is discussed in the next section, an abrupt change in language policy and management has not occurred in Hong Kong, at least in most domains of society. However, one major change in policy that did occur immediately before July 1997 concerned education, when, shortly before the transition, the colonial Hong Kong government formulated a new policy on the “medium of instruction” for secondary schools. On March 22nd , 1997, it was announced that approximately only 100 secondary schools (some 22 per cent of the total of 460) would be allowed to use English as a teaching medium and that punitive measures (e.g., a maximum fine of $25,000 and two years in jail), might be used against school principals who did not follow the instructions of the government (Kwok 1997). This policy has been largely maintained since 1997, although, very recently, it has been amended to provide more opportunities for the use of English, not least in order to prepare secondary school students for what is a predominantly English-medium university system. Notwithstanding such recent changes, the adoption of a new “firm” policy in promoting Chinese was the most visible change in language policy at the end of the colonial period, although it might also be argued that the adoption of Putonghua as a compulsory school subject – which occurred around the same time – is likely to have even more lasting consequences.

4. Current language planning and policies in Hong Kong Problems of investigation and interpretation of language policies in Hong Kong are not only confined to the historical past but also extend to the present. In certain settings, including the European Union in recent years, language policies are explicitly articulated, set down and disseminated through public documents,

58

Kingsley Bolton

reports and regulations. In Hong Kong, however, this has rarely been the case and, in the contemporary HKSAR, there are few (if any) documents that set out an official language policy for all the major domains of society in a cohesive and principled fashion. Instead, there are a number of diverse laws and policy statements that have been issued by government (and continue to be issued) in the colonial and post-colonial period that have combined to shape language planning practices since 1997. Such practices have evidently been moved by circumstances or by public opinion, at times leading the government to respond, in an immediate pragmatic fashion, to the political pressures of the day. 4.1. Language planning in the Hong Kong government In Hong Kong, official language policies now regulate which languages are used in government offices in the HKSAR, although these policies changed significantly during the decades before 1997, in the immediate period before the transition from British to Chinese rule. The definition of what the official languages are, and decisions about official language policies in Hong Kong are determined in part by the Basic Law governing Hong Kong, which provided a “mini-constitution” for the territory before the change of government. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China has two articles that deal specifically with language policies and planning, Articles 9 and 136: Article 9 In addition to the Chinese language, English may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (Chinese Government 1992) Article 136 On the basis of the previous educational system, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, on its own, formulate policies on the development and improvement of education, including policies regarding the educational system and its administration, the language of instruction, the allocation of funds, the examination system, the system of academic awards and the recognition of educational qualifications. (Chinese Government 1992)

The Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the English Text of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China is also relevant (Adopted on 28 June 1990): The 14th sitting of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People’s Congress hereby decides that the English translation of the Basic Law of the Hong

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

59

Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China which has been finalized upon examination under the auspices of the Law Committee of the National People’s Congress shall be the official English text and shall be used in parallel with the Chinese text. In case of discrepancy between the two texts in the implication of any word used, the Chinese text shall prevail (cited in Ghai 1999: 570).

In addition to the legal provisions made for the use of Chinese and English in the Basic Law, the government has also, in a number of statements, summarized its policy as that of trilingualism and biliteracy, which refers to the promotion of trilingualism in Cantonese, English and Putonghua, and biliteracy in written Chinese and English. Interestingly, this policy began in the 1990s, with particular reference to the use of languages in the civil service in the 1990s, but, by 2002, this had been extended to the general population, so that an official report of the Education Committee in 2002 states that “[t]he language policy of the HKSAR Government is to enable students and the working population to be biliterate (in Chinese and English) and trilingual (in Cantonese, Putonghua and English)” (HKSAR Government 2002). Indeed, throughout the last thirteen years, the formula of “trilingualism and biliteracy” has received support in numerous government and educational pronouncements, although, to my knowledge, no fully detailed report or fully comprehensive rationale of this policy has been officially published. The promotion of the policy of “trilingualism and biliteracy” involves the government in accepting the use of all three languages at the spoken level, as well as a great deal of translation of documents and official papers. This work is carried out by the Official Languages Division of the Civil Service Bureau of the HKSAR government, whose website states its responsibilities as providing translation, interpretation and editing services to Government bureaux and departments as well as: developing the institutional arrangements for the use of official languages in the Civil Service, including setting guidelines, reviewing Civil Service language practices, and providing language advisory services to bureaux and departments; promoting the effective use of the official languages, in particular Chinese and Putonghua, in the Civil Service [. . . ]; monitoring the use of the official languages and the implementation of the language policy in bureaux and departments” (HKSAR Government 2010).

Within the Government, one of the most important institutions is the Legislative Council (Legco), the body that is responsible for discussing and approving the laws of Hong Kong. The Legislative Council occupies a place at the heart of the political process, although, in theory, it is independent of government and

60

Kingsley Bolton

the civil service. In compliance with the official language policy of the Hong Kong government, all proceedings in Legco are translated into a variety of languages.At present, the vast majority of debates and discussions in committees take place in Cantonese but, at the spoken level, are routinely translated from Cantonese into English by simultaneous interpreters so that members of Legco and members of the public listening to the debates have access to translation. Today, only very occasionally is English or Putonghua heard in the Legco chamber, and on almost all occasions Cantonese is the sole language of spoken communication (Government translator, personal communication, May 18 2010). The vast majority of linguistic work that takes place in Legco involves not spoken communication, but written communication, as all debates and subsequent reports of debates (the Hansard or “proceedings”) are recorded in two versions, a Chinese version and an English version. The body that has the responsibility of carrying out these translations is the Translation and Interpretation Division of the Legislative Council Secretariat, which is responsible for the production of the Hong Kong Hansard, and is also responsible for translating questions, motions, papers, minutes and other Council papers (Legislative Council 2010). According to an interview with one of the Chief Translators of the Secretariat, around 80% of the documents written for the Legislative Council are currently drafted in English, and then translated into Chinese, so that English very much remains the default written language of government (Government translator, personal communication, May 18 2010). 4.2. The languages of the legal system The government’s language policy also regulates the languages used in written statutes and in the law courts. Prior to the 1980s, English was the sole and dominant language of the legal system in Hong Kong. Now the government is officially committed to a bilingual legal system, and in 1998, a Committee on Bilingual Legal System was set up to advise the Government on bilingualism in the legal domain and how the goal of a bilingual legal system could be achieved. On the Department of Justice website, it is stated that, in light of Article 9 of the Basic Law, “both Chinese and English therefore have a part to play in the language of the law” (HKSAR Government 2010b). Specific policies are stipulated for the Common Law, Statute Law and the law courts as follows: The common law The principles of the common law are to be found in the judgments of the courts, both in Hong Kong and in other common law jurisdictions around the world.

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

61

The language in which those judgments have been delivered over the years is almost exclusively English. There are hundreds of thousands of reported cases which form the basis of the common law, and it would obviously be impractical to attempt to translate these into Chinese. While in future there is likely to be an increasing number of judgments in Hong Kong delivered in Chinese, English will continue to be the only medium in which the majority of judgments from overseas is reported. Statute law In keeping with the Basic Law’s provisions on bilingualism, all legislation in Hong Kong is enacted in both Chinese and English, and both versions are accorded equal status. Thanks to the bilingual legislation programme begun in 1989, authentic Chinese texts have been completed of all pre-existing legislation which had been enacted in the English language only, and Hong Kong’s statute book is now entirely bilingual [. . . ]. The courts In July 1995, the Official Languages Ordinance (Cap 5) was amended to enable any court to use either or both of the official languages in any proceedings before it as it thinks fit; to enable a party or his legal representatives or a witness in proceedings in a court to use either or both the official languages, or such other language as the court may permit; to provide that the decision of a court to use one of the official languages in any proceedings before it, is final; and to empower the Chief Justice to make rules and issue practice directions to regulate the use of Chinese language in the courts. Efforts are being made on various fronts to improve the use of Chinese in the higher courts. A Practice Direction on the use of Chinese in the Court of First Instance has been prepared by the Judiciary. Training for bilingual judges has also been introduced, including the provision of courses on Chinese judgment writing skills. No matter whether English or Chinese is used in the proceedings, everyone has a right to use the language of his choice to give evidence. The court will arrange interpretation facilities. (HKSAR Government 2010b)

From the above, we can see that three main concerns are articulated. The first concerns the role of English in the “common law” system, which is the norm in the UK, and other English common law systems, such asAustralia, New Zealand, etc. The second concern is with the written laws (“statute law”) of the HKSAR, where it is stated that “all legislation in Hong Kong is enacted in both Chinese and English, and both versions are accorded equal status”. The third concern relates to the language of the courts and the expressed desire to improve the use of Chinese in the higher courts. However, despite the aim of providing legal proceedings in “either or both of the official languages”, at present, Cantonese is the dominant language of the lower courts, while English still remains the major language of the higher courts.

62

Kingsley Bolton

A recent study by Ng (2009) has examined the use of Cantonese and English in Hong Kong courts in great detail. Ng notes that it was only in 1987 that the Official Languages Ordinance was amended to state that “all ordinances shall be enacted and published in both official languages” (cited in Ng 2009: 71), and that it was not until 1989 that the first Bilingual Ordinance was enacted. Since the early 1990s, a massive project to translate the statutes of Hong Kong has taken place, a remarkable process involving the translation of more than 19,000 pages of legislation (Ng 2009: 72). Despite this, even today, the vast majority of court documents and judgements are written in English, as are most legal reference books and case law records. At the spoken level, in theory, Chinese enjoys equal status with English, but in practice, there is a clear hierarchy in Hong Kong courts. This hierarchy goes from the lowest courts (the Magistracies), through the District Courts (Criminal and Civil), to the Courts of First Instance (Criminal and Civil), to the Courts of Appeal (Criminal and Civil), and finally to the Courts of Final Appeal (Criminal and Civil). Ng’s analysis indicates a clear asymmetry in legal bilingualism in the Hong Kong law courts: Cantonese is used with decreasing frequency as one moves up the court hierarchy, and it is totally absent in the Court of Final Appeal. In a parallel manner, the presence of English exhibits an inverted pyramidal distribution. English is used less frequently in the lower courts but retains its strong presence in the higher courts. Horizontally, there is a growing practice of mixed-language trials in the Court of First Instance and the District Court. Cantonese is used when witnesses are examined, but English remains the language of choice when law is debated (Ng 2009: 253).

4.3. The languages of education As has been the case in many other multilingual societies, issues related to the choice of languages to be used in schools have been controversial and sensitive, as it is here that ordinary citizens are most likely to perceive their lives directly affected by language policy. In Hong Kong, the history of the “medium of instruction issue” in the modern era dates back most immediately to the early 1970s, when the British colonial administration attempted to introduce a policy of using Chinese as the medium of instruction. In 1973, the government published a “Green Paper”, or policy proposal, on language education, which asserted that: The medium of instruction bears significantly upon the quality of education offered at post-primary level. Pupils coming from primary schools where they have been taught in the medium of Cantonese have a grievous burden put on them when

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

63

required to absorb new subjects through the medium of English. We recommend that Chinese become the usual language of instruction in the lower forms of secondary schools, and that English should be studied as the second language (cited in Gibbons 1982: 117).

After the publication of the 1973 Green Paper, the government met strong opposition from parents and schools about such plans to introduce Chinese Medium Instruction (CMI). Following these protests, the government backed down from pressing ahead with Chinese-medium instruction, and issued a 1974 White Paper which decided on a laissez-faire approach to the medium of instruction issue. The school system that then evolved from the 1970s until the early 1990s was one with around 90 per cent of primary schools teaching through Cantonese, and a similar percentage of secondary schools claiming to be “English medium” (or “Anglo-Chinese”). In reality this meant that school textbooks in most schools were overwhelmingly written in English, while at the spoken level the amount of English used varied greatly according to the type of school and the abilities of staff and students. This so-called laissez-faire approach generally continued until March 1997, when the government introduced a policy of “firm guidance” to schools. As reported above, the new policy then established a system where around 75% of secondary schools were required to teach through Chinese (CMI schools), and some 25% were permitted to teach through English (EMI schools), if they could demonstrate the feasibility of so doing. This policy was consistently promoted by the Education Bureau of the HKSAR government for around ten years after 1997, and was even re-affirmed by a government report of December 2005, despite frequent challenges by parents and schools who felt disadvantaged. In 2008 and 2009, however, a significant shift in government policy began, which resulted in a new report on Fine-tuning the Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools (HKSAR Government 2009). Essentially, the report moves away from the “firm guidance” policy of 1997, to provide for greater flexibility about how language management will take place in individual schools. According to the recommendations of the report, “schools will no longer be classified into CMI [Chinese medium instruction] schools and EMI [English medium instruction] schools” and “[t]heir [. . . ] teaching modes will become more diversified, including all CMI, CMI/EMI in different subjects and total EMI immersion”. This, it is claimed, “allows schools more flexibility in using EMI for one or more subjects for different classes”. Thus, it is expected that “the choice and number of subjects taught in EMI would likely vary between classes within individual schools as well as among schools”, and that “MOI arrangements in schools will become more diversified” (HKSAR Government 2009: 5).

64

Kingsley Bolton

This “fine tuning policy” goes into effect in autumn 2010, and the media have already reported that a number of schools are planning to switch from Chinese- to English-medium instruction (Yau 2009a). This loosening of government policy seems to have been motivated by a number of factors, including the desire of the business community to maintain Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a centre for international commerce and finance, the pragmatic need to prepare students for a university education (in a society where most of Hong Kong’s universities are officially English-medium),2 as well as a groundswell of public opinion from many local parents. Despite this, given the complicated dynamics of education in the HKSAR, whatever policy is implemented is likely to encounter resistance from some quarter, and this change of direction has already attracted criticism from a number of leading educators (Yau 2009b). 4.4. Cantonese and Putonghua One key aspect of language planning in Hong Kong has a direct bearing on the educational debates discussed above and is, indeed, at the heart of many sociolinguistic issues in Hong Kong society. That is the relationship between Cantonese and Putonghua. The status and functions of the Cantonese language are unique to Hong Kong, which has been described as “the greatest Cantonese city that the world has ever seen” (Harrison & So 1997: 12). Many local linguists have been less concerned about the tension between English and Chinese than a potential conflict between Cantonese and Putonghua. The widespread use of Cantonese in Hong Kong society, in high domains as well as low, is obviously at odds with the official policy in China, which promotes Putonghua, together with simplified Chinese characters instead of the “full characters” used in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Cantonese may be a mere “regional dialect” in the PRC, but Hong Kong is the Cantonese-speaking capital of the world. In many senses, Cantonese is the essential community language. Given the wide use of the language in education, religion, the print and broadcast media and government, “the status of Cantonese is much higher than is normally thought and cannot be simply brushed aside as the ‘vernacular”’ (Sin & Roebuck 1996: 252). In stark contrast, the PRC’s official language policy since 1956 has included the “unification of the Chinese language”, the promotion of Putonghua, the removal of illiteracy, the propagation of simplified characters, and the promotion of the official romanization system of pinyin (Bolton & Lam, 2006: 350). In October 2000, the national government published a new law, entitled The Law of the National Commonly Used Language and Script of the People’s Republic of China, which stipulated that: “Schools and other educational organizations

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

65

will take Putonghua and standard Chinese characters as the basic language and characters to be used in teaching and study” (Rohsenow 2004: 41; Zhang &Yang 2004: 154). Such laws have taken effect in most other Chinese cities, including Guangzhou, where an estimated 5–6 million people out of a population of 12 million have in-migrated from other parts of China, thus adding to a process of language shift away from Cantonese in the community (Lai 2009). Ironically, many of the Hong Kong government’s pronouncements in support of Chinese-medium instruction in the period immediately after 1997 emphasized the benefits of “mother tongue” education along the same lines as the renowned 1953 UNESCO report that valorized mother tongue education in schools. However, one issue regularly occluded in language debates is that “mother tongue education” (in its vernacular European sense), simply does not exist in many regions of China. For many of China’s students, Putonghua is a “second language”, and, in many regions, children learn a “home dialect” before going to school, which is often very different from Putonghua, for example, Cantonese, Fukienese, or Shanghainese. But national language policy is quite clear, and has only a limited acceptance of regional dialects and minority languages in educational and other official domains. In the context of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), whose systems of government and administration are expected to “converge” with those of mainland China in another 40 years, the question may be not whether Putonghua will be introduced as an official teaching medium, but when. Debates on the desirability of increasing the use of Putonghua have already surfaced among local educationalists, and such discussions are regularly reported in the press. Even more important is the fact that, in 1998, Putonghua became a compulsory subject in all Hong Kong schools, and today more and more children than ever before are now learning Putonghua as a second (or third) language. Whether that means that eventually Putonghua will displace Cantonese in the more formal domains of language use is a question of a good deal of speculation and, in this context, the domain of education is particularly sensitive. In 2003, the government-backed Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCOLAR) published the Action Plan to Raise Language Standards in Hong Kong, where it stated that its policy on the teaching of Chinese in schools included endorsing the Curriculum Development Council’s long-term goal of teaching Chinese Language in Putonghua, and encouraging schools to try using Putonghua to teach Chinese Language (SCOLAR 2003). However, the action plan stopped short of urging a “firm policy” to promote the language, conceding that “further studies on the conditions required to ensure a successful switch and prevent negative outcomes” (SCOLAR 2003). At present, attempts to extend Putonghua to teach Chinese within the public school system have

66

Kingsley Bolton

achieved only limited success, but there is always the possibility that – in an altered political climate – the government may attempt to implement this policy more strenuously. At present, however, in spite of some initiatives to promote Putonghua in schools and discussions concerning the use of the national language in other domains, it is evident that the majority of Hong Kong people have a strong attachment to Cantonese, and Putonghua still has only a limited range of functions in present-day Hong Kong (Zhang & Yang 2004). The extent to which the status and functions of Cantonese in Hong Kong may become highly contentious in the coming years became clear in the summer of 2010 when language debates surfaced in both Hong Kong and across the border in Guangzhou. In early July, reports began to surface in the South China Morning Post of a push by the authorities in Guangzhou to switch the language of a number of prime-time TV programmes in Guangzhou from Cantonese to Putonghua before the Asian Games were hosted there in November 2010. It was at that time that the Guangzhou’s People’s Political Consultative Conference submitted a proposal to the local government on Monday to order the city’s most popular television station, Guangzhou Television (GZTV), to replace the use of Cantonese by Putonghua on its main channels (He 2010). The same report also noted that: With 110 million people, Guangdong has rapidly become the most populous province. But most of the recent increase has been migrant job-seekers, and now half its residents do not speak Cantonese. [. . . ] Guangzhou, the provincial capital, once spearheaded the mainland’s economic reform. But rivals such as Shanghai and Beijing have caught up and even surpassed it. The dialect seems strange to outsiders. [. . . ] There is a two-pronged attack on Cantonese – internal migration on the one hand, and the government policy of a ‘common language for a unified country and harmonious society’ on the other. (He 2010)

On Sunday, July 25, 2010 matters came to a dramatic head in Guangzhou when several hundred Guangzhou residents took part in a (reportedly amiable and lowkey) street demonstration at the exit of Guangzhou metro’s Jiangnanxi station against the proposed language switch. According to reports, most of those who participated were young people under the age of thirty (Zhai andYu 2010). Such a street demonstration, however amiable and good-natured, was dramatic in the sense that any unauthorized gathering of people in China is typically viewed as a cause for alarm, and the fact that few if any similar demonstrations in support of regional dialects in China have ever taken place previously. Immediately following the Sunday demonstration, a representative of the Guangzhou city government responded by asserting that “it had no plan to marginalise the use of Cantonese or replace it with Putonghua”. The spokesman, a Mr Ouyang,

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

67

then went on to claim that the campaign in support of Cantonese had been orchestrated by “people with ulterior motives” (Zhai, 2010). One week later, a second demonstration took place in support of Cantonese at People’s Park in Guangzhou and a nearby shopping area on August 1, involving hundreds of people. This time the authorities deemed the gathering “illegal”, and arrested at least 20 people for “legal questioning” and simultaneously took measures against Internet blogs and discussion groups (Lau, 2010). On the same day, a small demonstration involving some two hundred people took place in Hong Kong in order to express solidarity with pro-Cantonese activists across the border. Following this, however, the situation was defused and at least temporarily resolved when the Head of the Communist Party in Guangzhou announced an apparent climb-down from the proposed restrictions on Cantonese television on August 4. Referring to a report from the officially-sanctioned China News Service, the South China Morning Post announced that: “Communist Party Chief Wang Yang told a meeting on Wednesday to mark the 100-day countdown to the Asian Games that there was no question of Cantonese being banned”, suggesting that there had been a misunderstanding which had been exploited by “people who have ulterior motives” (Yu 2010). Following this apparent climbdown, it appears that the Guangzhou authorities backed away from their plans to restrict broadcasting in Cantonese and, in the event, the Asian Games took place without further linguistic controversy throughout November 2010. However, this remains an issue that is likely to re-surface, not only in Guangzhou but also in Hong Kong. Indeed, for many Hong Kong people, official attitudes to linguistic diversity reflect attitudes to a much wider range of social and political issues. Commenting on these events, the Hong Kong journalist, Stephen Vines, relates the recent controversy about Cantonese to the authoritarianism of the Beijing government and issues of Chinese identity, arguing that “China has demonstrated [the government’s] determination to curb or even destroy the linguistic diversity that exists in the nation”, and that ‘[i]n Guangdong, home of Cantonese, the language battle is accelerating’ (Vines 2010). He goes on to argue that: Cantonese enhances a sense of identity. It is this that scares the rulers in Beijing; officials across the border are already accusing the defenders of Cantonese of having ‘ulterior motives’. [. . . ] Authoritarian governments have great difficulty with diversity; they see it as undermining their authority and sowing the seeds of discontent. Even quite innocent manifestations of local pride and regional identification are frowned upon unless officially instigated and approved. [. . . ] Officials, like the born-again patriots who run Hong Kong, strive to demonstrate their proficiency in the national language, wearing it as a badge of loyalty. And there has been a constant battle against the development of local languages in

68

Kingsley Bolton literature and the mass media. [. . . ] Anyone challenging this process is quickly labelled a ‘splittist’ in the wonderful language of Maoism. This is a serious charge and is thrown about indiscriminately at both those who genuinely desire to split from Beijing, such as Tibetans, and at others who are happy to be in the Chinese state but seek a stronger sense of local identity [. . . ] there is a sullen suspicion of anyone showing the smallest sign of asserting anything other than officially approved forms of identification with the state. This makes the nation infinitely poorer, not more united. (Vines 2010)

5. Conclusion In many other contexts for language policy, the crucial questions have concerned the choice and cultivation of national and official languages in the post-colonial context. As is evident from the preceding discussion, the situation in Hong Kong is rather different. Modern Hong Kong was essentially founded by refugees fleeing from the control of a Communist regime and the horrors of the Cultural Revolution, and the identification of Hong Kong people with the national language of the PRC is tempered by the experience of the last six decades. For orthodox language planning, Hong Kong may appear to be an exceptional case, as Tsui notes: With China’s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong, the Chinese language, being the national language, should enjoy a much higher status. The people of Hong Kong should have a stronger awareness of Chinese identity. The adoption of Chinese as the medium of instruction in the majority of the schools should enhance the status of the Chinese language, as well as strengthen the national identity of Hong Kong people and their patriotic sentiments. Consequently, the community should be less resistant to this policy [. . . ] this has not proved to be the case. Whereas most former colonies have been eager to establish their national identity upon decolonization [. . . ] this does not seem to have happened in Hong Kong. (Tsui 2004: 108–109)

The essential reason for this, as Tsui concedes, is that language policy in the HKSAR has been decided by the political agenda set for Hong Kong in the transition to its “reunification” with mainland China. In this context, neither traditional language policy theorizations nor the standard critical responses appear to offer easy solutions. Some thirteen years into the post-colonial experience, little on the surface of Hong Kong society seems to have changed. English still enjoys high prestige as a co-official language of government and law, and as the dominant language of higher education and the business community. Cantonese enjoys an unequalled

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

69

status in many domains of high and not-so-high use, including the Legislative Council, the mass media, popular culture, and much else. Putonghua has yet to be heavy-handedly imposed as the language of national and official power on China’s most dynamic and prosperous southern city, which is still enjoying the benefits of the “one country, two systems” policy, devised by Deng Xiaoping. In this context, however, for many Hong Kong people the notion of “mother tongue” education may evoke fear of the imposition of the “big brother tongue”, as there is widespread suspicion that Cantonese-medium education may segue into Putonghua-medium education at some point in the not-too-distant future. Post-colonialism in the Hong Kong context has its own specific characteristics, and as Carroll has commented, “[a]lthough Hong Kong has returned to China, it has not been de-colonized”. Instead, he argues, “it has been re-colonized with the metropole simply shifting from London to Beijing” (2007: 192). That may be true, but as yet the full weight of metropolitan and national policies, including language policy, has not been felt in Hong Kong. Viewed from this perspective, the vitality of Cantonese as a community language (layered with a measure of English) is a touchstone for continued lifestyle of a city-state whose identity combines a unique blend of colonial modernity, global capitalism and diverse contacts with Asia, Europe, North America and the world. The Draft Agreement on the future of Hong Kong signed by the Chinese government in the 1980s promised the territory “a high degree of autonomy”, according to a policy of “one country, two systems”. It remains to be seen how long this autonomy will survive in many spheres of society, including key societal settings, such as government, law, education, and media, which are so crucially linked to the cultural and linguistic identity of the Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong people.

Notes 1. The role of religious schools in Hong Kong continues to be important to the present day, and a number of Catholic, Protestant, and other religious organizations still run significant numbers of primary and secondary schools in the society. This is a state of affairs greatly in contrast with neighbouring Guangdong and other parts of China, where missionary schools operated in large numbers throughout the Republican period, but closed their doors or were re-organised after the Communist Party came to power in 1949. 2. Hong Kong has seven government-funded universities: City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Lingnan University, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, The University of Hong Kong. In addition, there is a tertiary-

70

Kingsley Bolton level educational institute, The Hong Kong Institute of Education. The Chinese University of Hong Kong is officially a bilingual institution, while the language policy of The Hong Kong Institute of Education stipulates the promotion of trilingualism and biliteracy. All other institutions are officially “English-medium”.

References Bolton, Kingsley & Agnes S. L. Lam. 2006. Applied linguistics in China. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics [2nd edition, Vol. 1], 350–356. Oxford: Elsevier. Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2002. World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Carroll, John M. 2007. Edge of empires: Chinese elites and British colonials in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Cheung, Anne. 1997. Language rights and the Hong Kong courts. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 2. 49–75. Chinese Government. 1992. The basic law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. Hong Kong: One Country, Two Systems Economic Research Institute. Cooper, Robert L. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, Stephen. 2008a. Disputes and deliberations over language policy: the case of early colonial Hong Kong. Language Policy 7. 47–65. —. 2008b. The introduction of English-language education in early colonial Hong Kong. History of Education 37(3). 383–408. Fishman, Joshua A., Charles A. Ferguson & Jyotirindra Das Gupta. 1968. Language problems of developing nations. New York: Wiley. Ghai, Yash P. 1999. Hong Kong’s new constitutional order: The resumption of Chinese sovereignty [2nd edition]. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Gibbons, John. 1982. The issue of the medium of instruction in the lower forms of Hong Kong secondary schools. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3. 117–28. Government translator. 2010. Interview with translator, the Legislative Council, Hong Kong. Interview. May 18, 2010. Harrison, Godfrey & Lydia K. H. So. 1997. The background to language change in Hong Kong. In Sue Wright & Helen Kelly-Holmes (eds.), One country, two systems, three languages: A survey of changing language use in Hong Kong, 8–17. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Haugen, Einar. 1959. Planning for a standard language in Norway. Anthropological Linguistics 1. 8–21. He, Huifeng. 2010. Cantonese faces fresh threat in its birthplace. South China Morning Post. July 7, 2010: 1.

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

71

HKSAR Government. 2002. Progress Report on the Education Reform (1): Learning for Life, Learning Through Life. (15 May 2010). —. 2009. Education Bureau Circular No. 6/2009: Fine-tuning the Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools. (15 May 2010). —. 2010a. Official Languages Division website. (15 May 2010). —. 2010b. Department of Justice website. (15 May 2010). Hopkins, Mark. 2006. Policies without planning? The medium of instruction issue in Hong Kong. Language and Education 20(4). 270–286. Kaplan, Robert B. & Richard B. Baldauf. 1997. Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kloss, Heinz. 1969. Research possibilities on group bilingualism: A report. Quebec: International Center for Research on Bilingualism. Kwok, Shirley. 1997. New rule will halve schools using English. South China Morning Post. March 22, 1997: 7. Lai, Chloe. 2009. Linguistic heritage in peril. South China Morning Post. October 11, 2009: 12. Lau, Chi-kuen. 1995. Language of the future. South China Morning Post. September 18, 1995: 19. Lau, Mimi. 2010. ‘Legal questioning’ of journalists defended. South China Morning Post. August 4, 2010: 4. Law, Sau Wah 2002. Language planning in Hong Kong. Unpublished BA dissertation, The University of Hong Kong. Legislative Council. 2010. (15 May 2010). Mesthrie, Rajend, Joan Swann, Andrea Deumert & William L. Leap. 2000. Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Munn, Christopher. 2001. Anglo-China: Chinese people and British rule in Hong Kong, 1841–1880. Surrey: Curzon Press. Neustupn´y, Jir´ı V. 1970. Basic types of treatment of language problems. Linguistic Communications 1. 77–98. Ng, Kwai Hang. 2009. The common law in two voices: Language, law, and the postcolonial dilemma in Hong Kong. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Pennycook, Alastair. 1998. English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge. Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ricento, Thomas. 2006. Language policy: Theory and practice: An introduction. In Thomas Ricento (ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method, 10– 23. Oxford: Blackwell.

72

Kingsley Bolton

Rohsenow, John S. 2004. Fifty years of script and written language reform in the P. R. C. In Minglang Zhou (ed.), Language policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and practice Since 1949, 21–43. Boston: Kluwer Academic. SCOLAR. 2003. Action Plan to Raise Language Standards in Hong Kong. (15 May 2010). Sin, King-Kui & Derek Roebuck. 1996. Language engineering for legal transplantation: Conceptual problems in creating common law Chinese. Language and Communication 16. 235–254. Spolsky, Bernard & Richard D. Lambert. 2006. Language planning and policy: models. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics [2nd edition, Vol. 6], 561–575. Oxford: Elsevier. Sweeting,Anthony & EdwardVickers. 2005. On colonizing “colonialism”: the discourses of the history of English in Hong. World Englishes 24(2). 113–130. —. 2007. Language and the history of colonial education: The case of Hong Kong. Modern Asian Studies 41(1). 1–40. Tollefson, James W. 1991. Planning Language, Planning Inequality. New York: Longman. Tsui, Amy B. M. 2004. Medium of Instruction in Hong Kong: one country, two systems, whose language? In James W. Tollefson & Amy B. M. Tsui (eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda?, 97–106. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vines, Stephen. 2010 Why Cantonese threatens Beijing’s language of power. South China Morning Post. July 31, 2010. [Accessed from South China Morning Post, www.scmp.com]. Yau, Elaine. 2009a. Parents flock to schools that will switch to English. South China Morning Post. January 5, 2009: 1. —. 2009b. Rethink policy on MOI, says expert. South China Morning Post. 28 March 2009. Yu, Verna. 2010. Guangdong chief speaks up for Cantonese. South China Morning Post. August 6, 2010: 4. Zhai, Ivan. 2010. Guangzhou blames people with ulterior motives for pro-Cantonese campaign. South China Morning Post. July 29, 2010: 6. Zhai, Ivan & VernaYu. 2010. Pro-Cantonese rally to hop the border into HK. South China Morning Post. July 27, 2010: 1. Zhang, Bennan & Robin R. Yang. 2004. Putonghua education and language policy in postcolonial Hong Kong. In Minglang Zhou (ed.), Language policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and practice since 1949, 143–162. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Kingsley Bolton, [email protected], is Chair Professor of English in the Department of English at City University of Hong Kong and Professor English Linguistics at Stockholm University, Sweden. He has delivered plenary papers and invited lectures

Language policy and planning in Hong Kong

73

at conferences in Asia, Europe and the US, and has published widely on language and society, English across Asia, and language and globalization. His publications include a monograph on the history of English in China, Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History (Cambridge University Press, 2003), and World Englishes: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (six volumes, co-edited with Braj B. Kachru, Routledge, 2006). From 2003– 04, he served as Elected President of the International Association for World Englishes (IAWE), and, from January 2011, he will be co-editor of the Wiley-Blackwell journal, World Englishes.

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing LIN PAN

Abstract Academic positions vary greatly as regards attitudes towards and expectations of global English around the world. In this paper, I focus on the English language learning context in China and use data collected during the period when Beijing was preparing for and hosting the 2008 Olympic Games (2006–2008) to examine how English and the study of English are perceived and accessed by learners engaged in teaching and learning English outside formal educational institutions, namely, Olympic community English classes and English corners. In particular, I will explore, via interviews and group discussions, the reasons underlying learners’ voluntary choice of English learning; their perceptions of the status of English relative to Chinese in a globalizing context, the potential influence English imposes on Chinese language and culture, and the significance of English to Chinese society. My research findings show that my informants associate English (learning) with multiple benefits to life and career; they express a strong confidence that English will not be a threat to the Chinese language and culture and they claim that English is useful to the development of China both now and in the long run. In this paper, I posit that my informants’ opinions reflect a view of the social world from a particular historical, economic or political perspective or several perspectives combined and I relate their positions on the global spread of English in China to issues of language ideologies. I believe that the nonlinguistic socio-economic, social-historical and socio-political factors exert a crucial role in the emergence of dominant ideologies. Hence, besides presenting and interpreting the prevailing English language ideologies as captured in the discourse of my research respondents, in the last part of the paper, I will explore the possible social, cultural and political factors which caused the ideologies of language to emerge and the implications borne out by these ideologies in the context of China’s ongoing globalization.

76

Lin Pan

Key words: English language ideologies, globalization, civilian discourse, 2008 Beijing Olympics, China

1. Introduction Academic positions manifest profound divergence as regards attitudes towards and expectations of global English. On the one hand, there are informed assertions that the global spread of English is natural, neutral and beneficial (Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Crystal, 1997; Graddol, 2006). On the other hand there are claims that global English is detrimental in that it brings about social stratification, exclusion and problems associated with education, literacy, and language rights (Bamgbose, 2000; Brock-Utne, 2001; Phillipson, 1992; Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson, 1995). This issue of the spread of English is particularly relevant in the context of China. As a society that has been aiming to open up and modernize itself since the end of the 1970s, China has witnessed a meteoric rise in the popularity of English in recent decades, and the learning of English outside compulsory educational settings has flourished to the point where it has become a phenomenon worthy of scholarly attention. While the sociolinguistics of language identity and English language ideology in China has attracted the attention of some researchers in recent years (Du, 2001; Du, 2005; Jin and Cortazzi, 2003; Lo Bianco, Orton and Yihong, 2009; Xu, 2005), my research concentrates on the period when China was preparing for and hosting the 2008 Beijing Olympics. I anchor my research in this ‘moment’ because I view this period (2006–2008) in China, especially in Beijing, as one that experienced accelerated social change and my hypothesis is that social change transforms and generates new discourses and ideologies. Hence, in this paper, I use data collected during this period to examine the ways in which English and the study of English are perceived and accessed by those engaged in teaching and learning English outside formal educational institutions, namely, Olympic community English classes1 and English corners2 which are independent of official educational regulations. This paper features group discussions and interviews. The research respondents include working professionals as well as retired senior citizens.3 Though they come from distinct backgrounds, they all voluntarily chose to learn English in their spare time. My research questions centre upon such themes as the meaning of English and English learning for Chinese people, the influence which English has brought about and will bring to Chinese language and culture and the significance of English to Chinese society in general. To get a

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing

77

view on the above questions, I spent three months (July to September 2008) at English corners and Olympic English classes when Beijing was preparing for and hosting the Olympic Games and talked to the English learners there. I then conducted in-depth group discussions and interviews with four learners who were interested in sharing their stories and opinions and helping me with my research. To choose interview extracts, I identified thematic patterns, concepts, and shifting meanings arising from the interviews and group discussions, then categorized them according to their recurring themes. I then selected extracts from different categories based on my research questions and adopted thematic and content analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Burr, 1995). In analyzing each interview extract, I followed Gee’s (1999) principles of dissecting discourses data and arranged all extracts into stanzas and lines (see extract 1 to 4 in section 3 for example). Each line is supposed to carry a piece of new and salient information and is numbered separately. There is often a pause, slight hesitation, or slight break in tempo after each line in speech (Gee, 1999). The letters ‘a’ and ‘b’ after some line numbers indicate that they contain the same information and belong to the same line. However, as the information embraced within a single line of speech is very often too small and limited to capture all that a speaker wants to say, I grouped a set of lines into a stanza. According to several scholars (Gee, 1986; 1991; Hymes, 1996; Scollon and Scollon, 1981), a stanza is a set of lines devoted to a single topic, event, image, perspective or theme. Therefore, whenever there are more than two topics or issues addressed in one extract, it is divided into stanzas and each stanza is named according to its theme. In this way, each specific theme which arises in the interview is foregrounded to facilitate thematic and content analysis.

2. English Language Ideologies Gramsci, Althusser, and Bourdieu used concepts such as hegemony (Gramsci, 1971; 1988), symbolic power, misrecognition (Bourdieu, 1991) and ideological state apparatus (Althusser, 1971; 2004) to elaborate upon certain ideologies and especially language ideologies, recognizing ideology as common sense or a form of ‘invisible’ power (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 23) which routinely manipulates social life. I see English language ideologies as sets of ideas, sometimes manifested as discourse, that either support or critically question the spread of English as a global language. The sets of ideas usually present views of the social world from a particular historical, economic or political perspective and demonstrate a critical and political awareness of the effects of the global spread of English. In other words, different from the individualistic nature of attitudes towards the

78

Lin Pan

global spread of English, English language ideologies represent perspectives which have become accepted modes of knowledge and thought by a particular group to such an extent that they have lost much of their ideological appearance by having become naturalized, or simply common sense. With regard to English language ideologies, first there are views which see the spread of English as inherently good for the whole world. These views usually trumpet the benefits of English over other languages, suggesting that English has both intrinsic (the nature of the language) and extrinsic (the functions of the language) qualities superior to other languages (McCrum, MacNeil and Cran, 2002). This type of ideology is categorized as colonial-celebration. Second is instrumentalism that regards English language as a gatekeeper to the modernization of a state and the acquisition of social and economic prestige for individuals. As the world’s foremost auxiliary language by now, English is viewed as a linguistic capital (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977) that is easily convertible to other forms of capital, such as educational qualifications and higher education. This view is quite often voiced from what Kachru defines (2006) the Outer and Expanding Circles, where people regard English as a window to the world and a tool that empowers them, after having been previously oppressed by western imperialism and hegemony. Another set of ideas which is believed to form the dominant framework in TESOL is that the spread of English is natural, neutral and beneficial, as long as it can coexist in a complementary relationship with other languages. Pennycook (2000) uses the term “laissez-faire liberalism” to summarize this general stance. Laissez-faire liberalism suggests that everyone should be free to do what they like with English, to use English in beneficial ways and to use other languages for other purposes. It claims that we should neither engage in ideological nor political discussions of language and that we should make freedom of choice our central mode of understanding. On the other hand, there are ideologies critical of the global spread of English. One of the earliest discussions of this is by Cooke (1988) who has described English as a ‘Trojan horse’, arguing that it is a language of imperialism and of particular class interests. Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas have further developed this idea by introducing two concepts: linguicide and linguicism. They define linguicide as “the extermination of languages, an analogous concept to (physical) genocide” (1995, p. 83) and “linguicism” is used by Skutnabb-Kangas (1988; 1998) to express her view towards the inequitable allocation of language rights. She argues that it represents a sort of “linguistic racism” (1988, p. 13; 1998, p. 16) and “ideologies, structures and practices are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups on the basis of the language they speak” (1995, p. 83). Based on this major concern, three subcategories of ideas are fur-

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing

79

ther illustrated: language ecology, linguistic imperialism and language rights. From the language ecology point of view, the problem with the spread of English is a complex disruption of the ecology of languages. The view of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) argues that English penetrates or invades local spaces and disturbs the ecological balance that exists between people, language, culture and their environment, as it supports a global system of world trade which advantages the centre (rich and powerful) countries and disadvantages the peripheries (poorer countries). In addition, Tsuda (1994) and Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1996) insist that a linguistic human rights perspective should form the cornerstone of an ecology of a language paradigm whereby it is proposed that the “right to identify with, to maintain and to fully develop one’s mother tongue(s)” should be acknowledged as “a self-evident, fundamental individual linguistic human right” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1998, p. 20). The above review examines the varied views of the spread of English exhibited in different societies around the world and puts them into different ideological categories. Although they all hold water from their own particular angles, neither is sufficient to elucidate the complexity of ideological ramifications of the spread of English in a particular locality. This paper takes the stance that the divergent English language ideologies are a result of the different perspectives taken which could be attributed to the unique social contexts and historical experiences of a particular locality. The paper also posits that quite often different layers of ideologies are intertwined simultaneously and the ideologies may evolve and become transformed through time in different localities. In this spirit, in the following sections I will investigate the language ideologies and implications present when China was preparing for and hosting the Olympic Games, 2008.

3. The Data As part of my research, I was first interested in finding out why both retired citizens and professionals still working devote their spare time to learning English voluntarily and what English means to them. My research findings showed that my respondents endowed English and the learning of English with multiple values and benefits, relating English and English learning to the improvement of the quality of their lives, self-fulfilment, facilitation of communication, attainment of mutual understanding and career development. The extracts from interviews and group discussions reproduced below are what I was told when I engaged my informants in conversations about their perception of the multiple values embedded in learning English.

80

Lin Pan

 “English improves my life quality of life and keeps me up to date.” Extract 1 is part of a discussion with two retired individuals at the English corner at Chaoyang Library. This English corner was set up in 2004, three years after the successful bid for the 2008 Olympics. Since then, Chaoyang library has been organizing whole-day English teaching and practice programmes every Saturday (the Olympic English class on Saturday morning and the English corner on Saturday afternoon, both open to everyone and with ‘learning English for the Olympics’ as a goal). The discussion took place on a Saturday afternoon when a number of people were practising their oral English. The two major interviewees involved were a man, Ma, in his late 40s and a woman, Wu, in her 70s. Both of them had been attending this English corner for one year and three years respectively. The interview questions centred on why Chinese people, especially retired people, want to learn English. Learning English was positively labelled by the two interviewees as a means to improve their quality of life, to understand and learn from the outside world and a way to keep up with the present times. Extract 1: 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 8a 8b 9

Stanza 1: English is for pastime and job hunting Researcher: I want to find out why we Chinese put so much effort into learning English. I am interested in this question and at the same time confused by it. Don’t you think we are kind of crazy about the language? Ma: Yeah, yeah, yeah Researcher: Why is it so? Is it really useful to people? Ma: I feel many people treat it as a pastime, especially when they are old. But for you young people, I guess it is for job hunting, employment and so on. Here, I feel many old people want to improve their quality of life.

10 11 12 13 14a 14b 15a 15b

Stanza 2: Learning English to understand the world Researcher:(surprised) Wow, to improve the quality of life? Ma: Yeah, that is what I think. Researcher: Can we improve the quality of our lives by learning English? Ma: Actually, it is to enrich their spare time. Now, English is everywhere, even in (Chinese) songs, so if we do not learn English, I feel we cannot understand the outside world. Through learning English, you can learn from their (foreign countries’) strong points/strengths to

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing 15c 16

overcome our own weaknesses. There are many aspects in foreign countries that you can learn from.

17a 17b 18 19 20 21 22a 22b 23

Stanza 3: using English to promote Chinese culture Researcher: Well, do you think we also have some good aspects that they can learn from? Ma: Yes, of course. Our traditions can also be promoted by using English. You should use English to communicate with them. I feel if we understand English, our life quality of life will be different. You know, you get to know something different, such as foreign culture, ways of life, they are all different (from ours).

24a 24b 25 26 27 28a 28b 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

81

Stanza 4: Learning English to understand the world (a senior lady joined the group) Researcher (turning to the senior lady): So can you tell me why you want to learn English? What’s the use of English in your life and in your work? Wu: Now, in China, in Beijing, we are opening up to the world on the street, many words are in English, we are like illiterates. Like illiterates who come to the city (if we don’t understand English). Others: Yes, true. (nodding and agreeing). Wu: I am like a blind man. Ma: In the 50s or 60s, if you did not know Chinese characters, you were illiterate, now you are illiterate if you do not know English. Just now we said English is to improve our quality of life, now it is – Wu: When the country had just been liberated, we learnt Chinese characters by posting the word, say ‘flour’ on the flour jar, posting the word ‘rice’ on the rice jar, we are now using the same method in learning English.

The above extract is subdivided into 4 stanzas according to its themes. In stanza 1, Ma identifies the difference in attitudes towards English between the young people and the senior ones. He portrays English learning in a positive way since the status of English is associated with the improvement of his quality of life. Such an enthusiastic attitude is in sharp contrast to the preceding eras when learning English was frequently labelled with negative connotations and access to English was often denied by the State (see section 4 for details). It seems, with globalization and accompanying social changes taking place in China, this newly available language choice becomes for him a key to a new, “enriched”

82

Lin Pan

life, an empowering addition to his linguistic repertoire and indispensable for accessing all the indexicalities of the language. I would argue that his gracious embrace of English language, therefore, is not an individualistic free choice but an act aligned with the dynamics within the broader social discourse. Later in stanza 2, Ma further comments on the importance of English: “Now, English is everywhere, even in (Chinese) songs, so if we do not learn English, I feel we cannot understand the outside world.” The interviewee first points out that English facilitates communication with the world and learning English helps towards a mutual understanding between people and countries. In addition, his words reveal that the cultural influence of English, which is fast making inroads into Chinese society, has become a driving force for him and possibly other older people to opt for English courses. Also worth noticing is the perspective Ma adopts. Confronted with the cultural influence of English, instead of raising protests against what some have called a cultural or ecological threat (Mühlhäusler, 1996; Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson, 1995), he takes a relatively neutral or even passive stance with his somehow apologetic confession ‘I feel we cannot understand the outside world’. He dichotomizes the world into “China and the outside world”, and indicates that he feels English is a tool helping him link the two. Similar to Ma’s comments, in stanza 4 (line 24–37), the female interviewee Wu also admits the influence of English in China and says that now China is opening up to the world, and English words are seen everywhere on the streets. She then compares herself and her group of learners to ‘illiterates’ and ‘a blind man’, and confesses that they use the same method and put in the same amount of effort to learn English as they learnt Chinese when they were young. This point of view can be better understood in relation to globalization and China’s efforts towards internationalization as indicated by ‘China is opening up to the world’. Here again, research respondents knowingly anchor their individualistic choices within the macro, all-encompassing context of globalization, which has determined English learning as an imperative both necessary and inevitable. Through their self-depiction of becoming ‘illiterates’ and ‘a blind man’, they take on an implicitly subordinate role by exalting the significance of English over that of Chinese. Here, it is clear that the power of the language is often determined by its advantages of communication or practical values; the speaker is attracted to the power of English and is oriented towards it (Calvet, 2006; De Swaan, 2001). In line 15, stanza 2, Ma’s utterance “through learning English, you can learn from their strong points to overcome our own weaknesses” reveals that English is regarded as an instrument for self-improvement. In a similar way, this instrumental view is voiced again in line 17 of stanza 3, by his comment: “our

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing

83

traditions should also be promoted by using English” and “you should use English to communicate with them”. The instrumental nature of his words echo , a slogan used “learning from the barbarians to check them” ( , for English a century ago) and ‘using foreign things to serve China’ ( advocated by Mao Zedong, former Chairman of P. R. C., in the 1960s). It seems that in the long evolution of the ideological history of English in China, the nature of instrumental ideologies still remains unchanged in essence (this point will be further addressed in section 4).  “I like English and it will be beneficial for my job and career.” Extract 2 is from an interview with Ni, a young professional. She works for a well-known architectural design company in Beijing. She had already graduated from university but she was very enthusiastic about English learning and kept attending part time English courses and English corners. I was very curious about the reasons behind her enthusiasm and wanted to explore what learning English meant for her as a young and enterprising professional. Extract 2:

1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 5a 5b 6a 6b 7a 7b 8 9

10a 10b 11a 11b 11c

Researcher: You have continued learning English. Is this for your career or – Stanza 1: the significance of English learning Ni: Out of interest, actually. Studying English in itself can bring many advantages. You can make a lot of friends, and it opens a lot of windows for you. Also, once you know the language, and have a good command of it, it is convenient for communicating. No matter whoever you are with, if you have enough vocabulary, you will have better comprehension and better ability for expressing yourself. I also feel that you’ll have a special skill which nobody has except you, like CCTV9 news anchors – look at their bearing, their ease, I envy them very much. I feel that if I could speak as fluently, then it would be my strength. I really want to have such a skill, but I feel I stopped. I discontinued so my English is no longer fluent now. — Stanza 2 English brings benefits to my career — But I sometimes think that if my English was good, it could offer me the best opportunities. You know, if your English, especially your spoken English I have no problem with reading or writing English, but if I could speak good English,

84

Lin Pan

11d

then I . . . . I will be appreciated by my company. Researcher: you mean promotion?! Ni: Yes, yes. I will have a special skill. The boss would say “ emm, you are special” and he will notice you. But I feel I haven’t shown myself . . . . Now I am looking after an American design company. Everytime they come, I go to receive them, and they have very good relations with our general manager. Our company is a hierarchical one – one layer on top of another, it’s very conservative, very much like a state-owned enterprise. The general manager won’t know – Well, he will know that I am the project manager for design, but he will not know that you have good English. He does not understand you. But suppose my English is good, When they come, I don’t need a translator, they speak English and I speak English, we can communicate smoothly – isn’t that beneficial to me?! —

12a 12b 13 14 15a 15b 16a 16b 17a 17b 17c 17d 18a 18b 18c 18d

19a 19b 20a 20b 20c 20d 20e 20f 21a 21b 21c 21d 22

23a 23b 23c 24a 24b 25 26a

Stanza 3: English helps me to make friends Ni: Actually my English was good When I went with you to the class in 2002, I felt that my spoken English was good at the time I could speak with foreigners. I was an architect’s assistant, an assistant to an American architect. Then I could speak good English, My colleagues in the design company were all very kind to me. Emm, they might have felt I was a new-comer and they might have felt I was very special, so every time they were doing something, they would say, “Ni, come here,” they would ask me to join them. At the time I was very young, and I felt very happy with them. — Stanza 4 English is a passport I feel people should be special, because when you have such special qualities, it is like having a passport. It brings a lot of opportunities and a lot of friends. Otherwise, if we are all the same, it makes no difference whether we make friends with you or with others. Besides, I feel it is a skill. If you have invested so much already and you have spent so much time,

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing 26b 26c 27 28a 28b

85

then you should continue doing it. And for you, it is an accomplishment. That’s what I think. I’m not sure where this will take me but I hope I can gradually improve.

In the above extract, Ni first illustrates the importance that English holds for her, reflecting on how it could be of value for her career and for enhancing her social network. She expresses her unconditional longing for a good command of English which is evident by her repeated use of positive adjectives and phrases throughout the four stanzas. These include ‘it opens a lot of windows’, ‘it is convenient for your communication’, ‘better comprehension’, ‘better ability’, ‘special gift’, ‘ease’, ‘strength’ in stanza 1; ‘best opportunity’, ‘be appreciated’, ‘special’ and ‘good’ in stanza 2; ‘special’ in stanza 3 and ‘special’, ‘a passport’, ‘a skill’, ‘self-attainment’and ‘elevate yourself ’in stanza 4. As previously stated, the particular use of the word ‘special’ is very prominent and is repeated five times in all four stanzas. Accordingly, Ni’s generous admiration of English TV news anchors in stanza 1, her frequent use of positive words and phrases in addition to the constant repetition of ‘the word special’ points to her earnest yearning for a good command of English. The way she portrays the benefits of English naturally link to Bourdieu’s concept (1992) of symbolic capital. Bourdieu sees symbolic capital as a crucial source of power, the value of which is derived from its scarcity. The acquisition of symbolic capital not only results in possession of the capital itself, but also in the accumulation of prestige, recognition and authority. In the same way, Ni regards English competence as a ‘special skill’- a symbolic capital the acquisition of which would bring her not only the skill itself but also the derivatives such as job promotion, friends, colleagues’ recognition, together with such valuable intangibles as elegance and gracefulness. In short, for Ni, the possession of good English communication competence will certainly lead to improvement of both her social and economic positions, difficult to obtain otherwise. The above two extracts have illustrated the significance of English learning from the perspectives of retired citizens and a young professional. Given the fact that my research respondents associate multiple benefits with English and English learning for both themselves and the country as a whole, I started to wonder about the influence of English on Chinese language and culture, that is, how much faith do they have that learning English will affect Chinese language and culture? And if there is an influence, is it going to be positive or negative? This research question surfaced as I recalled the 1980s when China put into effect the Reform and Opening-up policy, when English was still regarded as a

86

Lin Pan

source of “spiritual pollution” (‘jingshen wuran’ in Pinyin or ) and the social-cultural values which English represented were avoided to a great extent in learning and teaching (An, 1984;Yue, 1983). I wanted to explore whether or how much the “linguicide” and “linguicism” ideologies (Phillipson and SkutnabbKangas, 1995; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988; 1998) hold true for the English learners in the Olympic classes. And when I enquired in my interviews whether English is perceived as a threat to Chinese language and culture, most respondents gave negative answers. In most cases, my interviewees’ well-defined confidence with regard to Chinese language and culture was clearly unmistakable. The following group discussion with Ma and Wu provides such an example.  “Your root is Chinese.” Extract 3:

3a 3b 4

Stanza 1: English is simpler and advanced Ma: There are many road signs, many are in English, English is simpler than Chinese. Researcher: Many road signs are in English. Will this be a threat to our Chinese language? Wu: If they are advanced, we should learn together, improve together. You don’t know it so you should learn it. The problem is that we are too old.

5a 5b 5c 6a 6b 6c 7a 7b

Stanza 2: It is impossible for English to become a threat Ma: This issue was once discussed in a debating contest. A teacher said we Chinese have five thousand years of civilization, so it is impossible (for English to become a threat). Wu: For example, Hong Kong and Taiwan, These places wanted to reduce the Chinese elements for many years but failed. Your root is Chinese. Our five thousand years of civilization are respected by foreigners.

8a 8b 9a 9b 10a 10b 11a 11b

Stanza 3: English and Chinese are complementary Wu: Also, while there may be 16 meanings for one English word. There may be more than 40 meanings for a similar word in Chinese. If you’ve reached a certain level and need to translate them into Chinese, then it depends on your Chinese language skills, not your English skills. Ma: Also I feel studying English is not a case that one diminishes the other, but rather that they are complementary. Sometimes, English is not as rich as Chinese, and Chinese can complement English.

1 2

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing 12 13 14

87

But Chinese is not as simple as English, not as concise as English. So they are complementary. But not a threat to each other.

Extract 3 is divided into three themes in three stanzas. In the first stanza, Ma and Wu note their positive opinion about English language by saying that ‘English is simpler than Chinese’ in line 2 and English is seen as an ‘advanced thing’ in line 3a. The words ‘simpler’ and ‘advanced’ demonstrate an appreciative attitude towards English language as the celebrators (McCrum, MacNeil and Cran, 2002) view the spread of English to be inherently good, in that it both has intrinsic advantages in terms of the nature of the language (suggested by the word ‘simpler’) and extrinsic benefits in terms of functions (by ‘advanced things’) that are superior to other languages. Then in stanza 2, with regard to the influence of English on Chinese culture, Ma declares that English could never become a threat as ‘the Chinese language and culture have five thousand years of civilization’. Wu also supports Ma’s opinion by quoting the situation in Hong Kong and Taiwan as further examples. According to her, the roots of a person or a nation cannot be changed (line 6c) and she reinforces her argument on the solidity of Chinese roots by commenting that ‘our five thousand years of civilization is respected by foreigners’. By presenting foreigners’ respect towards Chinese culture as a counterargument, she makes the point that there is no reason for the Chinese to despise or abandon their own culture. These points are further elaborated and strengthened in stanza 3. First, for Wu, translation skills signify a person’s language competence, and her prioritizing the mother tongue over English in achieving good translation fits well with her argument that ‘your root is Chinese’ and this will not change. Ma in lines 10a and 10b also dismisses the idea that English could be a threat to Chinese and makes it clear that studying another language does not necessarily lead to the decline of the mother tongue, as languages could complement each other. The ideology reflected is that though English is important, the Chinese “national language is – the primordial foundation of national culture and the matrice of the national mind” (Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 51). Thus, the correlation between national language and national identity is well depicted. The above extract elucidates the point that instead of regarding English as a threat to Chinese language and culture, my respondents tend to think about English in a more constructive way. This made me reflect on the role of Olympic English classes. Why did my respondents, more often than not, generate positive discourse on English and learning English? What are their objectives for learning English, outside the mainstream education system and not compulsory? And how do they see the significance of English to Chinese society? The extract that

88

Lin Pan

follows is selected from the interview with Zhao, one of the advocates of the English Speaking Association of Chaoyang District, in which she explains to me the objectives of the training in the Olympic class and voices her opinions about the significance of English in Chinese society in the long run.  “The Olympics as a goal was not enough. – (We) did not want to stop learning English after the Olympics.” Extract 4: 1

2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12a 12b 12c 12d 13

14 15

Stanza 1: Studying English for the Olympics Zhao: In fact the objectives of our classes are very clear: they are held for the Olympics. Researcher: Then how about after the Olympics? Zhao: At the very beginning, we thought that the environment for learning English wasn’t there, so we wanted to create such an environment. When we created the environment for learning, we needed to have an important objective, aimed at the Olympics. But when we were working towards this goal, we felt that the Olympics as a goal was not enough. Stanza 2: Studying English to go beyond the Olympics Zhao: So we needed to revise our aim. Our original class did not want to stop learning English after the Olympics. What could we do? We should train volunteers; we should meet our social need for volunteers, for example, in museums, exhibition centres, hospitals, schools, etc. they perhaps need people with such aspirations. Schools might need the experience of such people. Museums and exhibition centres need translators. For example, foreigners come to China and become very interested in Chinese things but if there is no one to explain these things to them, there are many who will not understand them. Therefore it is only by talking to them that these things will become clear. So that is our next training target. Researcher: Oh, so it was like that in the beginning. The Olympics served as an opportunity to implement these training classes. But after the training got started, you discovered a long-term goal. Zhao: Yes, when we first started training, we did not have such a long-term goal. Now as the training goes on, the goal grows bigger and bigger. Researcher: Actually it is [

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing 16

89

Zhao: [Step by step Researcher: Therefore we can say that the Olympics is an opportunity, a platform to enable us to cast our vision beyond this.

Zhao, along with several other retired citizens, advocated the learning of English after the successful bid for the Olympics. With the help of their neighbourhood committees, they set up an English speaking association in Chaoyang District and opened more than 20 Olympic English classes affiliated to it; as Zhao explains in line 1, all of the classes were opened for the Olympics. In fact, according to the office of the Beijing Speaks Foreign Languages Programme (BSFLP), Olympic English classes sprouted up across Beijing to ensure that by 2008, 5 million inhabitants in Beijing, that is, 35% of Beijing regular inhabitants, are prepared to help foreigners when Beijing hosts the Olympic Games. As revealed in stanza 1 of the above conversation with Zhao, the Vice-Chair of the Chaoyang English Speaking Association, clarifies that although ‘all of the classes were for the Olympics’, their initial idea to open them was to ‘create an English environment’. This means that the Olympic English classes were originally conceptualized as only a bridge to create an environment for English learning as their idea of ‘learning and practising English’ came before the goal of ‘learning for the Olympics’. Moreover, in stanza 2, Zhao says that ‘they realized that the Olympics could only be a short term goal and they don’t want to stop learning English after the Olympics’. In order to sustain their English learning environment, they re-targeted other social needs. This view of ‘English beyond the 2008 Olympics’ as a long term goal, in a similar manner, was officially voiced by Chen Lin, a renowned professor of ELT in China and an adviser for the office of the Beijing Speaks Foreign Languages Programme (BSFLP). He explained, ‘We learnt English for 2008 but we should not stop at 2008. We should “go beyond 2008”, as Beijing will be more open and active in international communication after the Olympics’.4 He also said that ‘I feel a greater significance of learning English is that it changes the way people think, that ‘the Olympic English mania’ has made Beijingers more open-minded. In other words, the Beijingers no longer remain defensive about their own language but they get to know another language and culture and communicate with another culture with good intentions.” Worth noticing is the convergence of thoughts between Chen Lin, an official representative, and Zhao, a civilian representative, in that both attribute the learning of English to be of instrumental value for having international communication and possibly going international. In addition, Chen’s labelling of the significance of learning English goes explicitly against the ideologies reflected in some other parts of the world, such as Africa (e.g. Zambia, Tanzania), some parts of Asia (e.g. India, Sri Lanka)

90

Lin Pan

(Kachru, 1990) and/or some European countries (e.g. France) (Flaitz, 1988), where voices proliferate to protect their national language against the invasion of English, and to minimize the cultural and ideological influence that English will exert on people’s minds. The positive significance attributed to learning English from both official and civilian levels and the overlapping tone between the civilian and the official discourses are worthy of further examination, which I will attempt in the following section.

4. Multi-layered ideologies and their contextual implications As stated earlier in section 2, English language ideologies are sets of ideas, sometimes taking the form of discourse, that either support or critically question the spread of English as a global language. In the above section, by examining the discourses of the language learners, I have explored the different layers of English language ideologies in contemporary China when the Olympic Games were due to take place in Beijing. The matrix of opinions expressed about learning English fit into several ideological categories as we distinguished earlier in this paper. First, there is a wide array of ‘instrumental views’, exemplified by words such as ‘English improves the quality of my life and keeps me up to date’. In addition, young professionals see English as a passport to their job and career and English language competence is regarded as a gatekeeper towards a better quality of life, easier and better communication with the world and more promising career prospects – a “linguistic capital” to use Bourdieu’s term (1977). Furthermore, it is not uncommon to find a celebrative attitude among respondents/interviewees, who tend to view the spread of English as inherently good for the whole world, and that English has both intrinsic (the nature of the language) and extrinsic (the functions of the language) qualities superior to other languages (McCrum, MacNeil and Cran, 2002). In parallel, the view of laissez-faire liberalism, which sees the spread of English as natural, neutral and beneficial, is also somewhat ubiquitous among my interviewees, exemplified by remarks such as ‘your root is Chinese’, ‘it is impossible (for English to become a threat)’, and they see ‘studying English, not that one diminishes the other, but rather that they are complementary’. Additionally, the data shows that some impact of English in China is clearly felt by people, as in ‘now, English is everywhere, even in (Chinese) songs –’ and ‘China is opening up to the world, and English words are everywhere on the streets –’. However, many interviewees showed great confidence in the integrity and prosperity of Chinese language and culture. In contrast to the movement of remedying the wrongs of language hege-

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing

91

mony, to advocate the right of all people to speak the language of their choice, to fight ‘language imperialism’ abroad and ‘linguicism’ at home, and to strengthen ‘language rights’ in international law as proposed by some scholars (Cooke, 1988; Day, 1985; Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson, 1995), the confidence of my research respondents is exhibited by their remarks on the impossibility of English becoming a threat when faced with a civilization of 5,000 years and ‘the roots of a person or a nation will not be changed’. It could be argued that the English language ideologies discussed and summarized in the previous analysis echo Kachru’s (2006) notion of “the Outer and Expanding Circles of English speaking and learning countries”. However, I would counter-argue that despite apparent similarities, the social, cultural and historical factors which inform China or other countries vary and are often distinctively unique. That is, people’s ideologies of English in China may be attributed to its unique social context and historical experiences. This is because, as made clear earlier, language ideologies are contextualised sets of beliefs about languages. In other words, they are cultural and political systems of ideas about social and linguistic relationships (Gal and Irvine, 1995; Irvine, 1989). Following this line of thinking, the ways in which languages are used and thought about by a particular person are never just about languages but also about community and society (Woolard, 2004) and the world as a whole (Calvet, 2006; De Swaan, 2001; Wallerstein, 2000; Wallerstein, 2004). As non-linguistic socio-economic, socio-historical and socio-political factors play a crucial role in the emergence of dominant language ideologies, a context-specific discussion and interpretation seems to be in order. Therefore, at the end of the paper, I will relate the English language ideologies I summarized above to China’s specific social-historical background and will locate the ‘right time and moment’ for the ideologies of language to emerge while explaining their implications. Firstly, in general, my informants expressed open-minded attitudes toward learning English, which can be categorized as either instrumental, celebratory or laissez-faire. At the national level, English is perceived as a necessary means for helping the nation open up further, a valuable resource for realising its modernisation programme, and an important cornerstone of international competition. On a personal level, proficiency in English is seen as a key to a host of opportunities: to enter and graduate from university, to go abroad for further education, to secure desirable jobs in public and private sectors, and to be eligible for promotion to higher professional ranks. Consequently, English proficiency is associated with superior national, social and economic prestige. These layers of meaning of English learning indisputably relate themselves to the impact of globalization and China’s determined drive for internationalization in recent decades, as people’s discourse is a way to show how they perceive

92

Lin Pan

globalization and their discourse itself becomes a facet of globalization (McKay and Bokhorst-Heng, 2008). English gained momentum in China from the 1970s and since then has enjoyed a high level of prestige into the 21st century, mostly arising out of China’s need for modernization and economic development. The state’s full embrace of English in various sectors has also generated ideological changes in people as they become increasingly convinced of the indispensability of English to China’s development. The positive discourse about English made by my research respondents to a great extent bespeaks the swift socio-economic changes China has gone through. The value package of English places itself in sharp contrast to the previous eras when English was constantly associated with “barbarism”, “imperialism and colonialism” in the late 19th century and early 20th century, and “a language of our enemy” when the People’s Republic of China had just been founded in the 1950s and 1960s (Adamson, 2004; Lam, 2005; Pan, 2010). Therefore, learning English is not only encouraged by the State as a means of accelerating modernization and internationalization, but it is also seen at a more personal and individualistic level as symbolic capital to attain brighter career prospects and a better life style. All the above serves as an explanation for the heavy emphasis placed on the benefits English brings in people’s discourse. Secondly, with regard to the impact of English on Chinese language and culture, the responses are, more often than not, centred upon confidence towards the integrity of Chinese language and culture, the adaptive learning attitude and the desire to improve the Chinese economy and promote Chinese culture via English. As previously stated, this response appears to be in conflict with the well-founded view of ‘linguicide’ and ‘linguicism’, which is used to explain inter-lingual relationships in many parts of the world. Nevertheless, a close examination of the history of China’s educational interactions with foreign countries in general (Lam, 2005), and foreign-language teaching in particular (Jin and Cortazzi, 2003; Pan, 2007) reveal constant swings between selective introduction and prohibition of foreign culture. A period of selective exposure was always followed by a swing back to the prohibition of foreign values and beliefs or the substitution of foreign culture with Chinese culture, when the state was concerned that fundamental Chinese values and beliefs were being jeopardised by the influx of foreign ones. Hence, the cultural and ideological influence of English has always been reduced to a minimum. As summarized by Adamson (2002, p. 231), “China has had a strategy to mitigate undesirable cultural transfer in place since the mid-nineteenth century: a policy of controlled and selective appropriation, to use English for the purposes of state building, while maintaining cultural integrity.” This ‘selective appropriation’ tradition, in addition to China’s efforts in recent decades at internationalization, offers a way

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing

93

to interpret why my informants, no matter whether young or old, are confident, optimistic and are willing to adapt when learning English. Last but not the least, as already noted, the State identifies the mother tongue languages as being the languages of cultural identity and ethnic cohesion, and English as the language of commerce, global connectedness and modernization. With the nation’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the successful bid for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games in 2001, the popularity of English has reached new heights amongst government policy makers, educationalists and the Chinese public. Nevertheless, both civilian and official discourses overlap in that the significance of English learning is ‘going beyond the Olympics’ and helping to equip society for a more modernized China. Such instances of overlapping may be better understood within the power and cultural power framework of China today. According to Blommaert (2008), when the cultural power exercised by the ruling class is no longer perceived as power, but has become the normal state of things and has begun to organise people’s lives in a way that is no longer perceived as oppressive, irrational or questionable, it becomes hegemonic power. Blommaert’s idea can be traced to Bourdieu’s (1991, p. 23) elaboration of “symbolic power” and “misrecognition” and Gramsci’s (1971, p. 377) concepts of “consent” and “hegemony”. For Bourdieu, the term “symbolic power” refers not so much to a specific type of power, rather to an aspect of most forms of power as they are routinely deployed in social life. In addition, he points out that symbolic power is “invisible” power which is “misrecognized” as such and thereby “recognized” as legitimate (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 23). To interpret the concept of power in Gramsci’s terms (1971), it is a form of hegemony exercised by the ruling class to make their ideas the most natural and dominant ones for that society and develop and maintain consent. Hence, cultural power is not exercised coercively, but routinely. People consent to particular formations of power because the dominant cultural groups generating the discourse represent them as “natural” and “legitimate” (Gramsci, 1971, p. 377; Mayr, 2008, p. 13). By generating consent (‘legitimacy’) among the population, the more legitimacy the dominant groups have, the less coercion the ruling class need to apply. The same applies to the way the State has been propagating the use of English in Chinese society in recent decades, as the functional usefulness of English to the nation as a whole is placed at the forefront, overshadowing its less instrumental implications. Therefore, individuals, as products of power, perceive it as legitimate and accept the language as a thing that is “for their own good” (Blommaert, 2008). We thus see that cultural power is functioning in its least overt physical form, that is, in the routine flow of day-to-day life and day-to-day discourse.

94

Lin Pan

Notes 1. Olympic English classes were gradually set up in different residential communities in Beijing after China’s successful bid for the Olympic Games in 2001. They were usually advocated and organized by enthusiastic (retired) residents, sponsored by local resident committees as free venues and where English was taught by volunteer English teachers. The goal of Olympic English classes was to prepare the local citizens to become Olympic language volunteers and to otherwise improve the quality of residents’ language ability. There were no compulsory textbooks. 2. English corners were locations where people from various walks of life gathered together, usually once a week, to practise English. They were usually loosely organized in that no local authority was involved and people were free to join and leave. The only principle unanimously observed is that English, not Chinese, should be used in conversations. 3. Consent forms were signed before each interview and group discussions. All research participants are kept anonymous and pseudo names are used in this paper. 4. July 31st 2008, Xinhua New Net, last traced on 08 January 2009 http://news.xinhuanet.com/olympics/2008-07/31/content 8869032 1.htm

References Adamson, Bob. 2002. ‘Barbarian as a foreign language: English in China’s Schools’. World Englishes, 21 (2), 231–243. Adamson, Bob. 2004. China’s English: a history of English in Chinese education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Althusser, Louis. 1971. Lenin and philosophy, and other essays. London: New Left Books. Althusser, Louis. 2004. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan (eds), Literary theory: an anthology. Oxford: Blackwell. An, Zhiguo. 1984. Ideological contamination clarified. Beijing review, 27 (4). Bamgbose, Ayo. 2000. Language and Exclusion. Muenster, Hamburg, London: LIT Verlag. Blommaert, Jan. 2008. Notes on Power. Working paper in language diversity: University of Jyv¨askyl¨a. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. and Passeron, Jean-Claude. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. California: Sage Publications. Bourdieu, Pierre. and Wacquant, Loic. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press and Polity. Braun, Virginia. and Clarke, Victoria. 2006. Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101.

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing

95

Brock-Utne, Birgit. 2001. Education for all – in whose language. Oxford Review of Education, 21 (1), 115–34. Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2002. World English: A Study of Its Development. Clevedon Buffalo Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Burr, Vivien. 1995. An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge. Calvet, Louis-Jean. 2006. Towards an ecology of world languages (Andrew Brown, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Cooke, David. 1988. Ties that constrict: English as a Trojan horse. In Alister Cumming, Antoinette Gagn´e & Janet Dawson (eds.), Awareness: Proceedings of the 1987 TESL Ontario Conference, 56–62. Ontario: TESL Ontario. Crystal, David. 1997. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Day, Richard.R. 1985. The ultimate inequality: Linguistic genocide. In Nessa Wolfson and Joan Manes (eds.), The language of inequality, 163–181. Amsterdam: Mouton de gruyter. De Swaan, Abram. 2001. Words of the world: the global language system. Cambridge: Polity. Du, Hui. 2001. The globalisation of the English language: Reflections on the teaching of English in China. International Education Journal, 2 (4), 126–133. Du, Hui. 2005. False alarm or real warning? Implications for China of teaching English. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 6 (1), 90–109. Flaitz, Jeffra. 1988. The ideology of English: French perception of English as a world language. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de gruyter. Gal, Susan. and Irvine, Judith. 1995. The boundaries of languages and disciplines: how ideologies construct difference. Social Research, 62, 967–1001. Gee, James. P. 1986. Units in the production of discourse. Discourse Processes, (9), 391–422. Gee, James. P. 1991, A linguistic approach to narrative. Journal of narrative and Life History, (1), 15–39. Gee, James. Paul. 1999. An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. London: Routledge. Graddol, David. 2006. English Next: why global English may mean the end of English as a Foreign Language. Plymouth: British Council. Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Gramsci, Antonio. 1988. An Antonio Gramsci reader: Selected writings, 1916 - 1935. In David Forgacs (ed.). New York: Scholcken Books. Hobsbawm, Eric. J. 1990. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, Dell. 1996. Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: towards an understanding of voice. London: Taylor & Francis. Irvine, Judith. T. 1989. When talk isn’t cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist, 16, 248–267.

96

Lin Pan

Jin, Lixian. and Cortazzi, Martin. 2003. English language teaching in China: A bridge to the future. In Wah Kam. Ho and Ruth Y. L. Wong (eds), English language teaching in East Asia today. 131–145. Singapore: times academic press. Kachru, Braj. B. 1990. The alchemy of English: the spread, function, and models of non-native Englishes. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Braj B., Kachru, Yamuna, and Nelson, Cecil L. 2006. The handbook of world Englishes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publication. Kachru, Yamuna. and Nelson, Cecil. L. 2006. World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lam, Agnes. 2005. Language education in China: policy and experience from 1949. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lo Bianco, Joseph, Orton, Jane. and Gao, Yihong. 2009 (eds). China and English: globalisation and the dilemmas of identity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mayr, Andrea. 2008. Language and power: an introduction to institutional discourse. London: Continuum. McCrum, Robert, MacNeil, Robert and Cran, William. 2002. The story of English. (New and rev. / ed.). London: Faber and Faber and BBC Books. McKay, Sandra L. and Bokhorst-Heng, Wendy D. 2008. International English in its sociolinguistic contexts: towards a socially sensitive EIL pedagogy. New York and London: Routledge M¨uhlh¨ausler, Peter. 1996. Linguistic ecology: language change and linguistic imperialism in the pacific region. London: Routledge. Pan, Lin. 2007. Book review: Language education in China: policy and experience from 1949. Language Learning Journal, 35 (1), 131–133. Pan, Lin. 2010. English Language Ideologies in China: a synchronic and diachronic perspective. London: Institute of Education, University of London PhD thesis. Pennycook, Alastair. 2000. English, Politics, Ideology: From Colonial Celebration to Postcolonial Performativity. In T. Ricento (ed.), Ideology, politics, and language policies: focus on English (Vol. 6, 107–120). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publication. Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, Robert & Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove 1995. Papers in European language policy. Roskilde: University of Roskilde ROLIG-papir 53, 1995. Phillipson, Robert. and Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 1996. English only worldwide or language ecology? TESOL Quarterly 30 (3), 429–452. Scollon, Ron. and Scollon, Suzie. 1981. Narrative, Literacy, and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood: Ablex. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 1986. Multilingualism and the Education of Minority Children. Linguicism rules in education, 42–72. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 1998. Human rights and language wrongs – a future for diversity? Language Sciences. 20 (1), 5–28. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2000. Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, N. J.; London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

English language ideologies (ELI) in Olympic Beijing

97

Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. and Phillipson, Robert. 1995. Linguicide and Linguicism. in Robert Phillipson and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (eds), Papers in European language Policy, 83–91. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Lingvistgruppen. Tsuda, Yukio. 1994. The diffusion of English: its impact on culture and communication. Keio Communication Review, (16), 49–61. Wallerstein, Immanuel M. 2000. The essential Wallerstein. New York: New Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel M. 2004. World-systems analysis: an introduction. Durham: Duke University Press. Woolard, Kathryn A. 2004. Is the past a foreign country?: Time, language origins, and the nation in early modern Spain. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14 (1), 57–80. Xu, Zhichang. 2005. Chinese English. What is it and is it to become a regional variety of English? Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology PhD thesis. Yue, Ping. 1983. Preventing ideological pollution. Beijing review. 24 (22). Lin Pan completed her PhD at the Institute of Education, London in 2010. She is interested in language and globalization, multilingualism, and English language teaching in China. She now teaches at Beijing Language and Culture University. [email protected]

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary): Implications for local languages and local scholarship ANDY KIRKPATRICK

Abstract This article will review and critique the general trends towards the significant increase in the teaching of English and the use of English as a medium of instruction in education throughout East and Southeast Asia. I shall focus on two levels. First I shall discuss the situation as regards the role of English in primary schools and then consider its role in tertiary education. I shall argue that the trend towards the ever earlier introduction of English into the primary curriculum, along with the push for the relevant national language, is not only pedagogically ill-advised for the great majority of primary school children in the region, but also represents a serious threat to local languages and, perhaps most importantly, to children’s sense of identity. The increasing trend towards English–medium programmes at the tertiary level also threatens local languages and the status and value of knowledge and scholarship written and disseminated in languages other than English. At the same time, ‘indigenous’ knowledge disseminated through English, while it may reach an international audience, may be essentially reframed through being translated into English. I shall conclude with recommendations designed to encourage multilingualism in local languages at the primary level and the implementation of bilingual policies at the tertiary level. Keywords: language education; multilingualism; English as a medium of instruction; local scholarship

1. Introduction This article will review and critique the general trends towards the significant increase in the teaching of English and the use of English as a medium of instruction in education throughout East and Southeast Asia.

100

Andy Kirkpatrick

In almost all countries of Asia, English has now become a core course in primary schools. Indonesia is an exception, where English remains an optional subject at primary level, but even there parental demand means that primary schools are required to offer English. Indonesia is also currently experimenting with international standard schools, known as SBIs from their Indonesian acronym sekolah bertaraf internasional. These SBIs use English as a medium of instruction for maths and science, theoretically from primary 4 but, in effect, often from primary 1. Throughout the rest of Asia, English is a compulsory subject in primary school and is gradually being introduced earlier and earlier into the curriculum. For example, in China it is now officially introduced at primary 3, but many schools, especially those in urban areas, teach English from primary 1. In some countries it is even a medium of instruction in primary school. This is currently the case in Malaysia and the Philippines, for example, where maths and science are taught through English from primary 1, although both countries have recently announced changes in this regard, which will be discussed below. Brunei primary schools will teach maths and science through English from 2011. In Singapore schools, English is the medium of instruction for all subjects, other than foreign languages (Kirkpatrick 2010). At the tertiary level, the number of programmes offered through English is increasing across Asia, especially, but not exclusively, at the postgraduate level. This is partly explained by the desire of universities to internationalize, and, as I shall argue below, ‘internationalization’ can often mean ‘Englishization’. In the next section, the situation with regard to language education and the role(s) of English in primary schools and the consequences of this will be considered. I shall then consider the role of English as a medium of instruction at the tertiary level and conclude with recommendations designed to help maintain multilingualism at both the primary and tertiary levels.

2. English in Primary Schools I shall use, as a starting point, the situation in the ten countries which make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). These are, in alphabetical order, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Of these countries, five (Brunei, Malaysia, Myanmar, The Philippines and Singapore) were once colonies of English speaking nations, three (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam) were part of the French colonial enterprise, Indonesia was a Dutch colony and only Thailand escaped colonisation. These varied colonial histories have had an effect upon

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

101

the role of English in each, with the former colonies of Great Britain and the United States retaining a strong institutional role for English (with the exception of Myanmar). However, English has replaced French and Dutch as the first ‘foreign’ language in the school systems of the other ex-colonial nations and English is also the first foreign language taught in the Thai school system. I have described the role of English in ASEAN in detail elsewhere (Kirkpatrick 2010), so here briefly mention that the ASEAN Charter, which was signed in February 2009, gives English a privileged status, making it the sole official working language of the group. This is one explanation why countries such as Cambodia and Vietnam have adopted English in place of French as their first foreign language. Other reasons for the privileging of English are familiar and include the desire of nations to participate in and benefit from internationalization and the knowledge economy (Rappa and Wee 2006). In addition to seeking to participate in internationalization, nine of the ten countries of ASEAN achieved independence only relatively recently and are thus also each seeking to establish a distinct national identity. The adoption and promotion of a national language is a natural and effective way of doing this. This explains why, in Indonesia and the Philippines to take just two examples, the respective governments have expended so many resources into establishing their national languages, Bahasa Indonesia and Filipino. Both countries are richly multilingual. Some seven hundred languages are spoken in Indonesia (Hadisantosa 2010) and more than one hundred in the Philippines (Galang 2000). Both have national language institutes (the Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembanan Bahasa in Indonesia and the Komyson sa Wakang Filipino in the Philippines), one of whose tasks has been to promote and modernize the national languages (Alisjahbana 1976; Gonzalez 2007). In this, Indonesia has probably been more successful than the Philippines. Reasons for the relative success of the Indonesian people’s acceptance of Bahasa Indonesia include the fact that it is based on Malay, a language which was spoken by only a tiny (3%) minority of the population, and thus was not seen to privilege a powerful group. Indeed this was one reason why Javanese, the language of the powerful and spoken by 75 million people, was not chosen to be the national language. In contrast, Filipino is based on Tagalog, the language spoken in and around the capital, Manila. This explains why many Filipinos are still not comfortable with the idea of a Tagalog-based language as the national language. For example, many Cebuano speakers – who themselves outnumber Tagalog speakers – prefer to speak English rather than Filipino as a language of national communication. This may be more a question of attitude than linguistic proficiency. As the Filipino scholar Tupas, himself a speaker of two Visayan languages, Aklanon and Ilongo, points out, Filipino is the national language and “it is now more of an issue of atti-

102

Andy Kirkpatrick

tudes, not inability, to speak the national language” (2007:32). One measure of the success of the national language is based on the number of speakers. The table below (adapted from Montolalu and Suryadinata 2007: 48) shows, over a period of twenty years, the shifting percentages of Indonesians reporting that they are first language speakers of particular languages. Table 1. Vernacular Language Speakers in 1980, 1990, 2000 Language Javanese Sundanese Madurese Batak Minangkabau Balinese Buginese Indonesian (BI ) Others

1980 40.44% 15.06% 4.71% 2.12% 2.42% 1.69% 2.26% 11.93% 17.48%

1990 38.08% 15.26% 4.29% 1.97% 2.23% 1.64% 2.04% 17.11% 17.11%

2000 34.70% 13.86% 3.78% 1.91% 2.06% 1.42% 1.91% 34.00% 4.57%

The figures for the seven local languages listed here appear relatively stable. What is remarkable is the increase in those who reported that they consider themselves first language speakers of Bahasa Indonesia (from 11.93 percent in 1980 to 34 percent in 2000) and the drop from 17.48 percent in 1980 to 4.57 percent of those who consider themselves speakers of vernacular languages other than the ones listed. This would suggest that many of the 700 or more languages of Indonesia are under increasing threat. We can probably safely assume that the relative increase in first language speakers of BI and decrease of speakers of vernaculars will have been maintained over the most recent decade. Note that the figures for BI represent those who see themselves as first language speakers. This increase in first language speakers of BI can be attributed to social and geographical mobility, and the increase in inter-ethnic marriage associated with this. Children of ‘mixed’ marriages who find themselves living in urban areas will tend to develop BI as a first language, especially as this is the language of education. The success of BI as a national language has done much to establish a sense of pan-Indonesian identity among the population. On the other hand, its very success as a national language has had a negative influence upon many local languages. This negative influence is greatly exacerbated by the adoption of English as the first second language taught in the school system. Apart from anything else, the inclusion of English into the primary curriculum is always at the expense of another subject. A local language is the most commonly sacri-

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

103

ficed subject. As Hadisantosa reports in her evaluation of the new SBI schools “. . . with (the) emerging and mushrooming demand for English, schools then drop the local language in order to give more time to the English teaching. As a result, in the long run, children and the younger generation can no longer speak the local language. This is culturally and linguistically pitiful” (2010: 31). Remembering that Indonesia remains the sole nation which does not make English a compulsory subject, this pattern is replicated in even starker relief throughout Asia. For example, Vietnam has recently embarked on its ‘National 2020 English Initiatives’ under which all primary school graduates are to achieve a level of English equivalent to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) scales of A1 or A2 and all college graduates should have a working knowledge of English. (Hung and Duzdik 2010). While it is encouraging to see some move away from the more traditional Anglo-based testing tools, such as TOEFL or IELTS in the adoption of the CEFR scales (the plan is to adapt these to the Vietnamese context, but this has not yet taken place), the programme remains extremely ambitious. It will require the re-training of 62,000 secondary English teachers alone. An indication of the challenge lies in the fact that of the 250 EFL teachers tested in a trial project (and where the test used was the TOEFL) only 28 scored more than 500 (the very minimum required by some Englishmedium universities) and more than 50 scored less than 350 (a level equating to basic literacy only). One reason, but not the only one, for the recommendation below that the primary school should focus on local languages is that there simply are not enough primary level teachers with adequate English proficiency to be able to teach English. Consider, for example, the scale of the problem in China, where English is a compulsory subject from primary 3. It is impossible to estimate the number of primary schools in China, but the assumption that there are enough qualified and linguistically proficient English teachers to be able to provide quality English language teaching in all of them is unrealistic. If there are insufficient teachers to teach English as a subject in primary schools, there is an even more serious shortage of subject-specialist teachers who are expected to teach maths and science through the medium of English. At present, in addition to Singapore, both Malaysia and the Philippines expect primary 1 children to learn maths and science through English. The problems associated with this have recently been recognized by both governments. Malaysia has announced a radical change of policy and that maths and science will be taught through the national language, Malay, from 2012. Reasons for this change include the realization that many children from the lower socio-economic classes and rural areas were failing these subjects and that there were not enough qualified teachers with adequate proficiency in English to teach them. The then Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister is reported in the Star newspaper of July 7

104

Andy Kirkpatrick

2009 saying that ‘Only 19.2 percent of secondary teachers and 9.96 percent of primary teachers were sufficiently proficient in English’. Two quotes from the debate over the medium of instruction controversy, recorded in the New Straits Times of 21 March 2009, help illustrate the different points of view. The first comes from a Chinese Malaysian, who remarks: They (the students) can’t even understand English; how can you make them study Science and Maths in English?

The second quote comes from an opponent to the first speaker, an ethnic Malay who nevertheless defends the use of English over Malay, arguing that, unlike Mandarin and English, Malay (Bahasa) is not an international language, which is why the policy of using English as a medium of instruction (PPSMI) needs to stay: Mandarin is an international language, that’s where the Malays are at a disadvantage. Because Bahasa is not an international language, that’s why we are fighting and want PPSMI to be retained, because it’s an advantage to the Malays.

The argument that, as English is the language associated with modernization, it needs to be used to teach subjects like maths and science, is common. But, as I think most readers will agree, science and maths are cognitively demanding subjects and are therefore best taught in the learner’s first language. As Bernardo has eloquently argued in proposing the learning of maths and science through local languages in the Philippines, “there seems to be no theoretical or empirical basis. . . to obligate the use of English in teaching mathematics’ and that, ‘there are clear and consistent advantages to using the student’s first language. . . at the stage of learning where the student is acquiring the basic understanding of the various mathematical concepts and procedures” (2000:13). Many researchers support this position in arguing that cognitively complex subjects should not be taught through a foreign language until the learner has achieved a certain level of proficiency in the language. Some three decades ago, Cummins (1981) showed that migrant children to Canada required between 5 and 7 years learning English before they could use it successfully as an academic language. It is worth noting that, in the Canadian context, the children had much more access to English than students in Asian schools. Benson has similarly suggested that “being taught an academic content through the L2 represents a multiple burden for the learner” (2008:2) Many Filipino children are faced with this multiple burden. The Philippines has, since 1975, implemented a bilingual education policy (BEP), through which children learn maths and science through English, and other subjects through Filipino. But as reported above, Filipino is, in effect, Tagalog, the language of

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

105

Manila, by another name. This means that a child from the Cebu region, whose first language might be Bohol and whose second might be Cebuano, arrives in primary 1 having to learn in two new languages. This, along with research that showed the efficacy of mother tongue education (e.g., Walker and Dekker 2008), is why the Philippines government has recently announced that the use of the vernacular as a medium of instruction will be allowed from primary 1 to primary 3 in certain circumstances. This is to be welcomed, although most experts would argue that three years is not enough – at least five years is required (cf SkutnabbKangas et al. 2009) – and the new policy is too new for any evaluation of it to be made. The only place in East and Southeast Asia where it is official policy to use the local language rather than the national language as the medium of instruction in primary education is Hong Kong. This is because, in contrast to the rest of China, Hong Kong can decide on the medium of instruction. In China itself, the national language law is clear in prescribing the national language, Putonghua, as the sole medium of instruction, although national minorities are allowed to use their respective languages as an MoI in primary schools (Kirkpatrick and Xu 2001). This has meant that Hong Kong has adopted Cantonese, the mother tongue of the overwhelming majority of the population, as the medium of instruction in primary schools. However, the increasing influence of China coupled with an increase in migration from China to Hong Kong, has meant that there is now pressure for Putonghua to become a medium of instruction, and some schools are currently trialling the teaching of Chinese subjects through Putonghua rather than Cantonese. English is also exerting increasing pressure in this regard. I shall consider the influence on this of the majority of Hong Kong’s universities only offering English medium education in the next section, but, not unnaturally, the universities’ language policies see parents demanding English medium education, especially at the secondary school level. This has led to the current government ‘fine-tuning’ the existing secondary school policy which only allowed English medium education in about 25 percent of all secondary schools, the remainder being Chinese medium. This was an unfortunate policy as, apart form anything else, it led to Chinese medium schools being seen by parents as less prestigious than English medium ones. However, instead of insisting that all schools become multilingual sites, the government’s new fine tuning policy means that the current Chinese medium schools which can meet certain criteria connected with student and staff quality, their linguistic proficiency and the availability of resources, will be allowed to teach subjects and classes through English. Our research (Kan et al. 2010) shows that the immediate result of this will be an increase from September 2010 in the number of lower secondary maths and science classes – to the tune of six hundred – being taught through

106

Andy Kirkpatrick

the medium of English. This seems short-sighted in the extreme. Students who had previously been successful in their learning of maths and science through Chinese will now have to learn these subjects through English. Teachers who successfully taught these subjects through Chinese will now have to teach them through English. And why? To satisfy parental demand for English medium classes. In this section I have provided a necessarily selective review of the situation with regard to the teaching of English in primary schools across East and Southeast Asia. What is common across all systems is that the perceived need for a nation’s citizens to learn the national language and English as the international language has led to an increasingly early introduction of English into the primary curriculum, sometimes as a medium of instruction, and almost always at the expense of local languages. This has resulted in a number of unfortunate consequences. Not only is the early introduction of English likely to fail, as there simply aren’t enough qualified and linguistically proficient teachers available either to teach it as a subject or to teach subjects through it, it also means that there is no place for the children’s mother tongue or other local languages in the primary curriculum. It is hard to overestimate the damage that this seemingly far-sighted policy of modernization and internationalization is inflicting upon the lives of children and upon local languages. The drop-out rates of children, especially around primary 5, are alarming. The table below is adapted from the UNESCO report entitled Education for All by 2015. It identifies a number of challenges facing certain ASEAN countries. It is noteworthy that the recommendations made by UNESCO to help overcome these challenges all require an increase in multilingual or multicultural education.

Table 2. Education for All: Challenges and Measures Country

Main challenges

Measures to help

Cambodia

reduce low levels of develop bilingual education reduce low levels of survival to grade 5 reduce low levels of survival to grade 5 reduce low levels of survival to grade 5 decrease number of children out of school

survival to grade 5

Indonesia Laos Philippines Vietnam

add mother tongue education for early grades develop multilingual materials make curriculum flexible to allow for cultural diversity develop bilingual education for ethnic minorities

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

107

With regard to the problems surrounding the maintenance of local languages inherent in language policies that focus on the national language and English, a recent UNESCO report, Safeguarding Endangered Languages, predicts that half of the world’s languages are under threat (http://www.unesco.org/culture/ ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00136). These consequences are all the more tragic as there is now a large amount of research which shows that not only does mother tongue and multilingual education (MLE) benefit the children, including, most importantly in this context, their ability to learn other languages such as English later, but the adoption of MLE naturally revitalizes local languages (Cenoz 2009, Skutnabb-Kangas et al 2009, Benson 2008). In other words, using local languages in the primary school provides a win-win result. Children do better in all subjects and local languages are maintained. I return to this in the final section of this article, but here turn to consider the role(s) of local languages and of English and their consequences for tertiary education in East and Southeast Asia.

3. English in Tertiary Education 3.1. The European Experience As Asia has adopted trends first seen in Europe, this section begins with a brief review of the current situation in Europe. The aim of a study commissioned by the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) was to identify the number of programmes which were being taught in English at universities across continental Europe and to compare the results with an earlier study undertaken by the same authors (Wachter and Maiworm 2008; Maiworm and Wachter 2002). The 2008 study identified 2,400 English-medium programmes, with programmes being defined as full degree courses at both Batchelor’s and Master’s levels which were taught entirely in English. Subject specialist courses in English were excluded. The study also found that the majority of these programmes were being offered in northern Europe, with 774 in The Netherlands, 415 in Germany, 235 in Finland and 123 in Sweden, with the majority of the programmes being postgraduate. The Swedish figures have been challenged by Phillipson (2009) who points out that data from the Swedish Ministry of Education show that as many as 480 of the 680 MA degrees available in Sweden are taught in English. The numbers provided in the 2008 study don’t give the overall percentage of programmes that are being taught in English, but they do indicate a substantial increase in the number of programmes taught in English identified in the earlier 2002 study which found only 700 of these. This increase from 700 to 2400 has led

108

Andy Kirkpatrick

one scholar to suggest that, “it seems inevitable that English, in some form, will definitely become the language of education” (Coleman 2006:11). This increase in English-medium programmes is one consequence of the Bologna Declaration of 1999 which established a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in which the forty six member countries would undertake “to reform the structures of their higher education systems in a convergent way” (http://ec.europa.eu/education/ policies/educ/bologna/bologna.pdf; accessed 9 October 2010). This ‘convergence’ and the move to the internationalization of higher education has encouraged the use of English as a common medium, leading Phillipson to argue that, “What emerges unambiguously is that in the Bologna process, internationalization means English-medium higher education” (2009:37). The possibility of being swamped by English-medium programmes has not gone unnoticed and many countries have put in place language policies designed to ensure that local languages remain as the media of instruction. For example, the 2006 Declaration on a Nordic Language Policy was signed by the five Nordic countries with the aim of implementing bilingual language polices in higher education (http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publications/ 2007-746; accessed 9 October 2010). It is also important to point out that the number of English-medium programmes on offer in southern Europe, while increasing, remains relatively small. I now turn to consider the situation in East and Southeast Asia. 3.2. East and Southeast Asia In Asia, the internationalization of higher education has been primarily characterized by Asian students travelling to ‘western’ countries to obtain degrees. Over 90 percent of the 2 million international students are shared between the United States, Britain, Australia, Germany and France (Howe 2009:384). The majority of these students come from Asia. This has proved an extremely lucrative business for the providing institutions. At the same time, the countries from which these students come experience two forms of loss. First, they lose hard currency, as the international students need to pay fees and for their cost of living overseas. Second, they also experience a brain drain, as many international students choose to remain in their host countries after graduation. It is not surprising then that many Asian countries are now trying to set up local education hubs in order to attract fee-paying students on the one hand and to offer an alternative to their own students on the other. Malaysia has been relatively successful in this (Gill 2004). There are now over one hundred colleges which have some form of twinning arrangements with overseas universities. Typically these offer the first two or three years of a degree course in Malaysia, with the

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

109

student only having to travel to the host country for the final one or two years of their programme. Some overseas universities have established campuses in Malaysia, where the students can undertake their entire degree. Malaysia itself, however, has set up its own private universities – there are now twelve. These include those set up by public companies, such as the Petronas University of Technology, established in 1997 by the national oil company to offer science and engineering courses. The medium of instruction is English and the university’s journal, Platform, publishes articles in English. Another is Tunku Abdul Rahman University, which offers an English-medium education to students who can afford the fees. An indication of how widespread the increase in English-medium education is comes from the fact that some Malaysian medical students are now choosing to do their studies in a number of Russian universities (including the Moscow Medical Academy, the Volgograd State Medical Academy and Nizhny Novgorod State Medical Academy) who now offer these degrees through the medium of English, but at around a quarter of the cost of comparable degrees offered by Australian and British universities. The competition is no longer solely restricted to the traditional providers. Japan has something of a reputation for being reluctant to diversify and internationalize, other than to try to explain to the world what it means to be Japanese. It remains a “highly ethnocentric and gendered society” (Howe 2009:386) and ranks last in the list of OECD nations with regard to the number of foreigners (and women) in higher education. Yet, the President of the nation’s top-ranked university, the University of Tokyo, has announced that, “universities have to internationalize for the sake of diversity . . . People who are part of the same culture and language can no longer really develop intellectually” (McNeill 2007 cited in Howe 2009:387). The extent to which cultural and intellectual diversity is the overriding motivation in the push to internationalize can be questioned, however. Although Knight (2008) has listed four potential motivations for universities to internationalize – namely, political, economic, cultural and academic – as we have seen, the financial motivation is very strong and, in the case of private universities in Japan, international students are seen as a way of filling the places left empty by a falling Japanese population of the relevant age group. Waseda, a prestigious private university in Tokyo, will, beginning in the academic year 2010–2011, offer nine English-medium degrees, some at BA and others at MA levels, in subjects such as politics, economics, science and engineering. Waseda is one of the thirty Japanese universities participating in a nationwide internationalization project (http://www.waseda.jp/seikei/seikei/english/admission/ index.html, accessed 11 October 2010).

110

Andy Kirkpatrick

China is the major provider of ‘international’ students, and it is not surprising that it is also moving to increase the number of English-medium courses. As mentioned earlier, the National Language Law of China limits the medium of instruction in schools to the national language, Putonghua (Mandarin), with the exception of certain national minority languages. Parental demand for Englishmedium courses is high however, and some secondary schools, especially those in wealthy urban settings such as Shanghai and Xian, are experimenting with teaching content subjects through the medium of English. They have to refer to these as some form of ‘special English’ courses in order not to be seen to be breaking the law. In these classes, content subjects are taught by English teachers, with less than satisfactory results (Hoare 2010). At tertiary level, on the other hand, no such restriction exists. Indeed universities have been encouraged by the leadership to consider offering English-medium programmes. Zhu Rongji, the then Premier of China, visited the School of Economics and Management of Beijing’s prestigious Tsinghua University in 2001 and announced that, “I hope all classes will be taught in English. I don’t worship foreign languages, but we need to exchange our ideas with the rest of the world” (China Varsities to Teach in English). China’s University and College Admission System (CUCAS) (http://www. cucas.edu.cn/, accessed October 11, 2010) provides a list of Chinese universities which offer degree programmes through English. These include more than thirty which offer some form of English-medium business degree and some forty which offer medical degrees in ‘western’ medicine through English. Some also offer courses in aspects of traditional Chinese medicine through English, an issue to which I will return. I will now discuss the situation in Hong Kong in some detail, as it provides an example of where English-medium education dominates the tertiary sector, at the expense of Chinese and at the expense of the government’s own language policy. The Hong Kong government’s language policy aims to see its citizens trilingual (in Cantonese, English and Putonghua) and biliterate (in Chinese and English). In order to achieve this laudable aim, Cantonese is the medium of instruction in most government primary schools. As pointed out earlier, this makes Hong Kong the only place in Asia where the national language or English is not a main medium of instruction at the primary level. However, the government’s trilingual-biliterate policy is undermined by the language policies adopted by the university sector. Six of Hong Kong’s government-funded universities are English-medium. Only one, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, is officially bilingual and only one, The Institute of Education, is officially trilingual. Not surprisingly, therefore, parents are desperately keen to ensure that their children study through English at the secondary level. Those that can afford it, send their

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

111

children to the schools of the English Schools’ Foundation (ESF), which were originally established to cater for the children of expatriates. This tendency to enrol one’s children in private English-medium schools can be seen throughout Asia. “To actually forsake the public school system that teaches in your own language for the private one that teaches in English is an increasingly common phenomenon” (Wang 2007: xiv). Before the ‘handover’ of Hong Kong back to China, the secondary school language policy had been left to the schools themselves. As a result, almost all offered – or claimed to offer – English medium education (Johnson 1994). In effect, however, many of these schools taught through what has been called a ‘textual explanation’ approach (Luke and Richards 1982:50) by which subject teachers spent the majority of class-time translating the English language textbooks into Cantonese. I myself observed classes of this sort in the late 1970s, where teachers would translate the textbooks and children scrawl down the Chinese characters in the margins. The policy of allowing secondary schools to choose their own medium of education was altered just before the 1997 handover. Under the new policy, only schools which met a set of criteria based on student ability, the linguistic proficiency of teachers and the availability of certain resources could set themselves up as English –medium schools. This led to only 114 out of a total of 460 secondary schools being English-medium. The remainder were to teach through Chinese. This new policy was not popular with parents. As indicated earlier, the fact that the policy led parents to perceive that the Chinese-medium schools were academically inferior to the English-medium ones was one cause. A second was that parents still wanted an English-medium education, as the universities taught through English (Kirkpatrick and Chau 2008). After years of campaigning, the government relented and agreed to ‘fine-tune’ the policy. The fine-tuning meant that Chinese-medium schools which could satisfy the criteria outlined above could offer classes through English. The immediate result of this, as reported earlier, has been a significant increase in the number of subject courses, especially in maths and science, that are now being taught in English. This is potentially damaging for these students, as recent research findings indicate that students in Chinese-medium schools who take their final school exams in Chinese fare better in all subjects, with the exception of English, than those who have switched to study these subjects in English (Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, 2005). In concluding this section, the adoption of English-medium education by six of Hong Kong’s eight government-funded universities appears short-sighted in the extreme. Hong Kong has the opportunity, personnel and resources to internationalize education in a truly bilateral way. Hong Kong, despite the current

112

Andy Kirkpatrick

government’s attempt to market it as ‘Asia’s World City’ is, in essence, a Chinese city. It has the opportunity to showcase Chinese scholarship, culture and languages. “We should move beyond the so-called established order dominated by the Anglo-Saxon paradigms and instead develop systems and standards that could preserve national heritage and promote rich cultural traditions” (Mok 2007:447). Hong Kong could be leading the way in developing multilateral international higher education. This would include promoting local scholarship and knowledge and it is this issue to which I now turn.

4. The Anglicization of Scholarship As well as increasingly becoming the international language of instruction and assessment in higher education, English has long been dominant as the language of international scholarship. English is “by far the most important language of scientific and scholarly conferences” (Ammon 1996:26). Ammon (1996) also reports that the European Science Foundation’s working language is English as is the language of the Foundation’s journal, Communication. More than 90% of the information in the Science Citation Index (SCI) “is extracted from journals in English taken mostly from English language journals” (Truchot 2002:10). To show just how widespread publication in English has now become, even the journal Association International de Linguistique Appliqu´e has, despite its French title, only published articles in English since 2003. The move towards publications in English, “has already reduced multilingualism in the field, and may eliminate the status of any other language as an international language of science” (Hamel 2007:66). The need to publish in English is exacerbated by the way universities in Asia reward and recognize the publications of their academic staff. It is common to find universities in the region insisting that staff publish only in journals listed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) or the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). This almost inevitably requires publication in English. It also undermines the status and role of local journals and publishing in local languages. Generally speaking, the reward for publishing in English in approved journals is far greater than publishing in local languages in local journals. For example, Chinese academics earn much more from publishing in English in SCI journals than they do for publishing in Chinese in local languages, even though the local language journal might be a far more appropriate place for their publication and where it is likely to be read by far more people than in the SCI journal. This is a point which needs further elaboration. It is commonly assumed that publishing in English in international journals assures the author of a wide readership. This is

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

113

simply not the case. Countless articles in countless journals go unread, as many academics checking their citation indexes can attest! In contrast, however, an article published in Chinese in a local journal can be assured of a readership of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. It is also much more likely to have real impact. The privileging of English in this way may also be undermining the status and prestige attached to knowledge written in languages other than English. For example, the requirement that doctoral theses include primary source material seems to have been discarded. I have noted that, in my own field of applied linguistics, students from Mainland China writing PhD theses in universities in Australia, the UK or the US seldom make reference to scholarship written in Chinese, even though there may be a rich tradition of Chinese language scholarship on the topic. Whether this is because their supervisors or possible examiners are not able to read Chinese or whether they are not advised or encouraged to make use of the scholarship written in their own language, I am not sure. But either way, it is an alarming trend and one which appears to be caused by the privileged position of English as a language of scholarship. The requirement to disseminate knowledge through English may also radically alter the nature of the knowledge being disseminated. For example, a study on the transmission of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) through English found that TCM should more appropriately be called modern Chinese medicine (MCM) (Kirkpatrick 2009). TCM is characterized by ambiguity and diversity (Hsu 1999, Scheid 2002), characteristics that have been excised from what now passes as TCM. A brief look at the problems involved in the translation of an apparently simple but fundamental concept of TCM, qi, also illustrates the problems associated with translating fundamental concepts of ‘indigenous’ knowledge into English. Translations of qi include: ‘that which makes things happen in stuff’; ‘stuff in which things happen’; ‘energetic configuration’; ‘a configuration of energy’; ‘(finest matter) influences’; ‘emanations’; ‘vapours’

(Scheid 2002:48).

The increasing role of English in higher education is not, therefore, simply limited to its use as a medium of instruction and assessment. It is also increasingly used as the international language of scholarship and the dissemination of knowledge. This further threatens the status and role of local languages and knowledge written in languages other than English. In the conclusion, I draw

114

Andy Kirkpatrick

some recommendations that may help revitalize the place of local languages and knowledge.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations This article has described and illustrated the growth of the role and use of English in education in Asia, with the situation at primary and tertiary level being given prominence. It has shown that throughout Asia, English is being introduced earlier and earlier into the primary curriculum, sometimes as a medium of instruction and always at the expense of local languages. This, combined with the emphasis placed on the need for children to learn their respective national language, means that children are often unable to learn through their mother tongue or other local languages at great sacrifice to their own personal development and the vitality of local languages. One cause of the increasing demand for English at the primary level, is its perceived role as the language of internationalization and modernizaton and its associated role as the lingua franca of the internationalization of higher education. This, in turn, threatens the role of languages other than English as languages of education, scholarship and the dissemination of knowledge. In this final section, I shall make some recommendations which might help the revitalization of local languages at both primary and tertiary levels. 5.1. Recommendations for the Primary Level The major recommendation for primary education in Asia is that the primary school should focus on local languages. This will, no doubt, raise an outcry among parents who feel that they want their children to learn English and that the earlier they learn it the better. All things considered, it is true that young children find it easy to learn languages. But the conditions and resources need to be adequate, the teachers need to be qualified and linguistically proficient and the language to be learned needs to play an identifiable role in the speech community. For the vast majority of Asian primary school children, few, if any, of these conditions are met. Instead they are ‘taught’ English by teachers whose own level of English is low, who may not be trained and in schools that are inadequately resourced and where there is a dire shortage of appropriate language teaching materials. The result is that these children are condemned to failure. The fact that English has usually displaced the local language from the classroom further means that they are deprived of the opportunity of learning their own mother tongue, again at great sacrifice to their personal and cogni-

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

115

tive development. This is why I argue that it is so essential for the primary school to invest in local languages. As many scholars of multilingual education have demonstrated (cf, for example Cummins 1981; Benson 2008; Cenoz 2009 Garcia 2009; Skutnabb-Kangas et al 2009), providing primary school children education in their own mother tongue sees them perform well in all subjects. Fluency in the mother tongue also allows them to build bridges to fluency and literacy in other languages. That is to say, fluency in the mother tongue and the national language will help the children in their later learning of English. This can be left until secondary school, where the likelihood of there being linguistically proficient qualified teachers, adequate resources and appropriate teaching materials is far greater. In this context, it is important to point out that, in Europe, the current policy is that children should learn their first language + two. While one of the ‘two’ is almost always English, the policy is aimed to ensure that all children grow up trilingual. No such policy exists in Asia. 5.2. Recommendations for the Tertiary Level The first recommendation for universities in Asia is that they develop and implement bilingual language policies which are designed to revitalize the local language as a language of education. The Nordic countries offer possible models. For example, Sweden and Denmark have set targets of ‘parallel competence’ in English and Swedish/Danish (Phillipson, in press). Preisler has argued for a system of ‘complementary languages’ in tertiary education whereby “the two languages will be functionally distributed within the individual programme according to the nature of its components” (2009:26). In the context of Hong Kong, this means that the six universities which currently operate an English-medium only language policy would be required to introduce bilingual policies. The second recommendation is for universities in Asia to work together to establish new ‘centres’ for journal publishing. There is no reason why Asian universities could not combine resources to set up bilingual journals, publishing in the respective national language and English. At the same time, they need to promote local scholarship and knowledge by publishing in local languages and, if need be, to provide translations of these publications in English. In summary, the recommendations can be very simply stated in the following way: that the primary school focus on local languages; that the tertiary sector implement bilingual policies for teaching and publishing.

In this way, local languages can be revitalized at the primary level, while allowing children the opportunity to learn through the local languages to their great

116

Andy Kirkpatrick

benefit, sense of identity and cognitive development. Local languages can be used to disseminate local knowledge andAsian universities can create conditions for higher education to become multilateral and multilingual. This would allow local languages and English to play complementary roles in education.

References Alisjahbana, Takdir S. 1976. Language planning and modernisation. The case of Indonesian and Malaysian. The Hague: Mouton. Ammon, Ulrich. 1996. The European Union. Status Change During the Last 50 Years, In Joshua Fishman, Andrew Conrad & Alma Rubal-Lopez (eds.) Post-imperial English, 241–267. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.. Benson, Carol. 2008. Summary overview. Mother tongue-based education in multilingual contexts. In Caroline Haddad (ed.), Improving the quality of mother tonguebased literacy and learning. Case studies from Asia, Africa and South America, 2–11. Bangkok: UNESCO. Bernardo,Allan B. I. 2000. The multifarious effects of language on mathematical learning and performance among bilingual/bilinguals?: a cognitive science perspective. In Ma Lourdes Bautista, Teodoro A. Llamzon & Bonifacio P. Sibayan (eds.), Parangalcang Brother Andrew: a festschrift for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday, 303–316. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Cenoz, Jasone. 2009. Towards Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. China varsities to teach in English. 2001, September 20. Reported in the South China Morning Post and cited in Web Pages of the Straits Times Interactive, http://straits times.asia1.com.sg/home (accessed August 15 2009). Coleman, James A. 2006. English-medium teaching in European higher education, Language Teaching, 39.1–14. Cummins, Jim. 1981. Age on arrival and second language learning in Canada: a reassessment. Applied Linguistics 1.132–49. Galang, Rosita G. 2000. Language planning in Philippine education in the 21st century: toward language-as-resource orientation. In Ma Lourdes Bautista, Teodoro A. Llamzon & Bonifacio P. Sibayan (eds.), Parangalcang Brother Andrew: a festschrift for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday, 267–276. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Garcia, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gill, Saran Kaur. 2004. Medium-of-instruction policy in higher education in Malaysia: nationalism versus internationalization, in James Tollefson and Amy Tsui (eds.), Medium of instruction policies – Which agenda? Whose agenda? 135–152. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

117

Gonzalez, Andrew. 2007 Language, nation and development in the Philippines. In Lee Hock Guan & Leo Suryadinata (eds.), Language nation and development, 7–16. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Hadisantosa, Nilawati. 2010. Insights from Indonesia. In Richard Johnstone (ed.), Learning through English: policies, challenges and prospects, 24–46. London: British Council. Hamel, Rainer Enrique. 2007. The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science.AILA Review 20. 53–71. Hoare, Philip. 2010. Content-based language teaching in China. Contextual influences on implementation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31,1. 69–86. Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. 2005. Further evaluation on the implementation of the medium of instruction guidance for secondary schools (2002–2004): executive summary. http://www.edb.gov.hk/ FileManager/EN/Content 1914/es14 further%20eval%20on%20the%20imp%20of %20the%20moi%20(2002–2004).pdf (accessed October 11 2010). Howe, Edward R. 2009. The internationalization of higher education in East Asia: a comparative ethnographic narrative of Japanese universities, Research in Comparative an International Education, 4, 4.384–392. Hsu, Elisabeth. 1999. The transmission of Chinese medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hung, Nguyen Ngoc & Duzdik, Diana L. 2010. A call for collaboration: Vietnam’s National English 2020 Initiatives. Paper given at the International Conference on Innovations in ELT, SEAMEO RETRAC, Ho Chi Minh City, 23–24 September. Johnson, Keith. 1994. Language policy and planning in Hong Kong. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 14. 177–199. Kan, Vincent, Lai, K.C., Law, Agnes and Kirkpatrick, Andy. (forthcoming). Fine-tuning Hong Kong’s medium of instruction policy. Hong Kong: Research Centre for Language Education and Acquisition in Multilingual Societies, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Kirkpatrick,Andy. 2009. English as the International Language of Scholarship, in F. Sharifian (ed.) English as an international language, 254–270. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2010. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: a multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, Andy and Chau, Michael. 2008. One Country, two systems, three languages: a proposal for combining Cantonese, Putonghua and English in Hong Kong’s schools, Asian Englishes,11, 2. 32–45. Kirkpatrick, Andy & Xu, Zhichang. 2001. The new language law of the People’s Republic of China. Australian Language Matters 9(2). 14–18. Maiworm, Friedhelm and Wachter, Bernd. 2002. English-language-taught degree programmes in European higher education. Bonn: Lemmens.

118

Andy Kirkpatrick

Mok, Ka Ho. 2007. Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: critical reflections, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 3/4.433–454. Montolalu, Lucy & Suryadinata, Leo 2007. National language and nation-building: the case of Bahasa Indonesia. In Lee Hock Guan & Leo Suryadinata (eds), Language nation and development, 39–50. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Phillipson, Robert. 2009. English in higher education. Panacea or pandemic? Angles on the English-Speaking World, 9. 29–57. Phillipson, Robert. In press. Language policy and education in the European Union. In Nancy Hornberger (ed.) Encylopedia of language and education, In Stephen May (ed.) Vol 1 Language policy and political issues in education. Dordrecht: Springer. Preisler, Bent. 2009. Complementary languages: The national language and English as working languages in European universities. Angles on the English-Speaking World, 9.10–28. Rappa, Antonio & Wee, Lionel. 2006. Language policy and modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, Singapore the Philippines and Thailand. New York: Springer. Scheid, Volker. 2002. Chinese medicine in contemporary China. Durham: Duke University Press. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove., Phillipson, Robert., Mohanty Ajit & Panda Minati. 2009. Multilingual education: concepts, goals, needs and expense: English for all or achieving justice. In Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Robert Phillipson, Ajit Mohanty & Minati Panda (eds.) Social Justice through Multilingual Education, 320–344. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Truchot, Claude. 2002. Key Aspects of the Use of English in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Tupas, Ruanni. 2007. Go back to class: the medium of instruction debate in the Philippines. In Lee Hock Guan & Leo Suryadinata (eds.), Language nation and development, 17–38. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. UNESCO. 2007. Education for all by 2015. Will we make it? Oxford: Oxford University Press (http://unescdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001547/15473e.pdf) (accessed August 15 2010). Wachter, Bernd and Maiworm, Friedhelm. 2008. English-taught programmes in European higher education. Bonn: Lemmens Walker, Stephen and Dekker, Diane. 2008. The Lubuagan mother tongue education experiment (FLC). A report of comparative test results. Manila: Summer Institute of Linguistics International. Wang Gungwu. 2007. Keynote Address. In Lee Hock Guan & Leo Suryadinata (eds.), Language nation and development, ix-xvii. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Andy Kirkpatrick is Chair Professor of English as an International Language at the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) and Director of the Institute’s Research Centre into Language Education and Acquisition in Multilingual Societies. His research interests include the development of regional varieties of English, with a particular focus on

English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary)

119

Asian Englishes. He is editor of the Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (2010), and author of English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: the Multilingual Model (Hong Kong University Press 2010). Email: [email protected]

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism1 ˆ PREECE SIAN

Abstract This article sets out to examine the increasingly complex linguistic ecology of universities in countries in the Anglophone centre. As universities in these settings have responded to operating in a globalised world, recruitment of students and staff who are multilingual and/ or bi-dialects has significantly increased. However, the diverse and rich linguistic resources that have been brought into the sector are largely ignored or treated as problematic. My intention is to raise linguistic diversity as an issue that needs greater debate and research in these universities, to problematise the monolingual ethos and practices of much of the sector, and to make the case for imagining universities in these settings as sites of multilingualism. This is in the interests of maintaining discourses that represent higher education as in the public good, in which universities have a vital role to play in contributing to the development of pluralistic, multicultural and multilingual societies at national, regional and global levels, in educating “critical citizens of the world” (Giroux 2004: 17), and in promoting an “ethos of personal growth that better represents what humanity might become” (Gibbs et al. 2004: 191).

1. Introduction During the past few decades a mass system of postsecondary education has developed practically across the globe. UNESCO (2009) reports dramatic increases in the student population, with numbers rising from 28.5 million in 1970 to 150.6 million in 2007. A key driver in this expansion has been globalisation, that is the “observable ongoing process of the increasing and ever-more intensive interconnectedness of communications, events, activities and relationships taking place at the local, national or international level” (Block 2006: 3).

122

Siân Preece

Altbach et al (2009: ii) observe the interconnectedness of globalisation in relation to higher education, commenting on how the sector is being shaped by the increasing integration of national economies, information technology and knowledge networks together with the spread of English and “other forces beyond the control of academic institutions”. In universities in Anglophone centre settings, this interconnectedness is also shaping the language or linguistic ecology, which I use in this paper to refer to the cohabitation of an array of languages and dialects in the institution, by fostering the conditions for the growth in recruitment of staff and students from culturally diverse populations around the globe. This is particularly the case in countries that have traditionally been regarded as forming the Anglophone centre, here taken to be the English-dominant nations of the United States, the United Kingdom, Anglophone Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As universities in these countries have expanded, their linguistic ecology has evolved to include the linguistic repertoires of both socalled native speakers of English and bi- and multilingual users of English. The linguistic ecology spans a heterogeneous staff-student population from a range of linguistic minority communities in the Anglophone centre as well as a multitude of English-knowing bi- and multilinguals from around the globe who have been attracted to study and work in Anglophone centre institutions. The linguistic repertoires of this population reflect diverse social, cultural and educational traditions and, in many cases, the “superdiversity” (Vertovec 2006) of urbanised communities around the globe. However, universities in the Anglophone centre appear to have taken a largely myopic stance to these developments. There is often a mismatch between the monolingual ethos and ideology of institutions and the linguistic diversity of their staff and students. As Kaplan and Baldauf (2009: 43) point out, the attention of educational institutions is commonly “riveted on the national/ official language and perhaps, one or two larger minority languages in the polity”. In the case of Anglophone institutions, this riveting of attention has meant a fixation on English and a monoglot ideology (Silverstein 1996), in that universities make efforts to preserve the use of standardised varieties of Anglo-American English and use these prestigious varieties along with disciplinary literacy practices as a “critical tool” (Blommaert 2010: 173) for positioning students and staff as “‘in’ or ‘outside’ normalcy” (ibid: 165). This has contributed to the linguistic repertoires of bi- and multilingual students being problematised (Ruiz 1984), rather than being treated as multilingual capital (Eversley et al. 2010), and solutions being sought for fixing what are deemed to be language deficiencies. This problem-solution stance adopts an atomistic approach to linguistic diversity, in which the language and literacy practices of the academic community are compartmentalised and taught discretely, separated both from the subject of

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

123

study and from the linguistic repertoires of bi- and multilingual students and staff. Research into language and identity in higher education in Anglophone centre countries illustrates that this problematising approach to linguistic diversity often results in bi- and multilingual students being positioned as in need of language remediation and being required to take programmes of English language and academic writing (see e.g. Marshall 2010; Martin 2010; Preece 2009, 2010; Simpson and Cooke 2010). This research illustrates ways in which institutional othering of multilingual students often exacerbates feelings of stigmatisation and encourages an oversimplified view of how to address the language needs of a diverse body of students. While there is clearly a role for specialised English language teaching in universities in the Anglophone centre, studies such as the ones above suggest that provision needs to be underpinned by robust institutional policies on linguistic diversity that are sensitive to the complexities of the linguistic ecology of the institution and informed by bi- and multilingual education. Shohamy (2006: 173) contends that “monolingualism is a myth detached from reality that must be recognized as such by educational systems”. This paper aims to contribute to the debunking of this myth in higher education by examining ways in which the linguistic ecology of universities in Anglophone centre countries has become more diverse as a result of globalisation. I find the ecology metaphor generative for this discussion. According to Mühlhäusler and Fill (2001: 3), ecological approaches are concerned with examining “the diversity of inhabitants of an ecology” and finding ways of sustaining this diversity. In this paper, I am concerned with making linguistic diversity visible in Anglophone centre universities and also with increasing its status. Creese and Martin (2003: 1) also observe that ecological perspectives require an “exploration of the relationship of languages to each other and to the society in which these languages exist [including] the geographical, socio-economic and cultural conditions in which the speakers of a given language exist, as well as the wider linguistic environment”. Here then, I am concerned with taking a more holistic approach to linguistic diversity than is usually the case in the sector, and treating it as a resource to be maintained and utilised, rather than a problem to be eradicated. I start by outlining how the global higher education stage has not only facilitated the spread of English in the higher education sector, but also created the conditions for the diversification of the linguistic ecology in universities in the Anglophone centre. Using the UK as an example, I then look at the linguistic ecology at the macro level by examining how the internationalisation agenda, that is the policies and practices that universities implement in response to oper-

124

Siân Preece

ating in a global environment (Altbach et al 2009), has facilitated the increased movement of students and staff across national boundaries. Following this, I draw on data from my study of language and identity in higher education in the UK (Preece 2009) to illustrate how the access agenda, that is the policies and practices of universities to increase the recruitment and retention of students from underrepresented groups of the domestic population, has affected the linguistic ecology at the micro level of the classroom. I approach bi- and multilingualism as socially constructed concepts that, as Blackledge and Creese (2010: 6) assert, “have different meanings across different spaces and times”. There are various definitions of bi- and multilingualism that reflect different research traditions (see Kemp 2009 for an overview). In this paper, I follow Grosjean’s (2010: 4) definition of bilinguals as “those who use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives” to refer to university students who routinely experience their lives in more than one language, and, in most instances, in more than one variety of English. Viewed within the context of universities in the Anglophone centre, this usually involves a prestigious variety of standardised English and a non-prestigious vernacular variety or World English.

2. The Global Higher Education Stage Altbach et al (2009) comment on the ways in which universities are now operating on a global higher education stage. Within a system of global higher education, English has become an exceptionally powerful language. Altbach et al (2009: ii) depict its spread as “unprecedented since Latin dominated the academy in medieval Europe”. In a similar vein, Crystal (2004: 37) argues that English has become “the normal medium of instruction in higher education in many countries – including several where the language has no official status”. Others take a much more critical stance to the spread of English in the sector. Phillipson (2009: 201) asks whether there is “now an assumption that English is the default medium of higher education, hegemonically projected as being ‘normal’?”. In Phillipson’s view, the rise of English as the dominant language of academia is anything but normal. Rather it has been engineered to serve the wider social, political and economic forces of capitalism, in which universities, particularly those in the Anglophone centre, are increasingly run as corporate concerns in the global marketplace. Altbach et al (2009) argue that globalisation has increased the tension between the strongest universities, regarded as centres of higher education due to their international reputation for research and excellence, and those on the

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

125

periphery. Institutions regarded as centres are mainly located in the Englishdominant countries of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and some non-Anglophone industrialised nations, such as France and Germany. According to Altbach et al, the centre-periphery binary has been exacerbated by the ways in which universities are competitively ranked on an international scale. Those institutions at the top of the international ranking generally use English for teaching and research, have significant levels of research funding and offer a wide range of programmes in different disciplines. A look at the world university rankings in 2009, for example, reveals that out of the top 200 universities in the world, 119 were located in the Anglophone centre, with 71 in the United States, 28 in the United Kingdom, 9 in Australia and 8 in Canada (Times Higher Education 2010). This system of ranking allows those universities at the top to occupy powerful positions on the global higher education stage and to exert significant influence on attitudes to language and literary practices in the sector. At the same time as globalisation has facilitated the spread of English in higher education, it has also created the conditions for the linguistic ecology in universities in the Anglophone centre to diversify. These conditions have been fostered by the sectors’ response to operating in a globalised world, in which policies have been implemented to increase both the numbers of international students and the numbers of domestic students from under-represented groups in the national population. These policies are often referred to as the internationalisation and access (widening participation) agendas respectively. As will be discussed, these agendas have impacted on the linguistic ecology in Anglophone centre universities by facilitating the increase in numbers of bi-, multilingual and/ or bi-dialectal users of English. 2.1. The internationalisation agenda Altbach and Knight (2007) refer to the policies and practices that higher education institutions have set in place to deal with operating in a globalised world as internationalisation and comment on how the implementation of the internationalisation agenda is increasing the mobility of academic staff, students, higher education programmes and institutions across the borders of nation states. They argue that internationalisation is compounding existing centre-periphery inequalities between universities (see also Altbach 2004, Friedman 2005, Odin and Mancias 2004, Phillipson 2009). They point out that while internationalisation creates a “two-way street” (p. 291) between universities in different parts of the world, the process is largely regulated by Anglophone countries, and, to a smaller degree, other major industrialised nations in the EU, such as France and

126

Siân Preece

Germany. One consequence is that the vast majority of the 2.5 million students who are currently studying overseas have migrated northwards, from countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa, to institutions located in the Anglophone centre; this trend is predicted to continue with the number of international students rising from 2.5 million to around 7 million by 2020 (Altbach et al 2009). Universities in the Anglophone centre largely control this process by regulating admissions to their home institutions and exporting their own programmes of study southwards (via distance learning and off-shore campuses located on the periphery). This state of affairs seems set to continue given the financial rewards for universities and the current crisis in public funding. The growth in student mobility has impacted on the linguistic ecology in many universities in the Anglophone centre. Taking the UK as an example, in 2008/9, the number of non-UK students in UK higher education institutions rose by 8.2 per cent from 341,790 to 369,970. Non-UK students represented just over 15 per cent of the total student population and this proportion is expected to rise. Nearly 250,000 students came from countries outside the EU, while just over 100,000 were from EU countries other than the UK (Higher Education Statistics Agency 2010). Table 1 illustrates the region of domicile for non-UK students in UK universities and demonstrates that there have been increases in student numbers in UK universities from all regions of the world, with the exception of South America and unknown EU countries. Drawing on Kachru’s (1992; 1985) model of World Englishes, many of these students are from the Outer and Expanding Circles. For example, in 2008–9 Indian students formed the largest cohort in UK universities

Table 1. Region of domicile of non-UK domicile students 2007/8 and 2008/09 in UK Higher Education Institutions (Higher Education Statistics Agency 2010) Region of domicile Other European Union Other Europe Africa Asia Australasia Middle East North America South America Non-European Union unknown Total non-UK domicile

2007/8 112,150 12,070 32,295 137,485 2,285 16,690 22,810 4160 1845 341,790

2008/9 117,660 13,745 35,180 150,755 2,310 19,325 24,610 3590 1800 369,970

% change +4.9% +13.9% +8.9% +9.6% +1% +15.8% +7.9% −13.7% −2.4% + 8.2%

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

127

from an Outer Circle country, with 34,065 students2 , whereas Chinese students formed the largest contingent of students from a country in the Expanding Circle with 47,035 students3 (Higher Education Statistics Agency 2010). Students from the Outer Circle in UK universities primarily come from postcolonial settings in which English is generally regarded as a second and/ or official language and is used in a variety of domains. It is highly likely that many will have received some or all of their compulsory education in English-medium schooling. In these settings, indigenous varieties of English have evolved that have de-Anglicised Standard British English by incorporating localised or nativised grammatical, phonological, lexical/ idiomatic and discourse features of their own (Jenkins 2003; Platt et al. 1984). On the other hand, students from countries in the Expanding Circle come from settings in which English is more likely to be perceived of as a foreign language that more exactly conforms to the norms for standardised varieties of Anglo-American English. The use of English in this Circle is often portrayed as restricted to international, rather than intranational, domains. Given the global spread of English, however, it is questionable whether the differentiation between the roles of English in the Outer and Expanding Circle countries is still fully viable. Over a decade ago, Crystal (1997: 56) commented that the distinction between English as a second and foreign language had ‘less contemporary relevance’ than previously and that English was in greater use in some places in the Expanding Circle than in some of its traditional bases in the Outer Circle. This point has been widely taken up and there have been a range of studies into the nativisation of English in countries in the Expanding Circle (see e.g. Berns 2005; Bolton 2002; Lowenberg 2002; Rista-Dema 2008; Seargeant 2005; Velez-Rendon 2003). Lowenberg (2002) also points out that students from countries in the Expanding Circle are increasingly studying English in Outer Circle settings where they are learning the norms of Outer Circle standardised varieties of English. He observes how these Outer Circle norms are influencing the development of nativised varieties of English in the Expanding Circle. The debate on World Englishes suggests that students from various countries in the Outer and Expanding Circles may well be bringing a diversity of English dialects into universities in the Anglophone centre as part of their bi- and multilingual linguistic repertoires. As shall be discussed, however, localised varieties of English rarely receive a warm welcome in universities in Anglophone centre settings. A similar picture of linguistic diversity emerges from the other EU students (i.e. non-UK) within UK institutions. Many of these students can also be regarded as bi- or multilingual users of English. Many come from European countries with two or more official languages either at the state or regional level.

128

Siân Preece

Similarly to the literature on the Expanding Circle, there is a body of literature documenting the spread of English in member states of the European Union outside the UK and Ireland (see e.g. Berns 1995; Berns 2005; Lowenberg 2002). This literature illustrates how different national and regional varieties of European English are evolving. This suggests that the cohort of European students in UK universities are bringing diverse linguistic repertoires into the sector that include European varieties of English, the 22 official languages of the EU other than English, the indigenous regional and minority European languages and the heritage languages of immigrant communities in Europe. Finally, it is questionable whether international students in UK universities who are from other Anglophone centre countries are monolingual native speakers of English. Philippson (2009: 202) warns against the “discourse of historical amnesia” that hides the multilingualism and diversity of English-dominant countries, such as the UK and the USA. Given the high levels of cultural and ethnic diversity in settings in the Anglophone centre, it is perfectly possible that a sizeable proportion of students migrating between Anglophone nations are also bi- or multilinguals. So far, I have discussed how the linguistic ecology in universities in the Anglophone centre has been affected by the increasing recruitment of international students (and EU students in the case of the UK) who are bi- or multilingual users of English. This has been driven by internationalisation policies that are encouraging cross border movement of students, largely from periphery to centre institutions, the majority of which are located in the Anglophone centre. In the following section, I look at the access agenda and discuss how this is affecting the linguistic ecology at the micro level of the classroom. 2.2. The access agenda Allen et al (2005) comment on the attempts that governments in OECD countries have made over the last few decades to improve access to higher education for non-traditional students, that is individuals from underrepresented groups in the domestic population. In the Anglophone centre this agenda has contributed to significant increases in the numbers of domestic students who are multilingual and/ or bi-dialectal users of English of some sort. This body of students is composed of the first, second, third and subsequent generations of minority ethnic groups, the African American and Latino communities in the United States and, to a much more limited degree, the indigenous peoples of Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand. These students span a range of different socioeconomic backgrounds, from working class families to those from more socially elite and affluent professional backgrounds.

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

129

While the access agenda has its roots in social justice, globalisation has reframed the debate on access to higher education in neoliberal economic discourses. In this scenario, access to higher education is framed in terms of meeting the needs of industries in the global marketplace by providing a highly educated and skilled workforce. Allen et al (2005: 2) comment that, “[h]igh-modernity or late- or post-modernity means that the industrial heartlands of countries such as the UK and USA have been devastated and, in order to compete in an increasingly tough global market, knowledge and professional skill development are important to the future of our societies”. In the UK, this “economizing of universities” (McLean 2006: 45) can be seen by placing universities in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). This Department is composed of ten management groups,4 which not only compete for funding but have the collective mission to “[build] a dynamic and competitive UK economy by: creating the conditions for business success; promoting innovation, enterprise and science; and giving everyone the skills and opportunities to succeed. To achieve this it will foster world-class universities and promote an open global economy” (Department for Business Innovation and Skills 2010). Universities are expected to “[create] a highly-skilled workforce” that is capable of establishing an “enterprise culture where everyone with talent is inspired to turn ideas into successful enterprises” in the free market (ibid). Within the UK, the drive towards skilling the workforce has impacted on the linguistic ecology in universities by encouraging a rise in the numbers of students from non-traditional backgrounds, many of whom are from working class linguistic minority communities. To examine how this is affecting the linguistic ecology at the micro level of the classroom, in the following section I turn to data from my study of language and identity in higher education (Preece 2009).

3. Multilingual classrooms I conducted my study with 93 first-year undergraduate students from a range of linguistic minority groups while they were taking an academic writing programme at a post-1992 university in London. This programme, on which I was a lecturer, had been established to improve the retention of students from widening participation backgrounds. In this case, the majority came from backgrounds that have traditionally been categorised as working class on the basis of occupation. There was also very little history of higher education among the students’ parents and elders. Students were enrolled on the programme based on the results of an academic literacy test taken during induction. Most were required to attend the programme rather than opting into it as a free

130

Siân Preece

choice. The data were gathered over a period of two years and consist of audiorecordings of group work interaction in the classroom and interviews of key participants, field notes from classroom observations and reflections on classroom events, an open-ended questionnaire and information from the student record system. The linguistic repertoires of the participants in the study included English along with a variety of Creoles and heritage languages in use among members of the Caribbean, South Asian and African communities in London. Some participants were migrants who had been born and educated in Outer Circle settings and had arrived in the UK as young adults. A few came from countries in the Expanding Circle where they had studied English as a foreign language at school. These participants had been in Britain for a short period of time, had come with the intention of studying, following which they were likely to return to their home country. However, most were the children of settled minority ethnic communities in the UK, many of South Asian heritage. Generally these participants had received all or the majority of their compulsory schooling in the British state system and were aged 18–21. While the institution did not acknowledge the participants’ diverse linguistic repertoires in any formal or systematic manner, the participants drew attention to these when given opportunities to do so during the research. An example of this comes in the following extract that was audio-recorded in the classroom, in which four participants, Kavi (aged 21), Sita (aged 19), Tano (aged 23) and Hibba (aged 22) are discussing what languages they use at home and with their friends. K = Kavi, S = Sita, T = Tano, H = Hibba5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

K: S: K: T: K: T: K:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

H: K: T: H: K: H:

I spe- I can speak Tamil/ sort of yeah right can you speak any language? I can speak Tamil wha- what language is that? that’s a Sri Lankan language obviously yeah/ I can speak my Ghanaian [language so yeah [Ghanaian language/ he can speak THREE langua[ges [I speak FOUR languages [FOUR languages [oh::: [Arabic er Urdu/ Hindi right and Punjabi

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

K: H: K: H: K: S: H: K: S: T: H: K:

131

can you write/ can you/ can you write them? yeah yeah you’re writing them all? yeah I can WRITE in Tamil but not fully fluent I’m fluent in that [I can/ I can [you can read? yeah I can read I’m [fluent in that [proper proper reading? like if I gave you a newspaper would you read it from cover to cover? yeah/ I can read some articles (xxx) NOT how I read English (classroom data)

The interaction takes on the tone of a sociable sparring contest in which the participants compete with each other for who speaks the most languages and who is the most multiliterate. The interaction opens with Kavi presenting himself as a Tamil speaker, although he mitigates this with the comment ‘sort of ’(turn 1). Sita’s utterance and laughter (turn 2) have a teasing quality. Her ability to tease Kavi about his level of expertise in Tamil comes from their shared heritage as part of the Tamil diaspora in London. Both of their families had sought asylum in the UK as a result of the civil war in Sri Lanka with Kavi arriving in the UK at the age of 11 and Sita being British born. A series of exchanges then follow between Tano and Kavi (turns 3–7) in which Tano, a mature Ghanaian student who had been the UK for two years at this point, establishes Kavi’s heritage culture and represents himself as speaking “my Ghanaian language”. His decision not to name the languages in his linguistic repertoire may have been motivated by his perception of his interlocutors’ knowledge of Ghana and its linguistic complexities. Nonetheless, Kavi has ascertained something of the linguistic diversity that Tano brings to their group as he announces that Tano speaks three languages (turn 7). The raised volume of ‘three’ and the tone of this utterance suggest that Tano’s multilingualism is to be admired. At this point, Hibba, a British Asian, interrupts (turn 8) in what appears to be a competitive move, to position herself as speaking more languages than Tano, which she then goes on to list (turns 11, 13). The tone of Tano’s ‘oh’ (turn 10) sounds ironic and similarly to Sita’s utterance (turn 2) may have been an attempt at playfulness. This is followed by a series of exchanges (turns 14–25) in which levels of literacy are compared. The interaction is largely controlled by Kavi and Hibba as they weigh up which of them has the greatest level of expertise in their heritage languages. While Hibba claims to be literate in four languages, Kavi concedes

132

Siân Preece

that he has a greater command of reading in English than in Tamil. While it seems likely that Hibba’s greatest expertise is also in English, her claim to have mastery of four languages may have been a strategy for jockeying for position among her peers. Within this group, this appears to have been successful, as her claims went on to earn her the admiration of the group. Throughout the interaction, the participants adopt a multilingual positioning. Their shared experiences as multilinguals appears to facilitate group sociability and construct linguistic diversity as a natural part of daily life. The portrayal of linguistic diversity as a normal part of everyday life was evident throughout the data. However, a variety of positions were adopted towards this diversity that illustrate the participants’ affiliation towards the languages and dialects in their linguistic repertoires within the setting of the academic writing programme and the institution more widely. These positions were fluid, with participants sometimes adopting seemingly contradictory positions. I have discussed elsewhere (Preece 2010) how these positions can be expressed along a continuum of weaker affiliation to heritage languages/stronger affiliation to English and weaker affiliation to English/stronger affiliation to heritage languages. In this paper, I will focus on a number of positions that the students adopted in relation to their linguistic repertoires that appear helpful for considering the needs and identities of heterogeneous groups of multilingual students in universities in the Anglophone centre. These positions are English as L2, separate bilingualism, flexible bilingualism, separate bi-dialectalism and flexible bi-dialectalism. 3.1. English as L2 A key position for several of the participants was English as L2, which can be placed towards the weaker affiliation to English/ stronger affiliation to heritage languages end of the continuum. As might be expected, migrants commonly adopted this position, particularly if they had arrived in the UK in their late teens and early adulthood. Akinwole illustrates this well. After growing up in Nigeria, where he attended English-medium schools, he migrated to the UK at the age of 19 to join his mother. On arrival, he spent five years working and studying, before he was able to progress into university. In interactions about his linguistic repertoire, Akinwole displayed strong affiliations to Yoruba, depicting this as his ‘local language’, and much weaker affiliations to English. As Eversley et al (2010) list Yoruba as one of the top-ten languages in London, it is possible that local is a reference to Akinwole’s everyday life in areas of London populated by the Yoruba community rather than a reference to his life back home in Nigeria. Akinwole expressed the view that:

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

133

I never feel comfortable speaking in English with my family and friends because I always feel that I am in a formal setting and environment (Akinwole, questionnaire).

Akinwole presents himself as ambivalent to using English at home and with his Yoruba-speaking friends. His association of English with formality suggests that he primarily associates it with institutional settings, perhaps learned during his schooling in Nigeria. A similar picture emerges from students who can be classified as 1.5 generation. These students migrated to the UK part way through their compulsory schooling and as Marshall (2010: 43) contends, they often inhabit ‘liminal spaces, living in two worlds, somewhere between first- and second-generation immigrant’. One student who exemplifies this is Geet. Geet (aged 19) spent his early childhood in Kenya, using Gujarati at home and English and Swahili at school. When he was eight, his family sought asylum in the UK and Geet made the transition from Kenyan schooling into the British education system. After arriving in the UK, Geet also attended a Gujarati complementary school to maintain and improve his oral and written literacy. On comparing Gujarati and English, he claims that: I have noticed . . . when I am . . . with my friends, say at work, . . . if they speak Gujarati then I will speak Gujarati as well. When I am talking [in] that, I’m more calm and I’m actually more easy going . . . When I speak with people just with English, I sometimes stutter . . . I might not . . . really have the words to say, they are difficult (Geet, Interview 1).

Despite living in the UK from a young age, Geet positions English as his L2. He presents himself as having difficulties with expressing himself in English and claims that spoken interaction that has to be conducted in English only remains as a source of anxiety. Geet goes on to claim that his main motivation for speaking English is to improve his proficiency: I have Gujarati friends [at university] but they don’t usually speak Gujarati that much so . . . I’m always speaking English . . . so I can improve my English . . . I mean . . . if I always speak to people [in] English, I’m able to improve my English. But at home . . . I have my Gujarati mother tongue language (Geet, Interview 1).

Classroom observations indicated that Geet was often marginalised during group work, particularly when interaction involved witty repartee. As Geet found it almost impossible to participate in the peer group banter of his British-born peers, his silence became the subject for jokes at his expense. As I have discussed (Preece 2006, 2009), adopting the position of English as L2 may have assisted Geet in negotiating social relations with his peers. By adopting Gu-

134

Siân Preece

jarati as his mother tongue and English as his second language, Geet was able to position himself as possessing communicative competence in Gujarati and a person worthy of respect among his peers. This position also enabled him to mitigate the problems that he was having with his academic work by allowing him to explain these in relation to being a language learner. 3.2. Separate bilingualism Separate bilingualism (Creese et al. 2008) was a commonly adopted position for the majority of the participants in the study. This can be placed midway along the continuum of weaker affiliation to heritage languages/ stronger affiliation to English and stronger affiliation to heritage languages/weaker affiliation to English and gives the impression of equality and balance between languages. Separate bilingualism indicates a view of languages as discrete and bounded entities that are used in different domains and need to be kept apart. This separation has been described in various ways, such as the two solitudes (Cummins 2005) and parallel monolingualism (Heller 1999, 2006). Drawing on Gravelle (1996: 11), Creese and Blackledge (2010: 105) observe how separate bilingualism “represents a view of the multilingual/bilingual student/teacher as ‘two monolinguals in one body’”. An example of this comes in the following extract of interview data with Saba (aged 18), a British Pakistani, who uses English, Urdu and Punjabi, in which we are discussing the associations that she makes with these languages. Saba is typical of the British born participants in that she had received very little sustained schooling in her heritage languages. To tell you the truth the language that you speak at home . . . obviously there is more tradition comes into it, culture comes into it, religion comes into it, which is good ‘cause obviously you need to like . . . keep a hold of your tradition and your culture and stuff like that, which is good, so your language Punjabi, Urdu comes into that. English . . . obviously you are in the country everyone speaks it you have to know it . . . the outside world is more based on . . . English . . . and I think that our language our mother tongue is for like home and your family and keeping the traditions, stuff like that (Saba, Interview 1).

In this interaction, Saba makes a clear distinction between the languages in her linguistic repertoire, demarcating Punjabi and Urdu for the domain of her family and English for use in the “outside world”. She constructs Punjabi and Urdu as maintaining the cultural and religious traditions of her heritage culture as well as interactions among family members. The private realm is constructed as excluding English in opposition to the public domain, which is portrayed as more or less English only. This example is typical of the ways in which many

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

135

of the participants adopted a separate bilingual positioning. This positioning bounded heritage languages to the domestic and private space of the family and heritage community and English to the public domains of life beyond the ancestral community. 3.3. Flexible bilingualism Another position marking the midway point on the continuum is flexible bilingualism (Creese et al. 2008). Unlike separate bilingualism, in which efforts are made to keep languages apart, flexible bilingualism indicates the use of codeswitching, in which “the speaker makes a complete shift to another language for a word, phrase, or sentence” (Grosjean 2010: 51–2). This was characterised in the data as mixing of English and heritage language(s). This position is illustrated in the interview interaction below with Ling (aged 20), a British Chinese student, in which we are discussing her use of code switching. Ling: Cantonese is mainly for like my parents and my grandma but um when I am communicating with my brothers and sisters we kind of mix up Cantonese and English. SP: Can you think of any situations when you would really mix up the Cantonese with the English when you are talking to your friends? What particular subjects do you think you talk about? Ling: Um anything really ‘cause it is like when I am talking to you it is like you wouldn’t know Chinese so I’ll have to stick to English but when you know someone that is Chinese and they know English as well you kind of mix it up just naturally it’s not like when you change a subject (Ling, Interview 1).

Ling’s linguistic repertoire encompassed English, Cantonese, Vietnamese, British Sign Language and Mandarin. In this interaction, she differentiates her use of flexible bilingualism from separate bilingualism. In interactions with others whose linguistic repertoire encompasses Cantonese and English, such as her siblings and friends, Ling adopts the position of a flexible bilingual by reporting that she routinely juxtaposes Cantonese and English regardless of the topic of conversation. However, when her interlocutor’s linguistic repertoire differs (her elders and me), she is obliged to use “one language at a time” and “one language only” (Li and Wu 2009). This resonates with a variety of studies, such as Creese et al (2006: 38) and Li Wei and Wu (2009) whose study of complementary schools in the UK found that second generation minority ethnic teenagers valued being able to code-switch between their heritage languages and English. One use of code-switching was to construct a distinctive identity from first generation migrants. As Creese et

136

Siân Preece

al (2006: 38) comment, flexible bilingualism is a way in which British born bilinguals can differentiate themselves from newly arrived migrants and adopt positions as sophisticated young people in relation to the migrant freshie who is not proficient in the linguistic practices of the peer group. Unlike separate bilingualism, flexible bilingualism blurs the boundaries of the private and public worlds that second generation minority ethnic students inhabit, suggesting that they routinely use English in the home context alongside heritage languages and that heritage languages are used alongside English outside the home. Grosjean (2010) observes that code-switching is commonplace among bilinguals who share the same languages. He identifies a variety of reasons for codeswitching, including the attractiveness of one language compared to another for expressing particular ideas, imitation of others and emphasis of social role. Grosjean also comments on the ways in which code-switching is often viewed negatively as creating “an unpleasant mixture of languages, produced by people who are careless about the way they speak” (p. 52). This perception was prevalent among the participants in my study who frequently associated code-switching with linguistic deficit. This view is typified by Awino (aged 32), a Kenyan migrant who had been living in the UK for ten years at the time of the research: When I speak Swahili with my friends I find I break it with English sometimes/ speak English as well as Swahili/ some kind of mixes/ which is not really good (Awino, classroom data).

This utterance comes from interaction between Awino, Biba (aged 22) and Leela (aged 19), a British Moroccan and British Asian respectively, about the languages that they use at home and with friends. Despite portraying code switching as a habitual practice, they also conformed to ideological norms that associate it with deficit and semilingualism. These negative connotations often came to the fore when intergenerational relations were the subject of discussion: S = Seema, M = Maya 1. S: I speak English [mixed like (.) I don’t know 2. M: [talked with ((xx))/ and I was like (.) half and half= 3. S: =half yeah: (1) but most of the time it’s in English okay/ now they’ve like/ changed (1) 4. M: they know it 5. S: they think it’s bad though/ you know how parents are 6. M: it’s very bad we don’t know the language

In the extract above two British Asians of Gujarati heritage, Seema (aged 19) and Maya (aged 19), are discussing their parents’ negative response to their habitual

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

137

use of code switching. The face-threatening nature of this exchange, in which they are sharing the experience of not only disagreeing with their parents but also acting against their wishes, is suggested through the covert references to their parents and elders in the ambiguous use of ‘they’ (turns 3–5). The use of an impersonal pronoun in combination with the pauses in turn 3 is suggestive of shared experiences of family relationships. Maya’s utterance (turn 6) may be enacting a parental disapproving voice with the accompanying laughter signalling that this is a subject for humour. However, the laughter may also mask anxieties about not fulfilling parental expectations and of not conforming to dominant discourses on bilingualism that assume that languages must be kept separate (see e.g. Blackledge and Creese 2010; Cummins 2005; Heller 2006). 3.4. Separate and flexible bi-dialectalism The notion of separation and flexibility is also helpful for reflecting on the participants’relationship with English. As mentioned, all were bi-dialectal users of English. The majority were habitual users of a vernacular variety, in particular London English (Harris 2006), while some were users of World Englishes. They routinely adopted bi-dialectal positions that were articulated through a posh/slang binary to differentiate between the prestigious variety of Standard English that they were required to use in higher education and the non-prestigious varieties of English with which they strongly identified. In interactions about their use of posh and slang, the participants adopted the positions of separate and flexible bi-dialectalism. These mirror separate and flexible bilingualism in that the first involves the separation of standard and vernacular varieties of English while the latter involves their juxtaposition. An example of separate bi-dialectalism is illustrated in the following interaction between Awino, Biba and Leela, in which they are discussing their attempts at making friends with their undergraduate peers. 1. L: when we came ‘ere/ I mean/ if I saw a posh person I actually spoke posh with them/ but if I saw somebody who was happy with their slang/ I spoke slang with them/ and I think that’s how you socialise with them/ 2. A: yeah/ 3. B: it’s how you adapt to different people [that’s what adapting is about/ 4. A: [yeah/ you’ve got to adapt/ yeah/ 5. L: yeah/ 6. B: adapting to different people an’ their cultures y’know/ an’ their backgrounds (classroom data).

138

Siân Preece

In the interaction, Biba, Leela and Awino co-construct boundaries between posh English and slang, which enables them to categorise the people that they are encountering in university into people like themselves, who are “happy with their slang” and posh others. They portray themselves as keeping posh and slang apart by using posh with one group of potential friends and slang with another. The regular reference to posh and slang in reference to the student body suggests that the participants have constructed an understanding based on shared experiences of social class norms for appearance, language and behaviour. It also suggests that the participants paid attention to the “soundscape” (Harris 2006), accommodating to the accents and conversational styles of their fellow peers as a way of fitting in and making friends. It may be that separate bi-dialectalism enables working class students to navigate alien social terrain that includes many more people from middle class and professional backgrounds than they have previously encountered during schooling. In this instance, this positioning also facilitates a narrative of success in establishing new social relationships in higher education. Similarly to flexible bilingualism, the participants also adopted the position of flexible bi-dialectalism. An example of this comes from interview data with Tahir (aged 22), a British Pakistani, in which we are discussing how he makes sense of the academic work in his discipline: There’s five of us so we . . . all sit down and we’re trying to [explain] . . . the good thing is . . . whoever knows in that circle how to do it, he explains to all of us and because we all know each other well, know slang and stuff, we’d explain it in a way we will understand . . . whilst if the teacher explains I might not get [it] . . . So I’d explain it in my terms to make sure they understand it . . . showing the thinking, how I know how to do it (Tahir, Interview 2).

In this interaction, Tahir reports that he has formed a study group with his peers. This is represented as a “circle”, suggesting collaboration and cooperative learning. Flexible bi-dialectalism is used as a tool for constructing understanding of disciplinary knowledge by juxtaposing “slang and stuff ” with the language of the academic community. This position also appears to be empowering in that it enables Tahir to speak from a position of expertise in which he can scaffold the intellectual development of his male peers. This is in sharp contrast to the institutional positioning that he occupies as a remedial English language user on the English language programme. While vernacular English has little legitimacy within the institution, the participants’ representations suggest that far from being a hindrance, they found vernacular English a valuable resource for establishing peer group relations and constructing a bridge into their academic work. This resonates with Rampton’s

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

139

(2006: 316) “vernacularisation of school knowledge”, in which adolescents use posh and Cockney stylisations as a way of mediating school work and getting down to the task at hand. Given the closeness in background and educational experience of Rampton’s participants to those in my study, it seems likely that this strategy has been transferred from London schools into higher education.

4. Discussion The statistics for non-UK students in UK institutions and data from research conducted on the academic writing programme illustrate some of the ways in which the linguistic ecology of universities in theAnglophone centre has become more complex. However, despite the linguistic diversity in their midst, universities in Anglophone settings still seem to be operating with the assumption that their students are monolingual native speakers of English who ‘naturally’ use a standardised variety of Anglo-American English and who enter university with considerable expertise in the literacy practices common in Anglo-American academic traditions. Although universities in the Anglophone centre claim to celebrate the cultural diversity of the student body, there is often less than a warm welcome for the linguistic diversity that accompanies cultural and social diversification. While ethnic monitoring in Anglophone settings is commonplace, there appears to be little systematic documentation of the linguistic repertories of students and staff. There is also a lack of institutional wide language policies that could inform curricula design and delivery. Curricula still largely adopt a monolingual stance that encourages uncritical use of “one language only” (OLON) (Li and Wu 2009) and by extension one dialect only (ODON) for most of the time. Universities in the Anglophone centre have not kept pace with the changing student demographic and need to devise institutional language policies that take pluricentric, rather than monocentric, perspectives to linguistic diversity. These could then be used to inform curricula design, delivery and assessment that are appropriate at the local level and more sensitive to the needs and identities of a linguistically diverse student population. In order to support the development of language policies there is a need for further research into linguistic diversity in Anglophone centre universities. Quantitative studies that map the linguistic repertoires of the staff-student population at institutional level would be helpful in developing the bigger picture, in raising awareness of linguistic diversity in the sector and for examining claims that multilingualism is the norm for significant numbers of staff and/ or students in these settings. Further qualitative work exploring identity and pedagogical issues is also required as multilingual students do not form a homogeneous

140

Siân Preece

group and are likely to exhibit differing levels of expertise and affiliation to the languages in their repertoires. They are also likely to have differing investment in the academic language and literacy practices of the Anglophone centre. For international students who have incurred very sizeable costs of studying in an Anglophone country, they may well be invested in the standardised English of the Anglophone centre, viewing this as carrying status and prestige. This may fuel resistance to using L1 in the university context. For domestic students, however, and for some from postcolonial settings, they may experience ambivalent feelings about the academic linguistic and literacy practices to which they are expected to conform. There are also emerging patterns from research about the ways in which multilingual students both conform to and resist the dominant norms for compartmentalising the languages and dialects in their linguistic repertoires. It would be helpful to draw on the research into separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schooling in the HE sector and to extend the notion of separation and flexibility to varieties of English. This would enable further examination of the salience of separate and flexible bilingualism and bi-dialectalism within the context of higher education. Kachru’s model could provide a starting point for recognising linguistic diversity and hybridity of English use. While this model clearly has its limitations for describing the current situation in relation to English in different parts of the world, it serves the purpose of highlighting the “pluralism, heterogeneity, and diversity of English world-wide” (Berns, 1995: 10). It can be used to draw attention to the diverse linguistic repertoires of students in universities in the Anglophone centre and provide a way of critiquing attitudes in these universities to the linguistic diversity in their midst. Within this context, it also helps to re-position the remedial English user as an “English-knowing bilingual” (Pakir 1999) or “bilingual user of English” (McKay 2002) and to call attention to Lowenberg’s (2002: 433) plea to find ways of differentiating between “deficiencies in the second language acquisition of English . . . [and] varietal differences in the speakers’ usage resulting from their having previously learned and used . . . non-native normative features” [italics in original]. At present, there is little differentiation between the two as is illustrated in Simpson and Cooke’s (2010: 70) study that illustrates how the sector’s negative reaction to non-prestigious varieties of English of migrant students can contribute not only to these students experiencing downwards educational trajectories, but also to their longer terms prospects of educational success being damaged. This resonates with Blommaert’s (2010) argument that the linguistic resources of those coming from the periphery are evaluated against a “mainstream” that reflects the “national order” of the Anglophone centre (p. 173). Describing the asylum application of Joseph, a Rwandan refugee in the UK, Blommaert critiques the

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

141

ways in which linguistic resources of those from the periphery not only “[lose] weight and value during the journey [to the UK]”, but are also used by those in authority in the Anglophone centre to create arguments for doing things to people, such as refusing asylum applications or enforcing immersion education. Altbach et al (2009: viii) comment that one of the biggest challenges facing higher education in the global world is making opportunities available on an equitable basis. As they argue “if current trends of internationalization continue, the distribution of the world’s wealth and talent will be further skewed”. In the very unequal world in which we live and work, it is my contention that universities in the Anglophone centre need to exercise particular care not to increase the gap between the haves and have nots through language practices that privilege elite groups, whether these be monolingual or bilingual users of English, who already hold a disproportionate share of power and wealth. The call to imagine universities as multilingual spaces is intended as a way of valuing the knowledge and linguistic resources of bi- and multilingual students from a wide range of backgrounds, of creating spaces for other knowledge and perspectives to be critically evaluated and of finding ways of using linguistic diversity as a bridge into academic studies and a resource in the design, delivery and assessment of the curriculum. In conclusion, the mass expansion of tertiary education has resulted in an increasingly complex linguistic ecology in universities in theAnglophone centre. The linguistic ecology has been shaped by policies that universities have put into place to deal with globalisation, in particular the internationalisation and access agendas. While these universities are sites of multilingualism, this is barely recognised. When language appears on the agenda, it is generally with a “problem” label that frequently results in bi- and multilingual students being labelled as in need of remedial English tuition. It is my contention that we need to recognise linguistic diversity in the sector and consider ways of treating it as an asset. The first step in this direction is to imagine universities in Anglophone settings as multilingual spaces and to acknowledge that multilingualism needs to be given space beyond “the heads of the students or of . . . teaching . . . staff who are bi- or multilingual” (Phillipson 2009: 210).

Notes 1. This paper is based on a presentation at the 2010 Bloomsbury Round Table 2. representing a rise of 31.5% on 2007/8 figures 3. representing a rise of 3.7% on 2007/8 figures

142

Siân Preece

4. Universities and Skills are one management group in BIS. This group is situated with nine other management groups, namely: Business; Economic and Policy Analysis; Fair Markets; Finance and Commercial; Innovation and Enterprise (including the Better Regulation Executive); Legal, People and Communications; Science and Research; Shareholder Executive and UK Trade & Investment. 5. All participant names are pseudonyms.

References Allen, Liz, Lucy Solomon, John Storan and Liz Thomas. 2005. International comparators of widening participation in higher educaction – policy and practice: Higher education in the USA, student fees, financial aid and access. Action on Access. Altbach, Philip, Liz Reisberg and Laura Rumbley. 2009. Trends in global higher education: tracking an academic revolution. Executive Summary. A Report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Berns, Margie. 1995. English in the European Union. English Today 4. 3–11. Berns, Margie. 2005. Expanding on the expanding circle: where do WE go from here? World Englishes 24. 85–93. Blackledge, Adrian and Angela Creese. 2010. Multilingualism: a critical perspective. London: Continuum. Block, David. 2006. Multilingual identities in a global city: London stories. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bolton, Kingsley. 2002. Chinese Englishes: from Canton jargon to global English. Special Issue of World Englishes 21. 181–200. Creese, Angela, Arvind Bhatt, Nirmala Bhojani and Peter Martin. 2006. Multicultural, heritage and learner identities in complementary schools. Language and Education 20. 23–43. Creese, Angela and Adrian Blackledge. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 9. 103– 15. Creese, Angela and Peter Martin. 2003. Multilingual classroom ecologies: inter-relationships, interactions and ideologies. In Creese, Angela and Peter Martin (eds.) Multilingual classroom ecologies: inter-relationships, interactions and ideologies Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1–7. Creese, Angela, Barac Taskin, Arvind Bhatt, Adrian Blackledge, Shahela Hamid, Li Wei, Vally Lytra, Peter Martin, Chao-Jung Wu and Dilek Yagcioglu-Ali. 2008. Investigating multilingualism in complementary schools in four communities. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

143

Crystal, David. 1997. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David. 2004. The past, present and future of World English. In Gardt, Andreas and Bernd Huppauf (eds.) Globalization and the future of German Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 27–45. Cummins, Jim. 2005. A proposal for action: strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal 89. 585–92. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. 2010. About BIS. http://www.bis.gov.uk/ about (accessed 10 December 2010). Eversley, John, Dina Mehmedbegovic, Antony Sanderson, Teresa Tinsley, Michelle vonAhn and Richard Wiggins. 2010. Language capital: mapping the languages of London’s school children London: CILT. Gibbs, Paul, Panayiotis Angelides and Pavlos Michaelides. 2004. Preliminary thoughts on a praxis of higher education teaching. Teaching in Higher Education 9. 183–94. Giroux, Henry. 2004. Betraying the intellectual traditional: public intellectuals and the crisis of youth. In Phipps, Alison and Manuela Guilherme (eds.) Critical pedagogy: political approaches to language and intercultural communication Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 7–21. Gravelle, M. 1996. Supporting bilingual learners in schools. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Grosjean, Francois. 2010. Bilingual: life and reality. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Harris, Roxy. 2006. New ethnicities and language use. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Heller, Monica. 1999. Linguistic minorities and modernity. London: Continuum. Heller, Monica. 2006. Linguistic minorities and modernity. 2nd ed. London: Continuum. Higher Education Statistics Agency (2010). Statistics – students and qualifiers at UK HE institutions. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2003. World Englishes: a resource book for students. London: Routledge. Kachru, B. 1992. Models for non-native Englishes. In Kachru, B (ed.) The Other tongue. Englishes across cultures 2nd. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, Randolf and H. G. Widdowson (eds.) English in the world: teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11–30. Kaplan, Robert and Richard Baldauf. 2009. An Ecological perspective on language planning. In Creese, Angela, Peter Martin and Nancy Hornberger (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol. 9 2nd. New York: Springer. Kemp, Charlotte. 2009. Defining multilingualism. In Aronin, Larissa and Britta Hufeisen (eds.) The exploration of multilingualism: development of research on L3, multilingualism, and multiple language acquisition Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 11–26. Li, Wei and Chao-Jung Wu. 2009. Polite Chinese children revisited: creativity and the

144

Siân Preece

use of codeswitching in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12: 193–211. Li,Wei and Chao-Jung Wu. 2009. Polite Chinese children revisited: creativity and the use of codeswitching in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12: 193–211. Lowenberg, Peter H. 2002. Assessing English proficiency in the Expanding Circle. World Englishes 21. 431–5. Marshall, Steve. 2010. Re-becoming ESL: multilingual university students and a deficit identity. Language and Education 24. 41–56. Martin, Peter. 2010. ’They have lost their identity but not gained a British one’: nontraditional multilingual students in higher education in the United Kingdom’. Language and Education 24. 9–20. McKay, Sandra. 2002. Teaching English as an international language: rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McLean, Monica. 2006. Pegagogy and the university: critical theory and practice. London: Continuum. Mühlhäusler, Peter and Alwin Fill (eds.). 2001. The Ecolinguistics reader: language, ecology and environment. London: Continuum. Pakir, Anne. 1999. Connecting with English in the context of internationalism. TESOL Quarterly 33. 103–12. Phillipson, Robert. 2009. Linguistic imperalism continued. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. Platt, John Talbot, Heidi Weber and Ho Mian Lian. 1984. The New Englishes. London: Routledge. Preece, Siân (2006). British Asian undergraduate students in London. In Block, David, Multilingual Identities in a Global City: London Stories. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 171–99. Preece, Siân. 2009. Posh talk: language and identity in higher education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Preece, Siân. 2010. Multilingual identities in higher education: negotiating the ‘mother tongue’, ‘posh’ and ‘slang’. Language and Education 24: 21–40. Rista-Dema, Mimoza. 2008. Verb-subject word order in Albanian English. World Englishes 27. 419–33. Ruiz, Richard. 1984. Orientations in language planning. NABE: The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education .12–34. Seargeant, Philip. 2005. Globalisation and reconfigured English in Japan. World Englishes 24. 309–20. Shohamy, E. 2006. Imagined multilingual schools: How come we don’t deliver? In Garcia, O., Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and M. Torres-Guzman (eds.) Imagining multilingual schools. Languages in education and globalization Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 171–83.

Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism

145

Silverstein, Michael. 1996. Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In Brenneis, D and R Macaulay (eds.) The Matrix of language: contemporary linguistic anthropology Boulder: Westview Press. 284–306. Simpson, James and Melanie Cooke. 2010. Movement and loss: progression in tertiary education for migrant students. Language and Education 24. 57–74. Times Higher Education (2010). Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2009: Top 200 world universities. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2009).Trends in tertiary education: Sub-SarahanAfrica. UIS Fact Sheet, July 2009, No. 01. Velez-Rendon, Gloria. 2003. English in Colombia: a sociolingustic profile. Special Issue of World Englishes 2. 185–98. Vertovec, Steven. 2006. The emergence of super-diversity in Britain. http://www.compas. ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/pdfs/Steven%20Vertovec%20WP0625.pdf (accessed 09 November 2010). Siân Preece is a Lecturer in TESOL education at the Institute of Education, University of London. She is interested in applied linguistics in educational settings and her research interests include linguistic and cultural diversity, language learning and widening participation and language and gender. She is the author of Posh Talk: Language and Identity in Higher Education and has published several articles on multilingual and gender identities. [email protected]

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings ANNE PAUWELS

Abstract In this paper I draw upon recent insights and advances in the study of gender in multilingual settings to analyse and discuss the constitutive role of language in gender performativity, more specifically in the performance of masculinities. A focus on men’s rather than women’s communicative behaviour and language choices in bilingual settings is motivated by a continuing dearth of studies of men as gendered beings. In this paper I present case studies of the linguistic choices and, to some extent, language practices of three Australian-born men whose parents had migrated to an urban setting in Australia. These case studies provide an insight into the complex interrelationship between linguistic choices and the performance of their masculinities in various settings and across different stages of life. A key finding emanating from this research concerns the centrality of the (male) peer group in shaping the linguistic choices these men make and how these may influence current and future bilingual practices, ultimately impacting on language maintenance efforts.

1. Gender research and multilingual settings In the past 2 decades significant advances have been made in the exploration and study of gender, gendered behaviour and gendered practices in bilingual settings and multilingual contexts (e.g., Burton et al. 1992; Gal 1991; Goldstein 2001; Pavlenko et al. 2001; Pujolar 2001; Rampton 1995; Trechter 2003; Winter & Pauwels 2005 to name but a few). This led to the observation by Piller and Pavlenko (2001:1–3) in their introduction to the arguably first comprehensive discussion of gender in the context of multilingualism and second language learning, that the gender-blindness from which much research into biand multilingualism suffered, is starting to disappear. Indeed until the 1990s

148

Anne Pauwels

focus and attention on the role of gender and sex in shaping, influencing or reflecting linguistic practices and choices in multilingual settings were minimal (with some notable exceptions, e.g., Callan and Gallois 1982; Gal 1978) and tended to operate with a concept of gender as a set of traits (based on biology) differentiating men and women. Differences in bilingual practices and choices, differential rates of language maintenance or shift were explained in terms of the social and cultural consequences of biological roles (e.g., for details Holmes 1993; Pauwels 1995, 1997). For example, immigrant women’s greater degree of language maintenance in a range of communities was linked to their (biology-based) role of primary carers for children and the aligned cultural role of primary bearers and transmitters of cultural and linguistic traditions. More recently, explanations of language practices based on essentialist concepts of gender, ethnicity, race and sexuality among others have been subjected to considerable scrutiny given their (significant) limitations. In relation to gender (and sexuality) the field of language and gender has been the main force in upping the level of theorising around these concepts (e.g., Butler 1990, 1993; Cameron 1997a; Eckert&McConnell-Ginet 1992), although it took some time before they were applied to multilingual settings due to a monolingual focus (‘monolingual bias’ according to Piller & Pavlenko 2001: 1) prevailing in language and gender research. Current work on gender and language favours a social constructionist or performative view of gender (e.g., Holmes & Meyerhoff 2003; McElhinny 2003) stressing the importance of “a more context-sensitive approach which treats gender as a system of social relations and discursive practices whose meaning varies across speech communities” (Piller &Pavlenko 2001: 3). Moving beyond gender as an essential category allows for a capturing of the fluidity, dynamics and permeability of gender across time, contexts and cultures:“If gender is viewed as a social, historical and cultural construct, then it comes as no surprise that normative masculinities and femininities, as well as beliefs and ideas about relations between sexes, may vary across cultures as well as over time within a culture” (Piller & Pavlenko 2001:22). To this description I would add that variation not only occurs ‘over time within a culture’ but also within a person’s lifespan. What is considered to be normative masculinity/ies or femininity/ies in adolescence may well be (very) different from those affecting an adult or an elderly person. Furthermore the consequences of transgressing normative masculinities or femininities tend to be different, not only according to culture but also depending on life stage.

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

149

2. Gender, adolescence and linguistic identity Much sociolinguistic research on language has revealed the centrality of adolescent speech behaviour in effecting language change (e.g., Labov 1972; Eckert 1989) as well as pinpointed the period of adolescence and young adulthood as a particularly crucial and salient stage in the formation of an individual’s linguistic identity (e.g, Eckert 2000, 2004; Hewitt 2003; Rampton 1995, 2006). For many young people across cultures and in all parts of the world this period marks the first major opportunity to shape, form and negotiate expressions of identity away from parental ‘control’ and to seek alignments of various kinds with one’s peer group. Often it is not only a period of rebellion or of resistance against norms, traditions and what may be considered hegemonic practices but also a period in which acceptance by one’s peers through affiliation with a variety of subcultures is of great importance. In multilingual settings choosing to speak one language or code over the other, or engaging in innovative, non-conformist linguistic practices vis a` vis the languages in one’s community are typical ways in which immigrant, bilingual, ‘ethnic’ and ‘minority’ adolescents as well as members of certain youth subcultures express and negotiate their identities linguistically (e.g., Bailey 2000; Cheshire et.al 2008; Maher 2005). Of particular importance during this period of transition from childhood to adulthood is the shaping of a gendered identity which involves a constant negotiation between desirable, desiring and normative performances of femininity and masculinity. Whilst these negotiations around gender affect adolescents in any kind of setting, those adolescents operating in multilingual and multicultural settings face the additional task of negotiating different cultural normativities associated with masculinity and femininity (Piller and Pavlenko 2001) often leading to very complex situations. For example, transgressing normative masculinity or femininity may be harshly sanctioned in one of their cultural spheres, yet seen as acceptable in their other cultural sphere. Thus attempts to resist normative femininity/masculinity as part of adolescent ‘rebellion’ in one culture may be simply perceived as normative gendered behaviour in the other culture. The case studies presented in this paper will show how three men have dealt with this complex transcultural negotiation of their masculinities and how this has impacted on their linguistic practices and language choices beyond adolescence.

3. Men’s language choices in multilingual settings Given the prominence of feminist approaches in the study of gender and language, it is understandable that the linguistic treatment of women has occupied

150

Anne Pauwels

centre stage for many years, both in monolingual and multilingual settings. After all, for many centuries women’s linguistic behaviour was seen as either aberrant and hence in need of explanation or as unworthy of attention. Since the 1990s increasing attention has been paid to studying and analysing men’s behaviour from a feminist perspective in an attempt to put gender back into men, i.e. to examine men as gendered beings. A collection of papers edited by Sally Johnson and Ulrike Meinhof (1997) has been instrumental in exploring men’s communicative practices and linguistic choices from this perspective. Central to this exploration is the need to recognise the dialectal nature of the relationship between femininity and masculinity and thus extend the social constructionist or performative notion of gender to the latter. This gives rise to “the notion of variable, contextualized ‘masculinities’ ” (Johnson 1997:20) because “There is no underlying reason why men as a group should be linguistically homogeneous. And there is no inherent reason why the discursive strategies used by individual men should be consistent - either from one situation, or even one utterance to the next” Johnson (1997: 21). This stance is not without its critics (both feminist and non-feminist). From a feminist perspective the criticism has focused on the impact that the recognition of heterogeneity in men’s behaviour, of multiple masculinities and the acceptance of a more complex view of masculinities have had on the issue of masculine hegemony (e.g., Griffin 1989). Taking this criticism into account Johnson (1997: 21) draws upon Robert Connell’s (1995) views that studying the multiplicity and diversity in masculine performances is not so much a question of learning to appreciate the diversity but for “understanding the way in which such variation plays a part in the overall construction of hegemonic masculinity”. Although there has been a recent increase in studies examining men’s communicative behaviour in multilingual settings (e.g., Pujolar 2001, Teutsch-Dwyer 2001) the majority of work examining the nexus between language practices and masculinities continues to be located in predominantly monolingual or monocultural settings (e.g., Cameron 1997b; Coates 2003; Kiesling 1989). With this paper I wish to make a further contribution to exploring the dynamics of language and masculinity in multilingual settings.

4. Gender and language dynamics in transitional bilingual settings In the following sections I present and discuss three case studies that explore and illustrate the interplay between language choice and gender (masculinities in particular) and how this may impact on questions of language maintenance. Within a framework of critical sociolinguistic studies of multilingualism (e.g.,

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

151

Heller 2007) they provide scenarios for more detailed and localised discussions of language identities assisting in identifying and refining language maintenance opportunities and restrictions. The issue of language maintenance arises foremost in societies where there is no tradition of stable bilingualism, either in practice or through policy. In many such societies, often characterised by a considerable migrant intake, the maintenance of the immigrant language is not considered a responsibility of the state but as that of the community in question (e.g., Ozolins 1993). Of course there is considerable variation amongst such societies in terms of their attitudes towards ongoing bilingualism and the amount of support or opposition they have vis a` vis language maintenance efforts (e.g., Lo Bianco 2007). Furthermore I have chosen to focus the case studies on members of the so-called second generation, i.e. children born and raised in the country to which their parent(s) migrated. Although the label ‘second generation’ to denote the locally-born children of migrants is increasingly subjected to debate (e.g., Winter & Pauwels 2007), there is a strong consensus among language scholars of the pivotal role this generation plays in shaping the language practices of future generations. Unlike their parents they are immersed from birth into the new linguistic environment and learn the dominant language of this new environment with relative ease. Within domains linked to family life, members of this second generation are usually exposed to the parental language(s) in which they gain varying levels of competence. Consequently, many children of migrants grow up bilingually. Of crucial interest in the study of language maintenance and shift is the question whether and how this second generation continues its bilingual practices and thus enables subsequent generations to access the language(s) of their ancestors. Not surprisingly, the examination of the language dynamics, linguistic choices and attitudes of this second generation has become a major research focus. Furthermore, though the case studies are not strictly speaking longitudinal, they do provide insights into these men’s linguistic practices from childhood through adolescence to (young) adulthood.

5. The Case studies 5.1. Data The data for these case studies have come from two large-scale projects investigating language practices in bilingual settings. The first project was a three year study of the language dynamics and the language maintenance patterns in two generations of three ethnolinguistic groups residing in Australia: German-

152

Anne Pauwels

Australians, Greek-Australians and Vietnamese-Australians. Data on their language use was collected mainly through questionnaires, interviews and participant observation. The second project (which is still in its pilot phase) plans to examine the language practices of Australians who have migrated or left Australia on a long-term basis. Although this is not a new phenomenon, to date there has been little systematic attention paid to this group of Australians or on the impact of increased outward migration and transnational mobility on Australian society. In a recent study by Hugo et al. (2003) these Australians are referred to as Australia’s diaspora. Within this group, my particular focus is on the Australian-born children of immigrants who move to live long-term in their parental home country. The modes of data collection include in-depth interviews, analysis of diaries, memoirs, blogs, etc., as well as questionnaires about various aspects of language use. To date in depth interviews with 4 participants have been undertaken and their questionnaire data have been analysed. Two case studies – Max and Con – have been drawn from the first project and the third case study – Roelof – comes from the second project on the language practices of the Australian diaspora. 5.2. Profiles of the three men: Max, Con, and Roelof Max is a German-Australian who was 32 at the time of the investigation (1993). He was born in Melbourne from German-born parents who had migrated in the early 1960s. Max has one sister who is three years younger. He was exposed to German in the home although his parents did not insist on him speaking German. In lower secondary school he learned German for three years but did not continue with it. Max is tertiary educated and works as an engineer in an automotive company which has quite a lot of contact with Germany.At university he met his partner who does not have a German background but who is keen for Max to teach her some German. According to Max she encourages him to use more German to his German friends and family. At the time of the interviews they had been together almost ten years. They do not have children yet. Max has regular contact with his parents, relatives and friends who are German-born or like him are children of German immigrants. His mother died seven years before the interview with Max. Con is a Greek-Australian who was 28 years old at the time of the interview (1993). He has one sister who is three years younger and he is engaged to a second generation Greek-Australian woman who is 25 years old. He still lives with his parents. He went to Greek school as a little boy and later attended Greek language classes run by the state school system. He sat a final year exam in Greek. He went to university where he studied law and is now working as a

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

153

solicitor in a firm that counts many Greek-Australians amongst its clientele. His friendship circle is a mixture of Greek-Australians and predominantly AngloAustralians. He has regular contact with his extended family including many cousins who are also second generation Greek-Australians. Roelof is a Dutch-Australian who was almost 45 at the time of the interview (2006). He was born in Melbourne, the youngest of 5 children two of whom were born in Australia. He grew up in a household in which a lot of Dutch was spoken and heard. Like Con, Roelof attended Dutch language classes run by the state school system between 12 and 18 and sat a final year exam in Dutch. He went to university to study agriculture. When he was 27 years old he went to live in the Netherlands to undertake a traineeship in the tulip industry as he was keen to set up a bulb-growing business in Australia. Initially he lived with his aunt and uncle whose two sons were Roelof ’s age and who were quite fluent in English. After his traineeship Roelof was offered a position in the export branch of the company and soon thereafter he moved into his own accommodation. After three years in the Netherlands he married a colleague. They stayed in the Netherlands for another 9 years and had two children. During his twelve years in the Netherlands Roelof maintained regular contact with his family in Australia including two return visits. He also had occasional visits from his Australian-based family and relatives. In 2000 Roelof decided to move his family to Australia, where they have been living ever since. 5.3. Linguistic skills and proficiency In an investigation about language choice in bilingual settings it is important to gain an understanding of the linguistic skills the participants have as well as an insight into how they rate their language skills. Although there is no direct relationship between language proficiency and language use, a participant’s actual and/or self-rated proficiency may influence the language choices they (can) make and the language practices they can engage in. Hence Roelof, Con and Max were asked to rate their proficiency in their ‘home’ languages – Dutch, Greek and German respectively. In addition the interviewer rated their proficiency in speaking, listening and reading based on their performance in the interview which also included some language tasks. The International Second Language Proficiency Scales (originally known as the Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings) developed by David Ingram and Elaine Wylie (Ingram & Wylie 1979) was used to undertake the ratings. It uses a 12-point scale ranging between 0 and 5 to rate each skill with 0 standing for no proficiency to 5 referring to native-like proficiency. The participants’ English language skills were not assessed given their educational trajectories (all had completed university-level

154

Anne Pauwels

education). The Table below summarises their self-rated and interviewer-rated language proficiency in three skills. Table 1. Self-rated and interviewer-rated language proficiency skills of 3 interviewees Participant Con Max Roelof

Self-rating: Speaking 2+ 1+ 2+

Self-rating: Listening 4 4 4

Self-rating: Reading 3 2+ 3

Rating: Speaking 2+ 2 2+

Rating: Listening 4 3 4

Rating: Reading 2+ 1 3

Overall, there is considerable consistency between the self-assessment and the assessment undertaken by the interviewer. Only Max’s self-ratings tend to be different from the interviewer ratings: he underrates his spoken proficiency whilst slightly overrating his listening and reading skills. Con slightly overrates his reading skills. Their ratings for speaking and listening, which are the key skills for making language choices, are between 2 and 2+ for speaking and between 3 and 4 for listening. In the ISLPR scale, ratings of 2 and 2+ for speaking entail basic social proficiency with the following description for 2. I speak X well enough to take part in face-to-face conversations with most background speakers and in telephone conversations describing familiar things and relating familiar events, and conveying my opinions fairly precisely ‘off the cuff’. I use a range of complex sentences. I often have trouble coming up with the vocabulary I need. I use a variety of constructions with clauses but I make mistakes in grammar, particularly when I am trying to express more complex ideas. Beyond basic courtesy forms I have limited ability to tailor my language.

The description for a listening scale of 3 states: I understand almost everything when I am participating in social conversations with background speakers of Indonesian on fairly complex and abstract topics (e.g. the extent to which a government should subsidise sporting activities). I can generally follow a conversation I overhear between background speakers (e.g. on a bus) even though I can’t understand some things that they say. I can use the telephone for most purposes and I understand most TV and radio news stories.

For a rating of 4 it is: I understand most things in the language, even things as difficult as complex radio documentaries with fast speech. However I tend to miss subtle plays on words or references to ‘deep’ aspects of the culture. I have difficulty with some accents. (ISLPR scale)

These ratings suggest that the participants have sufficient levels of proficiency in the home/community language to operate relatively comfortably.

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

155

5.4. Language practices in the family All three men grew up in a family where the community language (i.e. Dutch, German or Greek) was the main, if not sole language used for family interactions. In Con’s and Roelof ’s case, parents were quite insistent that they speak Greek/Dutch in the family. They were encouraged as well as reprimanded if they replied in English. Con describes his home situation as ‘completely Greek’, ‘all the time Greek at home’ whereas Roelof recalls that both his father and mother would feign lack of comprehension until he answered in Dutch. Max thinks he only spoke German before he went to school: ‘No, I don’t remember it myself but I was told it was German.’ As soon as he went to school his parents no longer insisted on him speaking German with them – ‘English and German was definitely spoken in the family. ’ Whereas parental lack of proficiency in English played a role in the language choices Con made, neither Roelof ’s and Max’ parents experienced (major) difficulties with English. Almost from the start English was the preferred language for communication with siblings, especially younger ones or those close in age to the participants, although the presence of parents could change that. In response to the interviewer’s question whether he would ever speak German with his sister, Max gives a categorical ‘ No I don’t’. Con claims to ‘mainly use English’ with his sister except if his parents are around, ‘then you speak Greek’. Three of Roelof ’s siblings are much older than him (10 to 15 years older) and he said that ‘he would follow their lead’ with regard to language use when he was in Australia. However, with Joost who is two years older than him and who was also born in Australia, he would always speak English except when his parents insisted on them speaking Dutch. By the time Max was 17 he spoke mostly English with his parents, ‘out of habit’ and German had become a language he heard rather than spoke in the home. For Roelof and Con, adolescence did not change the language dynamics within the family much with Dutch/Greek continuing to dominate the interaction with parents and English with siblings. For Max, a change came when his father became more dependent on him and his sister after his mother died –he was 25. His father had always spoken more German than his mother and now reverted even more to German. Max felt that he needed to speak more German with his father, yet he struggled as he was ‘not feeling confident enough’ to do so. This lack of confidence in speaking German seemed to be exacerbated when his younger sister was around. He felt that she seemed more fluent in German than him. He also remarked that his sister now wanted to speak German with him when his father was around although they had never spoken German to each other when younger. His reaction to this apparent

156

Anne Pauwels

change was to remain relatively silent in such interactions. Language choices with his father and sister have not changed dramatically since he moved out of the parental home and started sharing a home with his partner, a non-German speaker who is interested in learning German. In fact, when his sister visits them at home, his partner uses the occasion to practice some German with her, something his sister is happy to do. Sometimes Max joins in with a few German words but does not switch into German. During a participant observation session around an extended family get together (christening of a nephew) Max could be heard to speak in German with his father and some older relatives and older friends of the family when he was on his own with them. If they were joined by visiting relatives and friends from Germany (both young and old) he remained silent or responded in English. His sister on the other hand seemed to relish the opportunity to practice her German with them. Roelof moved out of the parental home when he was 19 and went to university. He recalls that little changed in terms of language use when he visited his parents but that his telephone conversations with his parents were usually bilingual: he spoke English and they spoke Dutch. Language use with his siblings remained the same when he met them in the parental home but changed almost completely to English outside of this location. His move to the Netherlands meant that there was almost no face-to-face contact with parents and siblings. When he called his parents he greeted them in Dutch and then usually switched to English. Upon arrival in the Netherlands his interactions with his aunt, uncle and other relatives irrespective of their age were predominantly in Dutch. Over time, despite being immersed in a Dutch-speaking environment, English became Roelof ’s main language of interaction with his cousins and other peer group contacts (see below). 5.5. Language practices and the peer group For many second generation Australians the use of the community language is associated primarily with interactions involving members of the first generation: parents, older relatives and family friends. In other words, it is the intergenerational language. In some families and communities, this practice continues to be influenced by the older generation’s limited competencies in English. In most cases though, it is linked to the older generation’s preference for the use of the community language in familial settings for a plethora of reasons. For peer group interactions involving friends, relatives and other members of the same ethnolinguistic group the preferred, if not unmarked language choice tends to be English, as most investigations into the language practices of the second generation in Australia have shown (e.g., Bennett 1990; Cavallaro 1997; Rubino

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

157

2006; Tsokalidou 1994). Peer group interactions and settings, especially during adolescence, provide opportunities to play and experiment with emergent linguistic and cultural identities, to explore questions of hybridity and in some cases escape the linguistic and cultural constraints of the home environment. These contexts are critical sites in the performances of gender which influence and shape linguistic practices. In bilingual settings the linguistic choices made in such sites can shape the future of the ‘minority’ language in the community, especially after the passing of the first generation. Con, Roelof and Max all have access to peer group interactions involving members of their ethnolinguistic group including relatives, friends and acquaintances. Con’s peer group networks often involve friends, relatives and acquaintances of Greek-Australian background. This is not surprising as the Greek community in Australia is both expansive and close-knit (Clyne 1991). Con’s friendship groups and networks have always included Greek-Australian peers because ‘this is kind of unavoidable in Melbourne’ according to Con. He recalls that when he first went to school he would sometimes seek out Greek kids so that he could speak Greek as ‘he got tired from concentrating on speaking English’. However, this changed rather rapidly and English became the default language among his Greek-Australian friends and peers, even whilst attending Greek school. Greek was spoken in the classroom but outside of the formal lessons, the students, including Con, reverted to English. Con commented that he started using more Greek with his friends, especially male friends, in high school, ‘we kinda used English with Greek words thrown in’. Con enjoyed this way of speaking with his friends, i.e. code-switching, and he engaged in it frequently even in the presence of non-Greek speaking friends. Con describes his language patterns in these settings as follows: –

‘it depends on the flow of the conversation sometime I I in that regard I found myself to tend to drift from both from both la. . . to from one language to the other’; – ‘it just depends on the flow of the conversation or the topic of the conversation whether you’re discussing Greek politics or you’re discussing [incomprehensible]. – ‘and, around friends, mostly English with a bit of Greek thrown in between’. Although Con felt confident about his proficiency in Greek, he did comment that he sought out opportunities to improve his Greek, especially by speaking with same age (male and female) visitors from Greece: –

‘I tend to enjoy the conversation in Greek, ah and mainly for the ah only . . . probably for a selfish reason that is I want to improve my own Greek and I

158

–

Anne Pauwels

enjoy having a fluent conversation in Greek with someone who is actually also fluent in Greek, and that tends to improve my own Greek’; ‘if there is someone from Greece I think because . . . even though they speak English, you . . . I personally feel that for my own sort of, at least it’s just, I enjoy the conversation more because they are so fluent in Greek that I enjoy the conversation and it allows my own development of the Greek language’.

Max also continues to have peer group networks that include German-Australians and German speakers. Yet he claims that interactions with such peers are almost entirely conducted in English. This was confirmed in the participant observation sessions comprising Max and his German-Australian friends and cousins. There was almost no evidence of any form of code-switching or codemixing to the extent that German placenames and names were pronounced in their Anglophone forms. Although Max’s friendship networks are ethnically more diverse than Con’s, he nevertheless continues to have a select group of close German-Australian friends and family with whom he meets regularly. Unlike Con, Max does not seize opportunities to improve his German when he meets up with more fluent language users. In fact he mentions that he consciously avoids speaking German with his peers, especially if he perceives them as being more competent in German. Interestingly, one of his best friends whom Max sees regularly, is perceived as a fluent speaker of German – ‘I have a friend who speaks it fluently’ – yet he never speaks German with him: ‘ The reason is I really just don’t feel confident enough’. Later on in the interview he elaborates on his reluctance to speak German to his peer group: ‘I suppose I don’t make a well maybe I do make a bit of a conscious effort in the sheer fact that I don’t have enough confidence to speak it so I suppose it would be and also I’d be very conscious of them judging the way I would be speaking German so therefore I don’t do it I guess.’ Although Max’s friendship networks give him regular opportunities to speak German he does not take advantage of these, apparently for fear of having his German competence judged as inadequate. His partner confirmed this and commented that it was particularly obvious with his male friends whom Max perceived as being more competent speakers. Only in situations where he is confident that his proficiency is better than that of his interlocutors is he willing to use German. For example, he mentions that he has done some basic translating for English-speaking monolingual colleagues at work: ‘ To try and interpret for someone else just you know um just to sort of to basically yeah try and get a message across’. Max restricts his use of German to situations where he is expected to speak German (i.e. with the older first generation) or where he feels that his proficiency outranks or is at least on a par with that of his interlocutors. As these situations occur less and less

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

159

frequently his use of German is likely to diminish considerably, possibly leading to complete language shift. Roelof ’s situation is more complex due to his move to the Netherlands where he is immersed in a Dutch-speaking environment. Yet his language choices are more akin to Max’s than to Con’s. Roelof recalled that he was not too apprehensive about having to speak Dutch ‘all the time’ when he moved to the Netherlands. He felt confident that he would manage the transition quite well and was looking forward to being immersed in a Dutch language environment. However, this changed quite dramatically after a few weeks living with his relatives in the Netherlands. His aunt and uncle did not speak English very well and he was comfortable speaking Dutch with them. In addition, they regularly praised him for having maintained Dutch so well and being so good at it. Interactions with his cousins, two brothers who were slightly younger than him (22 and 25 respectively) were initially in Dutch but soon switched to English. This seemed to be a combination of their ‘wish to practice English with me’ and Roelof feeling intimidated by their apparent fluency in English. He mentions that he felt ‘quite awkward’ when they made remarks like ‘just speak in English cause we understand and it’s easier for you’ when he was ‘trying to explain something complex’ in Dutch. Although they did not correct his mistakes, they ‘hurried me up’ by switching to English. Roelof mentions that their ‘English wasn’t that crash hot’ but that they did not seem to care about it and that they ‘feel confident using it’. As he got on well with the two brothers, he joined their network of friends and the same language pattern arose when interacting with these friends. He joked that ‘ I was like an English language guru to them’ but also admitted that ‘I am getting less confident about my Dutch’. Despite feeling that his Dutch language abilities had improved significantly since his arrival in the Netherlands, he grew less confident using Dutch with his friends and colleagues, especially if they were male, and with his cousins. This growing lack of confidence in his Dutch language skills triggered in Roelof the same reaction that Max displayed – withdrawal from the use of the community language. Whilst he did not withdraw from social situations or peer group interactions with Dutch speakers he seldom, if ever, used Dutch with them. He noted that in such encounters ‘they were happy for me to keep speaking English as long as I could understand what they were saying, which was not too difficult except if they spoke dialect’. Asked why he seemed more reluctant to use Dutch with male friends, he commented: ‘Somehow it feels that they are more critical, you know more . . . that you are you know less competent or something because they look up almost admire you when you speak fluent English, it gives you status.’ When he married a Dutch speaker, his use of Dutch increased in the home, although ‘a fair bit of English was spoken’. During this time he also started using more Dutch with his friends

160

Anne Pauwels

when they made home visits. However, he continued speaking English when he had ‘nights out with the boys’. 5.6. Language practices with the next generation Neither Con nor Max had children, nieces or nephews at the time of the interviews. It was therefore not possible to examine their language practices in relation to the next generation at the time. However, both Con and Max were contacted in 2007 to ascertain their current family situation. Neither was available for further interviews but Con reported that he had two young children and that Greek continued to be spoken in the family. Max reported that he had separated from his partner and that there were no children. On the other hand, Roelof at the time of the interview had two children allowing an insight into the question of language maintenance in this family. Roelof and his wife, Hanna mentioned that code-switching was their normal way of interaction before they had children. Roelof mentioned that he felt more at ease speaking Dutch with Hanna, especially in the home: ‘Speaking Dutch with her was fun and normal, no stress about getting it wrong.’ This changed again when they had their first child as both parents decided it would be good to raise the child bilingually. Roelof would speak English to the child and Hanna would speak Dutch. Both Roelof and Hanna commented that they were ‘pretty consistent in this pattern even when we had our second one’. The presence of two young children who spoke Dutch with their mother, relatives and friends did impact on the language for family communication: Dutch started dominating as the language of the family although Roelof continued speaking mainly English to his children. After moving his family to Australia, Roelof ’s use of Dutch diminished further with few situations calling for the use of Dutch. His children have become Englishdominant although they continue speaking some Dutch with their mother and also with their Netherlands-based relatives. The language of the family is predominantly English with little evidence of code-switching. Roelof ’s main use of Dutch is in communication (mainly via phone and video calls) with his Dutch in-laws. Roelof ’s parents have died and his contact with his siblings is almost entirely in English.

6. Men and language choice in multilingual settings These admittedly brief descriptions of these men’s reported language practices in the context of family and friendship settings offer an opportunity to gain insight into how their masculinities shape and are performed through the lan-

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

161

guage choices they make in multilingual settings. The men in these three case studies display some similarities: they are second generation men, they are well-educated, they had some formal instruction in the community language and their self-rated and tested language skills are comparable. Yet they are also markedly different in terms of ethnolinguistic background as they are part of very different ethnolinguistic communities in Australia. The Greek-Australian community is one of the largest ethnic communities in Australia with large concentrations and a relatively dense network along ethnolinguistic lines in major capital cities, especially Melbourne (e.g., Clyne 1991). Census data and research results point towards a community with high levels of language maintenance even in the second generation in comparison to many other groups. The Dutch and German communities in Australia are almost at the other extreme of the language maintenance spectrum. The Dutch community regularly tops the list of ethnolinguistic communities with the highest rate of language shift in both first and second generation. The German-speaking community also shows high rates of language shift in both generations but less so than the Dutch community (e.g., Clyne 1991). The language profiles of these three men are hence not at odds with those characteristic of their ethnolinguistic communities, although Roelof ’s case is probably the most atypical. However, the focus in this paper is not on how representative they are of their ethnolinguistic communities or on drawing comparisons between the men but on exploring and shedding light on how their performances of masculinity shape as well as are constitutive of their language choices. 6.1. Men and language use in the home: doing filial masculinity The three men grew up in families where the community language had a central place. It is very likely that their pre-school language experience was predominantly in that language. Even Roelof, who has four older siblings, is likely to have heard and spoken mainly Dutch. Upon school age English makes its presence felt in the lives of these men, not only in the school and outside the home but they also bring it home. For Con and Roelof, English is a lingua non grata in the home, at least when speaking to the parents, whereas Max’s parents seem to accept the entry of English in the home. Within the home environment the ‘filial’ side of their masculinity takes prominence and that side requires choosing and using the language preferred by the parents. Both Con and Roelof, even Max but to a lesser extent, accept this as part of their role and duty as sons of immigrant parents. Furthermore, this environment is also relatively secluded and hence a safe one in language terms: speaking Greek, German or Dutch in the home amongst family members does not pose risks to the preferred linguistic perfor-

162

Anne Pauwels

mances associated with projected masculinities outside the home. For Max who repeatedly mentions that he does not feel confident about using German, the home seems to be the only environment in which he dares use German without the threat of being exposed as ‘not competent’. Con’s home environment is probably the most conducive to the use of the community language not only because of his parents’ limited English language competence but also because the language associated with his filial duty enhances his masculinity within a wider network of Greek friends and relatives including his peers. For Roelof, speaking Dutch with his parents – at least when he was living in Australia – is an expression of being dutiful. This duty seems to fade when he is no longer in Australia and his contact is via the telephone. Doing filial masculinity involves the use of the community language to one’s parents, at least in the home. Although their preference may be to speak English to them for whatever reason, they tend to comply with the wishes of their parents and speak Dutch, Greek or German respectively. When doing filial masculinity does not intersect or interfere with other performances of masculinity that demand other language choices, these three men abide by the language associated with the home. 6.2. Men’s language choices in the peer group: risking masculinity or boosting masculinity? All three men have siblings as well as friends/relatives who belong to their peer group and with whom they share an ethnolinguistic background. Doing masculinity in these contexts is not bound by filial duties that demand the use of the community language. Yet these peers share common or similar experiences of language, culture, traditions and values associated with their migrant parents. It is foremost in interactions with these peers that questions of identity are explored: for many members of the ‘second generation’ language choices are central to the performance and expression of hybrid gendered identities or hyphenated belongings (e.g., Greek-Australian, Dutch-Australian, GermanAustralian). Outside the home the ‘Australian’component of their hybrid identity takes precedence, linguistically marked by the use of English as the preferred language including for communication among friends and other peers sharing the same ethnolinguistic background. Using the community language within these contexts is a marked choice that problematises the complexity of their gendered hybrid identities. For Roelof and Max the use of Dutch/German in these encounters poses a risk to their preferred projection of masculinity, which entails displays of competence including linguistic ability in the community language. For example, Max not only avoids speaking German with his friends

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

163

because he does not feel confident, but he even makes a conscious effort not to speak German with his best friend who is a fluent speaker. Despite the closeness of these two friends, the alleged linguistic superiority of his friend silences or mutes Max in speaking German. Although he does not avoid situations involving peers who are German speakers, he ensures his masculinity is not diminished by choosing English as his language of choice. This is also confirmed in his later interactions with his sister, who wishes to use more German to him but he refuses. Linguistic competence also marks Roelof ’s preferred masculine projection in peer groups. Despite receiving positive feedback about his Dutch language proficiency from his relatives (aunt, uncle and initially his cousins), he seems increasingly intimidated by the linguistic confidence his cousins display in their use of English. As a result of this Roelof starts losing confidence in his ability to speak Dutch to his peers and retreats from the use of Dutch in these encounters. His withdrawal from Dutch is motivated by a perceived loss of masculine status that is intertwined with notions of linguistic competence. His retreat into the linguistic comfort zone of English is a way of restoring a positive masculine identity. The restoration is aided by the fact that his Dutch cousins and friends like to improve their English. His status as a ‘native speaker’ of English imbues him with linguistic authority leading to a positive masculine identity. In both Max’s and Roelof ’s case the ‘muting’ or silencing is more pronounced in the context of male peers, suggesting that demonstrating or displaying linguistic competence in the community language is a critical aspect of performing masculinity in the company of other bilingual men, especially during adolescence and young adulthood. Con’s language choices and practices in peer group interactions are in marked contrast to those of Max and Roelof. Although English also occupies the status of ‘default’, even preferred language for communicating with Greek-Australian peers, Con clearly relishes opportunities in which he can improve his Greek. Unlike Roelof and Max, he is not intimidated by (male as well as female) friends’, visitors’ and colleagues’ superior linguistic fluency in Greek and welcomes engaging with them in Greek to improve his own proficiency. Con’s preferred projected masculinity in these settings also contains an element of competence, yet it is constructed as a desire to improve proficiency rather than as a display of superior proficiency. Hence using Greek, even if there is no ‘perfection’, and seeking ways to improve and practice is not a threat to his projected masculinity in these settings. In fact, these linguistic practices may boost his status as a Greek-Australian male, not only in his own eyes but also in those of his peer group as well as parents. Conversely, they do not undermine his status as an Australian-Greek male as his competence in English is beyond doubt.

164

Anne Pauwels

7. Men, masculinities and bilingualism Case studies are designed to allow for more in-depth, localised and individualised insights into particular forms of behaviour, practices and actions. These case studies have indeed revealed how Con, Roelof and Max live their bilingual lives and how language choices and practices shape and are shaped by their contextualised masculinities. Although all three men were judged to have sufficient proficiency and fluency in the community language to allow for meaningful interactions with community language speakers, they choose to manage this linguistic resource in different ways. Con engages in practices which are likely to boost his knowledge of the community language. Max and Roelof impose severe restrictions on their use of the community language. This is especially marked in the case of Roelof who moves to the Netherlands and is thus immersed in a Dutch language environment. Unlike Max and to some extent Con, Roelof has plenty of opportunities to boost this linguistic resource, yet curbs his use significantly, restricting it to interactions with older relatives and occasionally his wife. Underlying this behaviour by Roelof and Max seems to be a fear of exposing linguistic limitations in the company of (male) peers whose linguistic competencies are considered superior. I contend that for Max and Roelof a display of linguistic competence in German and Dutch respectively is a critical component of their masculine performance in such peer group settings. As exposing limitations in their linguistic competency is perceived as damaging their desired projection of masculinity, they retreat from the use of the community language to the safety of English. This was clearly voiced by Roelof when he mentions being granted ‘guru’ status by his cousins and their friends as a native speaker of English. Con’s behaviour is in marked contrast to that of Roelof and Max, as he relishes opportunities to display his knowledge of Greek in the peer group and seeks out ways of improving his competence in Greek through interactions with much more proficient speakers. It seems that for Con, using Greek (however imperfect) with one’s peers not only expresses the recognition of a shared identity but positively boosts his masculinity in the peer group. Of particular relevance to further study of gendered behaviour in bilingual settings is the pivotal role the peer group plays in influencing linguistic choices and practices. Although all three men have now reached middle age, their current linguistic behaviour has been shaped by the choices they made in adolescence and young adulthood. The latter in turn were significantly influenced by the role of language and language choice in the performance of their masculinities. In terms of language maintenance, it is likely that Roelof and Max may find it increasingly difficult to find safe settings for their use of Dutch/German, especially with the passing of the first generation. With time this lack of use is

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

165

likely to have an impact on proficiency, thus further reducing the chances of language maintenance. The performance of their desired masculinities have had a negative effect on their bilingual practices. Conversely, Con’s willingness to use Greek in a wide variety of settings and to seek improvement from more competent speakers undoubtedly puts him in a much better position to pass on the language to the next generation.

References Bailey, B. 2000. Language and negotiation of ethnic/racial identity among Dominican Americans. Language in Society 29. 555–582. Bennett, E. Jane. 1990. Attitudes of the second Dutch to language maintenance and ethnic identity. PhD Thesis, Monash University, Australia. Burton, Pauline, Ketaki Kushari Dyson & Shirley Ardener (eds.) 1994. Bilingual women: Anthropological approaches to second language use. Oxford/Providence: Berg. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. NewYork: Routledge. Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter. New York: Routledge. Callan, Victor & Cynthia Gallois 1982.Language attitudes of Italo-Australian and GreekAustralian bilinguals. International Journal of Psychology 17. 345–358. Cameron, Deborah. 1997a. Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics: Questions of sex and gender. In Ruth Wodak (ed.), Gender and discourse, 21–36. London: Sage. Cameron, Deborah. 1997b. Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In Sally Johnson & Ulrike H. Meinhof (eds.), Language and masculinity, 47–64. Oxford: Blackwell. Carr, Jo & Anne Pauwels 2005. Boys and language learning. Real boys don’t do languages. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cavallaro, Francesco. 1997. Language dynamics of the Italian community in Australia. PhD Thesis, Monash University. Cheshire, Jenny, S. Fox, P. Kerswill & E. Torgersen 2008. Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: Linguistic innovation in London. Sociolinguistica 22.1–23. Clyne, Michael. 1991. Community languages. The Australian experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coates, Jennifer. 2003. Men talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Connell, Robert W. 1995. Masculinities. Oxford: Polity Press. Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identities in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press. Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.

166

Anne Pauwels

Eckert, Penelope. 2004. Adolescent language. In Edward Finegan & John R. Rickford (eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century, 360–375. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eckert, Penelope &Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as a community-based practice.Annual Review ofAnthropology 21. 461–490. Gal, Susan. 1978. Peasant men can’t get wives: Language and sex roles in a bilingual community. Language in Society 7.1. 1–17. Gal, Susan. 1991. Between speech and silence: The problematics of research on language and gender. In Micaela Di Leonardo (ed.), Gender at the crossroads of knowledge, 175–203. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goldstein, Tara. 2001. Researching women’s language practices in multilingual workplaces. In Aneta Pavlenko, Adrian Blackledge, Ingrid Piller & Marya Teutsch-Dwyer (eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning and gender, 77–102. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Griffin, Christine 1989. Review of Brod, Kimmel and Connell. Feminist Review 33. Autumn. 103–105. Heller, Monica (ed.) 2007. Bilingualism: a social approach. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Hewitt, Roger. 2003. Language, youth and the destabilisation of ethnicity. In Roger Harris & Ben Rampton (eds.), The language, ethnicity and race reader, 188–198. London: Routledge. Holmes, Janet. 1993. Immmigrant women and language maintenance in Australia and New Zealand. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3.2. 159–179. Holmes, Janet & Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.) 2003. The handbook of language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell. Hugo, Graeme, D. Rudd & K.Harris 2003. Australia’s diaspora: Its size, nature and policy implications. Canberra: CEDA Information Paper No 80. Ingram, David & Elaine Wylie 1979. Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings. Mimeograph. Johnson, Sally. 1997. Theorizing language and masculinity: a feminist perspective. In Sally Johnson & Ulrike H. Meinhof (eds.), Language and masculinity, 8–26. Oxford: Blackwell. Johnson, Sally & Ulrike H. Meinhof (eds.)1997. Language and masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell. Kiesling, Scott F. 1998. Variation and men’s identity in a fraternity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2:1. 69–100. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lo Bianco Joseph. 2007. Contrasting and comparing minority language policy: Europe and Australia. In Anne Pauwels, Joanne Winter & Joseph Lo Bianco (eds.), Maintaining minority languages in transnational contexts, 78–104. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Risking or boosting masculinity? Men’s language choices in multilingual settings

167

McElhinny, Bonnie. 2003. Theorizing gender in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. In Janet Holmes & Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.), The handbook of language and gender, 21–42. Oxford: Blackwell. Maher, John C. 2005. Metroethnicity, language and the principle of Cool. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 175–176. 83–102. Ozolins, Uldis. 1993. The politics of language in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pauwels, Anne. 1995. Linguistic practices and language maintenance among bilingual women and men in Australia. Nordlyd 23. 21–50. Pauwels,Anne. 1997. The role of gender in immigrant language maintenance inAustralia. In Wolfgang W¨olck & Annick De Houwer (eds.), Recent studies in contact linguistics, 276–286. Bonn: D¨ummler Verlag. Pavlenko, Aneta, Adrian Blackledge, Ingrid Piller & Marya Teutsch-Dwyer (eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning and gender. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Piller, Ingrid & Aneta Pavlenko 2001. Introduction: Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender. In Aneta Pavlenko, Adrian Blackledge, Ingrid Piller & Marya Teutsch-Dwyer (eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning and gender, 1–16. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Pujolar, Joan. 2001. Gender, heteroglossia and power. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing:language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. Rampton, Ben. 2006. Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rubino, Antonia. 2006. Linguistic practices and language attitudes of second generation Italo-Australians. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 180. 71–88. Teutsch-Dwyer, Marya. 2001. (Re)constructing masculinity in a new linguistic reality. In Aneta Pavlenko, Adrian Blackledge, Ingrid Piller & Marya Teutsch-Dwyer (eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning and gender, 175–198. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Tsokalidou, Roula. 1994. Cracking the code: An insight into code-switching and gender among second generation Greek-Australians. PhD Thesis, Monash University, Australia. Trechter, Sara. 2003. A marked man: The contexts of gender and ethnicity. In Janet Holmes & Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.), The handbook of language and gender, 423– 443. Oxford: Blackwell. Winter, Joanne &Anne Pauwels 2005. Gender in the construction and transmission of ethnolinguistic identities and language maintenance in immigrant Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25.1.153–168. Winter, Joanne & Anne Pauwels 2006. Language maintenance in friendships: Second Generation German, Greek and Vietnamese migrants. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 180. 123–139. Winter, Joanne & Anne Pauwels 2007. Language maintenance and the second generation: Policies and practices. In Anne Pauwels, Joanne Winter & Joseph Lo Bianco (eds.),

168

Anne Pauwels

Maintaining minority languages in transnational contexts, 180–200. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Anne Pauwels is Professor of Sociolinguistics and Dean of the Faculty of Languages and Cultures at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Her research deals with the social and sociolinguistic aspects of language and communication, with particular attention to multilingual and transnational settings. Her main research foci include multilingualism, language maintenance/shift, language policy in relation to language learning in schools and universities as well as various aspects of the relationship between gender and language. Email: [email protected]

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition ANNICK DE HOUWER

Abstract A striking feature of young bilingual children’s language use is that there can be so much difference between the ways in which they use either of their languages and the levels of language skill in each. As I will argue, many of the differences between individual bilingual children’s use of their two languages can be attributed to differences in the language input environments for each of the languages. These language input environments concern, amongst others, language use patterns in the parent pair, age of first regular exposure to each language, relative and absolute frequencies of input for each language, and interaction strategies. Evidence for my claims will be based on a survey study of 3,390 bilingual children, a more in-depth study of 31 bilingual families, and findings from the literature. If indeed it is the case that differences in language input environments can explain much of the variation between one particular child’s use of two languages (and, by extension, inter-individual variation between bilingual children), this has important repercussions for the assessment of bilingual children in school and elsewhere.

1. Introduction It is a common observation that children under age 6 who started to learn a second language at age 4 or 5 make mistakes in that language, don’t know many words in that language, and speak that language much worse than children who are monolingual in that language. Usually, people outside the small circle of specialists who study young children’s language learning attribute this difference between these young “new” bilinguals and monolinguals to the very fact that the bilinguals are dealing with two languages. Typically, the learning opportunities

222

Annick De Houwer

that young “new” bilinguals had for learning their second language are not taken into account. This fact became very clear to me when I happened to speak to a speech therapist at a university hospital clinic in the mid 90s who explained that they were treating a four-year-old child from Ghana for a language learning disorder since the child did not speak any Dutch (the majority language). The speech therapist was well aware that the boy had only arrived in a Dutch-speaking environment two months previously. This speech therapist’s blatant “blindness” to the notion that children’s amount of experience with a second language may be an important explanatory factor in early second language acquisition (ESLA) reminded me of a similar sort of “blindness” in an American father of a girl (Lauren) who had been raised with English and Dutch from birth. However, Lauren heard English only about three hours a week (her father worked hard, and only spent a few hours’ time with Lauren on week-ends). When Lauren was three years old, the only words she said in English were “yes” and “no”. This enraged her father, who would not even consider the possibility that the amount of time he spent speaking English to her had anything to do with her own use of English (De Houwer 2009). Instead, he accused Lauren of rejecting him.1 Yet another example of blatant “blindness” to the idea that the language input environment may affect young children’s language learning is the case of Sven. Sven’s mother talked to me at a conference in Brussels. She was very worried about Sven. He was 4.5 years old and very unhappy. He hardly spoke. Yet when he was younger he had spoken Arabic fluently. This was when the family lived in Cairo (where Sven was born). His diplomat parents spoke Swedish to him from birth, but often were out so there was an Arabic-speaking nanny for Sven from the very start. At age two and a half, Sven was a happy little boy who spoke Arabic fluently, and who understood Swedish but hardly spoke it. Then the family moved to Brussels, where Sven was put in a French-English school. The nanny stayed in Cairo. As Sven’s mother explained to me, she and Sven’s father thought that adding two more languages would be great for Sven, so he would speak Arabic, Swedish, French and English. But in Brussels, Sven became very unhappy, and did not speak English or French, and hardly any Swedish. At the beginning his parents thought he just needed some adjustment, and they had heard of the “silent period” when children first come in contact with a second language. But when Sven continued to be pretty much silent Sven’s mother started to worry. Sven’s parents thought that Sven perhaps missed his nanny, so they invited the nanny to come to Brussels when Sven was 4.5 years old. They expected him to speak Arabic to the nanny and were very surprised that he could no longer even understand her, let alone speak Arabic. The nanny went back to Cairo. Sven’s mother spoke to me shortly after this disastrous visit

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

223

and didn’t know what to do. She was highly surprised to hear me suggest that Sven needed much more time to hear Swedish – she had interpreted Sven’s very low speaking skills in Swedish as the result of him being tired and unhappy at school, and neither she nor her husband had ever considered that the very small amount of time they spent with Sven speaking Swedish might have anything to do with his low Swedish speaking abilities. I also advised changing Sven’s school. Luckily there was a school in Brussels that offered Swedish (in addition to French). Through a mutual acquaintance I heard about a year later that Sven had changed considerably and was now speaking Swedish and French much better, and that he appeared much happier. So far, few systematic studies have been carried out to investigate the specific role played by the overall amount of language input in two languages to young children. However, there are a few studies that have looked at other global aspects of children’s language input environments in relation to bilingual development. Also, a comparison of different studies can yield important insights. It is the aim of this article to offer a brief review of some recent studies that have either implicitly or explicitly addressed the relation between language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition. “Language input environment” is the overall term I use to refer to a number of different aspects of the language input that children hear. These include, but are not limited to, the number of utterances children hear in a language, the length of time children have heard a language, the way languages are distributed among parents in a bilingual family, and the way parents respond to children’s choice of language. The first three all relate to input frequency (e.g., the length of time that a child will have heard a language is in fact a frequency measure), which is most likely the most important environmental factor in bilingual acquisition. Bilingual acquisition as understood here encompasses both Early Second Language Acquisition and Bilingual First Language Acquisition (both explained below). I focus only on language production, not on comprehension. Also, I limit my discussion to children who have not received any reading or writing instruction at school. This effectively limits the discussion to children up until around the age of 6.

2. Early Second Language Acquisition Monolingual children may become bilingual once they start to regularly hear a second language. Such children, if they are under age 6, are in the process of Early Second Language Acquisition (ESLA; De Houwer 1990, 1995, 2009). Recently, some studies have looked at the amount of time since the first day

224

Annick De Houwer

of exposure to a second language that it takes for pre-school age children to actually say more in the new language than just a few words or set formulas. Suzanne Schlyter reported that many Swedish-speaking preschoolers in a French-speaking school needed more than a year’s input in French before they started to say enough sentences in French for Schlyter and her colleagues to have enough material to analyse the children’s sentence structures (Schlyter & Granfeldt 2008). Likewise, 15 out of 35 L1 German children between the ages of 2;11 and 6;8 with daily input at a French-speaking school for 3 months to just over a year said either nothing in French, or just single word utterances (Meisel 2008). For those children who did produce French sentences Meisel (2008) found qualitative differences on the morphosyntactic level between the children in relation to the length of time they had heard French (data were analyzed for 10 children; see also Meisel 2009). Meisel (2009) suggests there is a large degree of interindividual variation between ESLA children in how fast they learn to speak a second language. This is most clearly shown in a study of three Turkish-speaking children who started to acquire German in an all-German-speaking preschool (Rothweiler 2006). After 15 months of hearing German four hours a day from the teacher and other children (excluding vacations and week-ends, presumably), one child on average said 2.9 words per sentence (the boy Furkan), another child 2.4 (the girl Ece), and yet another child only 2 (the girl Melisa). For children’s early language acquisition, the mean length of their utterances is an important indication of the structural complexity of their speech (Brown 1973). We can thus see that a similar amount of exposure time led to quite different levels of structural complexity amongst these three children (my interpretation of the Rothweiler data).2 If we compare the findings for the Turkish-German ESLA children reported on by Rothweiler (2006) to findings from children who have had exposure to German from birth, however, we see that at the same age, children with exposure to German from birth usually produce longer sentences than age-matched ESLA children with 15 months of exposure only. When Furkan produced an average of 2.9 words per sentence, he was 4 years old. At age 4, the children Marta, Aurelio, Jan, Lukas and Carlotta all had an average mean length of utterance in German between 3.7 and 5.5 (data from Cantone 2007; my comparison). When Ece said 2.5 German words per utterance on average, she was 4 years and 3 months old. At that age, the children Jan, Lukas and Carlotta had an average mean length of utterance between 3.8 and 4.8 (data from Cantone 2007; my comparison). Thus, at the same age, preschool children who had input in German from birth said much longer utterances than children who had heard German for only about the last third of their lifetime. This little comparison is only suggestive, of course,

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

225

and much more data from many more children need to be collected in order to make proper comparisons between ESLA children’s learning rate of their second language and the rate at which this language develops in children who heard it from birth. Also, other and more sophisticated measures than mean length of utterance need to be considered. Another point on which ESLA children may differ from children who have heard these ESLA children’s second language from birth is the types of language structures they use. ESLA children under age 6 are regularly reported to use morphosyntactic structures in their L2 that do not appear in the speech of children who have heard that L2 from birth (Ekmek¸ci 1994; Ervin-Tripp 1974; Fantini 1985; Li Wei 2011; Meisel 2008; Pfaff 1994; Tabors 1987; Wong Fillmore 1979; Zdorenko and Paradis 2007). While some of these structures show influence from ESLA children’s L1, other structures do not (e.g., Granfeldt et al. 2007). These qualitative differences between L2 structural use by children who have had much less time to learn this L2 than age-matched peers acquiring this language from birth are added evidence for the fact that the length of time that children under 6 have had to learn a language is of importance in bilingual development. Findings regarding the expressive vocabulary development of 19 young children acquiring English as a second language further suggest that the interaction between the length of time that children have had to hear their L2 and their chronological age is an important variable to take into account (Golberg et al. 2008). After 9 months’ exposure to English, the L2 learners studied by Golberg et al. used fewer different word types in production than age-matched learners who had heard English from birth. However, after 3 years’ exposure to English, the same L2 learners “used more different word types in production than younger native speakers who had had the same amount of exposure in English” (Golberg et al. 2008: 58). This suggests that older L2 learners can learn vocabulary faster. The different findings for different domains of language use show that the relation between language input and bilingual development can be different depending on the aspect of language use considered, but especially with children aged 4.5 or younger, the length of time that children have heard their new L2 is paramount, regardless of which domain is considered. This is of particular importance for applied settings such as preschools and the speech clinic. This point will be taken up again in the conclusion.

226

Annick De Houwer

3. Bilingual First Language Acquisition The children Marta, Aurelio, Jan, Lukas and Carlotta mentioned in section 2 all heard German from birth, indeed, but they had also all heard Italian from birth (Cantone 2007). As such, they were all going through a process of Bilingual First Language Acquisition (BFLA, De Houwer 1990, 2009; Meisel 1989). In BFLA children, the period of time they heard each of their two languages is the same for both languages, i.e., it coincides with their chronological age. If indeed the length of exposure to a language is so important, as suggested in the previous section, then one should expect BFLA children to develop their two languages at the same rate. There might well, however, be differences between children, just as there is individual variation among ESLA children (see earlier), but one would not expect much variation within one particular child. However, the facts are quite different. There may be quite a large difference between a BFLA child’s two languages.At one extreme, a BFLA child may speak only one language. Or a BFLA child may speak two languages, but may speak them at highly different levels of proficiency. Then there are BFLA children who, as one might in fact expect, speak both languages equally well (De Houwer 2009). The evidence to date suggests that much of this variation between a single BFLA child’s use of two languages finds its roots in children’s language input environments. 3.1. Speaking only one language, in spite of hearing two languages at home I first consider those BFLA children who speak only one language, in spite of the fact that they hear two languages at home from their parents. A survey study I carried out in Flanders, Belgium, was able to show that the precise pattern of parental bilingual language use plays an important role in deciding whether a BFLA child will speak two languages or just one. Amongst others, the survey looked at the language use of 3,390 BFLA children in dual-parent families between the ages of 6 and 9 and their siblings. These children were growing up in a home in Flanders where the parents spoke Dutch (the majority language used also at school) and another (minority) language X, which could be any of the 73 languages reported in the survey. Only 75% of the children spoke both Dutch and language X. A full quarter of the 3,390 children spoke just Dutch. I found that the language distribution within the parent pair plays a big role in explaining why so many children spoke only Dutch (De Houwer 2007, 2009). Those bilingual families where children ended up speaking just the majority language, Dutch, tended to be families where both parents used the majority

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

227

Table 1. Language distribution in the parent pair and children’s bilingual use Parent 1 speaks

Parent 2 speaks

the children speak two languages

NL + X NL + X NL NL + X

X NL + X X NL

97% 79% 73% 34%

NL = the majority language, Dutch; X = any other language (the minority language)

language at home, and only one parent used the minority language (Table 1). Parents who both spoke the majority as well as the minority language at home and parents who both spoke the minority language at home, with one parent in addition using the majority language, had much better chances of having children who spoke both the majority and the minority language. Most likely there are several contributing elements that can explain the findings from the survey but the most important one may be related to how often children hear each language, that is to frequency of input: if only one parent speaks the minority language, but in addition that same parent also speaks the majority language, there may be less input in the minority language than in families where both parents speak the minority language (in addition to one or both also speaking the majority language). Secondly, families where both parents speak the minority language at home may create much more of an environment conducive to using that minority language. After all, the family already has two members speaking that language rather than just one. Parents may also be more inclined to speak the minority language amongst themselves. These are certainly issues to be further explored. The fact that a much smaller but also much more detailed survey in another country with another majority language (Japanese) found very similar results (Yamamoto 2001) strongly suggests that the specific majority-minority language constellation involved is not a major factor that explains why many children raised bilingually speak only one language. Another reason why BFLA children may speak only one language while hearing two at home is that there is no particular pressure for them to actually speak two languages. Parents may answer a child’s question in Spanish with a response in German, if that is the language they usually use with their toddler. These parents are using what Lanza (1997) has termed “bilingual discourse strategies”, i.e., conversational patterns that allow the use of two languages within a conversation. Other bilingual parents may be much less tolerant of the use of two languages within a conversation, and socialize the child into using mainly one language within a stretch of discourse. These bilingual parents use what is termed “monolingual discourse strategies” (Lanza 1997).

228

Annick De Houwer

Although so far there have not been enough studies documenting these discourse strategies and their possible effect on children’s language use, it is very likely that if parents use mainly bilingual discourse strategies, and allow the child’s use of “the other” language Alpha, children have no need for speaking language A, and will become part of that large group of children raised bilingually who understand two languages but speak only one. Finally, it should be emphasized that the language that “wins” in a BFLA setting where children speak only one language tends to be the majority language (see also, e.g., Yamamoto 2001). I have so far not heard any reports of BFLA children who only spoke the minority language, in spite of hearing a majority and a minority language at home, and the same majority language at school. The survey study I discussed in this section also shows quite clearly that the so-called ’one person, one language’ strategy (1P/1L) does not necessarily lead to success, that is, to children who actually speak two languages: in 27% of the families where one parent spoke Dutch, and the other parent another language, the children did not speak that other language (Table 1). Earlier, Patterson (1999) had already investigated the role of parental input strategy in Spanish-English bilingual families in the U.S.A. She looked at the relation between the use of mixed utterances by a group of 102 bilingual toddlers and parental input strategies. She found no difference between the use of mixed utterances by children from homes where parents used the 1P/1L approach and by children from homes where both parents adressed children in both languages (1P/2L). Patterson also examined the role of language presentation in function of children’s first use of word combinations, an important milestone in child language development. Again, she found no differences between children from homes where both parents adressed them in both languages and children from 1P/1L homes in whether children had reached this important milestone or not. It would appear, then, that the supposed superiority of the 1P/1L parental input strategy is not supported by the actual empirical evidence. 3.2. BFLA children who speak one language markedly better or more than the other one Recently, studies of BFLA have started to pay more attention to BFLA children who speak one language markedly better than the other one. Leopold (1970, but first published during WWII) already reported on such a child, German-English Hildegard, but it wasn’t until the late 90s that studies started to appear that paid more attention to this uneven development of a BFLA child’s two languages (De Houwer 2002).

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

229

Pearson et al. (1997) were the first to explicitly investigate why some BFLA children seem to develop at the same pace in both languages while others do not. They tried to explain differences between the number of different words that Spanish-English BFLA children produced in either language by referring to whether there was a difference in the overall proportion of input in each language or not. This proportion was obtained by asking parents what proportion of the time their child heard each language. Using this input measure of relative frequency that Pearson et al. themselves called ’crude’, the authors were able to show that the more children heard Spanish rather than English, the more Spanish words they knew, and the other way round. Children who heard Spanish about equally often as English did not show major differences between the number of Spanish and English words in their production repertoire. In a similar vein, Chan and Nicoladis (2010) report a larger proportion of Mandarin words in the first 50 word production repertoires of two BFLA boys who heard markedly more Mandarin than their other language, English. In a study that looked only at one of bilingual children’s two languages, viz., Basque, Barre˜na et al. (2008) found similar evidence. They found that children with less than 60% input in Basque produced fewer words in Basque than children with more than 60% input in Basque. Looking at another area than lexis, Parra et al. (2011) found evidence that relative frequency of input to young Spanish-English bilingual children could explain some of the variance in the children’s phonological memory skills in each language. Although these studies are highly suggestive, relative frequency is ultimately a by-product of absolute frequency of input, i.e., of how often children hear utterances and words in each of their languages. It is not unlikely that the relative frequency effects found so far are in fact by-products of underlying differences in absolute frequency. The absolute frequency with which children hear a language was found to be of utmost importance for young children’s lexical development in a monolingual setting. Hart and Risley’s (1995) longitudinal study of 42 English-speaking monolingual families found that children in families where there was a lot of adult talk knew many more words than children in families that talked much less overall. The influence of the sheer number of words that children heard per time unit was much more important, for instance, than the manner in which adults addressed children (note that, as recently summarized by Hoff (2006), the frequency with which people talk to children will have various repercussions for many other important aspects of child directed speech). For bilingual acquisition there to my knowledge so far has been only one study that has published conversational input data on several bilingual families

230

Annick De Houwer

and their children’s language development. The data are based on longitudinal recordings of natural conversations in the home for each of five child-caregiver pairs and comprise a total of 24,755 transcribed utterances (Allen et al. 2002; this study is summarized in Allen 2007). The families speak English and Inuktitut. Allen et al.’s (2002) study was not focused on finding links between the input data and the children’s speech. However, their study contained sufficient detail for me to be able to attempt such an analysis (De Houwer 2009: 124). This analysis revealed that the more the caregivers in each family talked, the more their children talked. This confirms Hart and Risley’s suggestion that verbose caregivers will generally have verbose children. More interesting from a bilingual perspective, however, is that the rank orders for the two languages separately show great similarities between the adult caregivers and the children in each family. In Table 2, I show a new analysis based on Allen (2007). I computed the absolute numbers of utterances in English and Inuktitut based on the percentages in these tables (henceforth “absolute frequencies”). I did this for both the adult caregivers and the children in each of the 5 families. Table 2. Absolute frequencies of adult caregiver and child utterances in English and Inuktitut in 5 families (based on Tables 2 and 3 in Allen 2007) family AI SR PN SA AW

English child 1231 (1) 1015 (2) 721 (3) 707 (4) 324 (5)

Inuktitut adults 1584 (2) 1717 (1) 1091 (3) 721 (4) 628 (5)

child 1102 (2) 135 (5) 192 (4) 800 (3) 1427 (1)

adults 2087 (3) 558 (5) 889 (4) 2499 (2) 3998 (1)

Note: the numbers between brackets refer to the rank orders

For English, Table 2 shows a near perfect match between the rank orders for the children and the adults. There just is a reversal for two rank orders that differ in only one point: children AI and SR have rank orders (1) and (2), whereas their respective caregivers have rank orders (2) and (1). Similarly, for Inuktitut there also is a near perfect match, with again a reversal for two rank orders that differ in only one point: children AI and SA have rank orders (2) and (3), whereas their respective caregivers have rank orders (3) and (2). Thus, caregivers who spoke more English compared to others had children who spoke more English, and caregivers who spoke more Inuktitut compared to others had children who spoke more Inuktitut.

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

231

Admittedly, the analysis here is quite crude, but it does suggest that it is worthwhile to start to look for absolute frequency effects for the two languages that bilingual children are acquiring. Looking at only 5 families is not enough, however. The chance is too high that what one finds is a pure coincidence. One needs to look at larger groups of children in order to make reliable comparisons. In an ongoing study that I am carrying out in cooperation with Dr. Marc Bornstein, Child and Family Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, USA, we developed a language diary that allowed us to obtain reliable estimates of the number of waking hours per day that a group of 31 BFLA Dutch-French children between the ages of 5 and 20 months heard in Dutch and French. We also obtained data for times when both languages were being used in the same conversational setting. As we reported earlier (De Houwer and Bornstein 2003), we found great differences between families in the amounts of time that children heard just one of the languages, or both of them in a single conversational setting. We also found that in this period of 15 months there were great fluctuations in the amount of time individual children heard their two languages. This fluidity appears to be quite normal in a bilingual setting: based on an overview of various reports on individual children in several bilingual families in different countries and speaking different languages and different language combinations, I showed that a temporary increase or decrease in the contact that bilingual children have with each of their languages is quite common (De Houwer 2009). What’s more, such changes appear to have quite an immediate effect on children’s language use. Children may suddenly start to speak one of their languages much more, and at a higher level of complexity, or, conversely, they may start to speak a language much less, and less well. Place (2009) undertook a similar study to that of De Houwer and Bornstein (2003) for 31 English-Spanish bilingual families in Florida, USA. Using the language diary developed for the Dutch-French study, Place asked caregivers to record language exposure information for one week when the children in the bilingual families were 25 months of age. Place found that the presence of English was overwhelming in these families, in spite of parents’ commitment to bilingualism.3 For the Dutch-French language diary study, we also obtained measures of the number of different words that the 31 BFLA children produced in Dutch and French (for further information on this group of children and on the lexical measures used, see De Houwer et al. 2006 and De Houwer 2010). Preliminary (hitherto unpublished) results for 15 of the 31 bilingual toddlers at age 20 months show strong trends suggesting that the more often children hear a particular

232

Annick De Houwer

language spoken, the more words they will produce in that language (De Houwer 2006b). Table 3 presents the relations between the number of contact hours for either Dutch or French and the number of words produced in either language. I first express this relation in terms of the number of children who, compared to the others, were (a) above or (b) below the median as far as the number of hours they heard French and Dutch was concerned. Then within each group (a and b), I plotted the number of children who were above or below the median for word production. Table 3. The relation between absolute input frequency in a language and the number of words that children produce at age 20 months French contact hours words produced number of children

(a) above the median

(b) below the median

above the median below the median above the median below the median 7

1

1

6

Dutch contact hours words produced number of children

(a) above the median

(b) below the median

above the median below the median above the median below the median 6

2

2

5

The shaded cells in Table 3 show how most of the children with the higher number of hours of input in French also produced the most French words (7 out of 8 children), and how most of the children with the lower number of hours of input in French also produced the least French words (6 out of 7 children). The same picture applies to Dutch. These preliminary results are encouraging, and we plan to continue working with these data to see whether the trend we see so far is confirmed for the entire group of children.

4. Absolute and relative frequency of input in bilingual settings Ever since Pearson et al. (1997) showed that the relative proportion of input in two languages to bilingual children may have an effect on the number of words they produce, scholars reporting on bilingual children have started to describe children’s language environments in terms of the estimated proportion of input in each language. This has definitely been an improvement over the situation earlier, when often bilingual learning environments were not described at all (see De Houwer 1990 for a critique). Giving a rough estimate of proportions of use of

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

233

each language is perhaps easier than giving an indication of the average number of hours per day that a child hears each language. Nevertheless, describing bilingual children’s language learning environments in terms of absolute amounts of input is most likely more informative. Compare, for instance, the language input information in the English-Inuktitut study by Allen et al. (2002) and Allen (2007). In Table 4 I have plotted the amount of input in the 5 families studied in these publications in terms of both absolute and relative frequency. Table 4. The same input information expressed in both absolute and relative terms (based on Tables 2 and 3 in Allen 2007) family AW SA AI PN SR

caregivers’ English absolute relative 628 (5) 13.3 721 (4) 20.9 1584 (2) 39.7 1091 (3) 50.9 1717 (1) 72.7

caregivers’ Inuktitut absolute relative 3998 (1) 84.6 2499 (2) 72.4 2087 (3) 52.3 889 (4) 41.5 558 (5) 23.6

Note: the percentiles do not add up to 100% because mixed utterances were not taken into account; the numbers in brackets refer to rank orders in a vertical comparison

One of the assumptions when scholars refer to relative proportions of language input in two languages is that a 50–50 distribution is ideal. In Table 4 we see one family that comes close to this “ideal”: family PN. For this family, one would expect the child to develop the two languages in a “balanced” way, and one would not expect large differences between the child’s two languages. As I show in Table 5, there is no such “balance” in evidence for the child in family PN (with a 3/4 to 1/5 distribution for both languages; mixed utterances are not included). Furthermore, we see a “balance” in child SA that comes as a surprise compared to the very “unbalanced” input distribution of 21–72% for the caregivers in family SA. Table 6 shows the numerical point differences between the relative use of either language by caregivers and children. A large point difference reflects a much stronger use of one language over the other; a small point difference indicates much more of a balance. Compared to each other, again a rank order can be established amongst the 5 families. Table 6 shows that this rank order is very different for the caregivers and the children. Thus, the relative frequency of use of either language by the caregivers in the 5 English-Inuktitut families does not predict the relative frequency of use of each language by the children

234

Annick De Houwer

Table 5. Children’s language use expressed in absolute and relative terms (based on Tables 2 and 3 in Allen 2007) family AW SA AI PN SR

children’s English absolute relative 324 (5) 18.3 707 (4) 45.0 1231 (1) 47.6 721 (3) 76.2 1015 (2) 84.2

children’s Inuktitut absolute relative 1427 (1) 80.6 800 (3) 50.9 1102 (2) 42.6 192 (4) 20.3 135 (5) 11.2

Note: the percentiles do not add up to 100% because mixed utterances were not taken into account; the numbers in brackets refer to rank orders in a vertical comparison Table 6. Point differences between the relative frequency of use of English and Inuktitut (based on data in Tables 2 and 3 in Allen 2007) family AW SA AI PN SR

caregivers 71.3 (1) 51.5 (2) 12.6 (4) 9.4 (5) 49.1 (3)

children 62.3 (2) 5.9 (4) 5.0 (5) 55.9 (3) 73.0 (1)

Note: the numbers in brackets refer to rank orders in a vertical comparison

in these families. This stands in stark contrast to the rank orders for the absolute frequency of input as discussed earlier. These were virtually identical. Of course, the above comparison again is quite crude, but is does suggest that using absolute measures of input frequency might have more explanatory power than relative measures of input frequency. It should also be noted that the comparisons here are based on very different kinds of data than the ones examined by Pearson et al. (1997). The latter referred to reported data only and to the number of different words children knew, whereas the English-Inuktitut data are based on transcriptions of recorded conversations and refer to the number of utterances said in a particular language.

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

235

5. Conclusion When I spoke to Lauren’s father in the early ’80s, to the speech therapist in the 90s, and to Sven’s mother not even 10 years ago, I could only respond to them based on my conviction and common sense that in a bilingual setting children’s opportunities to learn each language matter a great deal. I am not sure that the totality of the studies so far that have addressed links between bilingual children’s language learning environments and the bilingual development process offer enough empirical support for this as yet. However, the results of the various studies so far are quite suggestive. The findings from both ESLA and BFLA with regard to the opportunities that children have had to learn their two languages, either as a function of the amount of time they have had to hear a particular language or as a function of the language choice patterns they have encountered, strongly suggest that frequency of input is indeed a highly important factor. Simply put, the more young children have heard a particular language, the more chance there is they will learn to speak a particular language, and to speak it well. This last point is important for bilingual families to realize: if they are keen on raising children who speak two languages fluently and have a large vocabulary in each, children must be given the opportunity to learn. This means that parents should speak to their children a whole lot. Frequent book reading is also an excellent tool to boost bilingual development. In clinical practice, whenever there is concern about bilingual children’s level of language development, care should be taken to assess children’s past language learning opportunities. Insufficient input in one of the two input languages may be part of the cause for what may look like delayed development in one of them (De Houwer 2006a). In ESLA situations, children must be given the opportunity to hear their second language very frequently. For the organization of nursery schools with second language learners it thus becomes important to create a multitude of different settings in which individual children hear the new language. This includes creating many situations where young second language learners interact with children who speak the second language already. This is not easy, especially if there are children in the classroom who share the same L1. Yet it is these peer interactions through which children can learn a great deal. Hearing the new language just through a few remarks from the teacher and a short story every day is not enough. Obviously, there are different factors besides amount of input that play a role. It is my firm belief, however, that if bilingual children have had a lot of opportunities to hear and engage in each of their two languages, they will soon become fluent speakers of both.

236

Annick De Houwer

Notes 1. When I asked the father why he thought that the amount of time a child hears a language should not matter, he replied that this is what Noam Chomsky said (the father had an M.A. in Translation Studies and had taken Linguistics courses); I spoke to Lauren’s father in the early 80s. 2. The individual differences between these three children are most likely a result of differences in their personalities, ability to perceive new sounds, their L1 proficiencies and much more; however, this issue goes beyond the aim of the present paper. 3. In a follow-up study (Place & Hoff to appear), various aspects of the children’s language exposure are related to aspects of their language development. However, at the time of preparation of the present article the text was not yet available.

References Allen, Shanley. 2007. The future of Inuktitut in the face of majority languages: Bilingualism or language shift? Applied Psycholinguistics 28. 515–536. Allen, Shanley, Fred Genesee, Sarah Fish & Martha Crago. 2002. Patterns of code mixing in English-Inuktitut bilinguals. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston & S. Neuvel (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 2), 171–188). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Barre˜na, Andoni, Maria-José Ezeizabarrena & I˜naki García. 2008. Influence of the linguistic environment on the development of the lexicon and grammar of Basque bilingual children. In Carmen Pérez-Vidal, María Juan-Garau & Aurora Bel (eds.), A portrait of the young in the new multilingual Spain. Issues in the acquisition of two or more languages in multilingual environments, 86–110. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language. The early stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cantone, Katja. 2007. Code-switching in bilingual children. Dordrecht: Springer. Chan, Wai Han & Elena Nicoladis. 2010. Predicting two Mandarin-English bilingual children’s first 50 words: Effects of frequency and relative exposure in the input. International Journal of Bilingualism 14(2). 237–270. De Houwer, Annick. 1990. The acquisition of two languages from birth: a case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Houwer, Annick. 1995. Bilingual language acquisition. In Paul Fletcher & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), Handbook of child language, 219–250. London: Blackwell. De Houwer, Annick. 2002. Uneven development in bilingual acquisition. Keynote lecture presented at the Joint meeting of the IASCL and the SRCLD, Madison, U.S.A., 16–21 July.

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

237

De Houwer, Annick. 2006a. Die Bedeutung des Inputs für die Evaluation der Sprachkompetenzen bilingualer Kinder. Keynote lecture presented at the Jahrestag, Deutscher Bundesverband für Logopädie, Berlin, Germany, 13–14 September. De Houwer, Annick. 2006b. Input factors affecting bilingual development. Invited plenary lecture, Language Acquisition and Bilingualism Conference, Toronto, Canada, 4–7 May. De Houwer, Annick. 2007. Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics 28(3). 411–424. De Houwer, Annick. 2009. Bilingual First Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Houwer, Annick. 2010. Assessing lexical development in Bilingual First Language Acquisition: What can we learn from monolingual norms? In Madalena Cruz-Ferreira (ed.), Multilingual norms, 279–322. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. De Houwer, Annick & Marc H. Bornstein. 2003. Balancing on the tightrope: language use patterns in bilingual families with young children. Fourth International Symposium on Bilingualism, Tempe, Arizona, USA, April 30–May 3. De Houwer,Annick, Marc H. Bornstein & Sandrine De Coster. 2006. Early understanding of two words for the same thing: A CDI study of lexical comprehension in infant bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism 10(3). 331–347. Ekmek¸ci, Özden. 1994. Bilingual development of English preschool children in Turkey. In Guus Extra & Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), The cross-linguistic study of bilingualism, 99–112. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1974. Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly. 111–127. Fantini, Alvino. 1985. Language acquisition of a bilingual child: a sociolinguistic perspective (to age ten). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Golberg, Heather, Johanne Paradis & Martha Crago. 2008. Lexical acquisition over time in minority first language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics 29. 41–65. Granfeldt, Jonas, Suzanne Schlyter & Maria Kihlstedt. 2007. French as cL2, 2L1 and L1 in pre-school children. In Jonas Granfeldt (ed.), Studies in Romance bilingual acquisition – Age of onset and development of French and Spanish, 7–42. Lund, Sweden: Lunds Universitets Spr˚ak- och Litteraturcentrum. Hart, Betty & Todd Risley. 1995. Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Hoff, Erika. 2006. How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review 26. 55–88. Lanza, Elizabeth. 1997. Language mixing in infant bilingualism. A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Leopold, Werner. 1970. Speech development of a bilingual child. A linguist’s record. New York: AMS Press. (Original work published 1939–1949) Li Wei. 2011. The early acquisition of English as a second language: The case of young Chinese learners of English in Britain. In Annick De Houwer & Antje Wilton (eds.),

238

Annick De Houwer

English in Europe today: Educational sociocultural perspectives, 105–122. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Meisel, Jürgen. 1989. Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Kenneth Hyltenstam & Loraine Obler (eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan. Aspects of acquisition, maturity and loss, 13–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meisel, Jürgen. 2008. Child second language acquisition or successive first language acquisition? In Belma Haznedar & E. Gavruseva (eds.). Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective, 55–80. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Meisel, Jürgen. 2009. Second language acquisition in early childhood. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28. 5–34. Parra, Marisol, Erika Hoff & Cynthia Core. 2011. Relations among language exposure, phonological memory, and language development in Spanish-English bilingually developing two year olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 108. 113–125. Patterson, Janet L. 1999. What bilingual toddlers hear and say: Language input and word combinations. Communication Disorders Quaterly 21(1). 32–38. Pearson, Barbara Zuerer, Sylvia Fern´andez, Vanessa Lewedeg & Kim D. Oller. 1997. The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics 18. 41–58. Pfaff, Carol. 1994. Early bilingual development of Turkish children in Berlin. In Guus Extra & Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), The cross-linguistic study of bilingualism, 75–97. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Place, Sylvia. 2009. Influences on toddlers’ dual language exposure in bilingual homes. Poster presented at the 2009 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2–4 April. Place, Sylvia & Erika Hoff. to appear. Properties of dual language exposure that influence two-year-olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Development. Rothweiler, Monika. 2006. The acquisition of V2 and subordinate clauses in early successive acquisition of German. In Conxita Lle´o (ed.), Interfaces in multilingualism, 91–113. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Schlyter, Suzanne & Jonas Granfeldt. 2008. Is child L2 French like 2L1 or like adult L2? Paper presented at IASCL 2008, The XI Congress of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, July 28-August 1. Tabors, Patton. 1987. The development of communicative competence by second language learners in a nursery school classroom: An ethnolinguistic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston: Harvard University. Wong Fillmore, Lily. 1979. Individual differences in second language acquisition. In Charles Fillmore, D. Kempler & W. Wang (eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, 203–228. New York: Academic Press. Yamamoto, Masayo. 2001. Language use in interlingual families: A Japanese-English sociolinguistic study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Zdorenko, Tatiana & Johanne Paradis. 2007. The role of the first language in child second language acquisition of articles. In A. Belikova, L. Meroni & M. Umeda (eds.),

Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition

239

Galana 2: Proceedings of the Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America 2, 483–490. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Annick De Houwer (PhD, Free U. of Brussels) is Professor of Language Acquisition and Teaching at the University of Erfurt in Germany. She is also Director of the Language Center there and of the European Bilingual Studies Group, ERBIS. Her research specialty is early bilingual acquisition but she has also published on Dutch child language, teen language, and intralingual subtitling. Her most recent publications include Bilingual First Language Acquisition (2009, Multilingual Matters). Email: [email protected]

The role of phonemic awareness in early L2 reading for adult English language learners: Pedagogical implications MARGO DELLICARPINI

Abstract This paper reports on part of a larger study investigating the role of phonemic awareness (PA) and decoding ability in second language (L2) reading development among adult English language learners who have not mastered reading in their native language. The data reported in this paper were part of a larger longitudinal study that investigated a variety of factors related to initial reading development for adult L2 learners of English. A group of 26 participants enrolled in adult ESL education classes in the United States were followed for one year and assessed on measures of phonemic/phonological awareness and decoding ability. The results of this study document the relationship between phonemic/phonological awareness and L2 beginning reading in English for adult learners and provide evidence for similar relationships existing between phonemic/phonological awareness and early reading for adult learners and children learning to read in English. While reading and literacy development are complicated, the findings of this study suggest the importance of the decoding process for adult learners in the beginning stages of ESL reading. Key Words: Adult Education, English as a Second Language, Literacy Development, Phonemic Awareness, Phonological Awareness, Reading Research, Second Language Reading.

1. Introduction Growing numbers of adult learners whose native language is not English are in need of reading instruction at the adult education level. The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (2005) reported that

242

Margo DelliCarpini

43.8% of the participants in federally funded adult education during the 2003– 2004 school year were English language learners (ELLs). Of this number, 50% participated in either beginning literacy or beginning level ESL classes during that program year (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).1 According to the most recent statistics of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy2 (NAAL, United States Department of Education, 2005) in the year 2003 there were eleven million adults not literate3 in English4 in the United States. These individuals comprised two subgroups: seven million who were unable to answer even basic questions on the assessment, and four million who were unable to participate due to a language barrier, which meant that they neither spoke nor understood Spanish or English, the two languages used in the interviews. Of the former group, four million were Hispanic, and combined with the four million in the latter group, the results from the survey indicate that between four and eight million adults in the ‘non-literate in English’ category are non-native speakers of English.5 These current data represent no change in the trend reported in the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) which illustrated that second language (L2) adults in general fared poorly compared to other groups in terms of their ability to successfully interpret tasks in the prose literacy, document literacy and quantitative literacy categories.6 Based on the aforementioned demographic data increased knowledge of the L2 reading process in general, and specifically, the early reading process for adult ELLs who are beginning readers, will inform instruction and strengthen existing programs for adult ELLs. While a number of studies have investigated L2 literacy (for a comprehensive review see Burt, Peyton & Adams 2005) the focus has been primarily on top down strategies such as schema, context clues and the transfer of comprehension strategies from the first language (L1) (Eskey 1988; Hinkel 2006). In an annotated bibliography on adult L2 reading research (Adams & Burt 2002) between the years1980 and 2002, there were only five studies identified investigating beginning reading in adult ESL learners (Griffen 1990; Klassen & Burnaby 1993; Robson 1982; Strucker 1997). In order to effectively meet the educational needs of pre-readers and beginning readers additional research of the beginning adult L2 reading process is necessary. What is known is that beginning reading encompasses a variety of factors: a person’s background experiences, his or her language, culture, and the need to participate in certain types of literacy events. In addition, initial reading in an alphabetic system like English includes mastery of word level skills. The initial process of reading in monolingual children, and more recently, bilingual children, has been studied extensively (see Armbruster, Lehr & Osborn, 2003; Barone & Morrow,2003; Droop &Verhoeven 2003; Slavin & Cheung 2005). One

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

243

important factor of beginning reading in alphabetic systems that has emerged from this research has been the role that phonemic awareness plays in the early reading process. It is this component of reading, considered a word level skill, or a bottom up skill, that this study investigates for adult ESL learners.

2. Phonological and phonemic awareness: A review of the literature Phonological awareness (PA) is an awareness of the sounds of speech and is considered a metalinguistic ability. Phonemic awareness is the ability to perceive, identify and to manipulate the sounds in spoken language (National Reading Panel 2000). Phonological and phonemic awareness deal with units of speech, and there is frequently a distinction made between phonemic awareness (the smallest units, phonemes) and phonological awareness (dealing with larger units such as onsets and rhymes) (Cunningham, Hoffman,& Yopp 1998). For the purposes of this research phonemic and phonological awareness will be conflated and referred to as PA. Numerous studies have found PA to be a necessary element in the beginning reading process in an alphabetic system, and PA has been found to be a predictor of future reading ability in children at the Pre-K and elementary level (Abouzeid 1992; Bentin 1992; Ehri, Wilce & Taylor 1988; Lundberg 1989; Maclean, Bryant & Bradley 1988; Vellutino & Scanlon 1988). Research has provided evidence for the importance of the ability to phonologically decode words as a skill necessary to developing word recognition (Vellutino & Scanlon 1991). Bentin (1992) claims that “the ability to decipher phonology from writing is a prerequisite for reading and understanding written words at the first encounter, and needs to be mastered before efficient reading can occur” (p. 204). In addition, deficits in phonological processing have emerged as a leading cause of reading disabilities (Torgesen 1991). In fact, “perhaps the most important single conclusion about reading disabilities is that they are most commonly caused by weaknesses in the ability to process the phonological features of language”(Torgensen, Wagner, Rashotte, Rose, Lindamood, Conway & Garvan 1999: 579). Deficits in phonological processing ability can negatively impact a reader’s ability to develop fluent decoding ability, therefore negatively affecting efficient word recognition (Sabatini, Venezky, Kharik & Jain 2000). Task complexity has also been the focus of research in order to better define PA as a construct, to determine what the measures tell us regarding learner ability, and as a diagnostic tool. Researchers have worked to define PA in terms of “. . . complexity of the units on which the operations are performed. . . cognitive demands of the task. . . and complexity of the syllable structure of items that are presented in each task . . . ” (Jim´enez & Venegas 2004: 798).

244

Margo DelliCarpini

Yopp (1988) investigated the types of PA skills that were most predictive of decoding ability and that should be included in both research and practice. She found that each of the tests of phonemic ability that were assessed7 had a high level of predictive validity, and discussed breaking PA into Simple Phonemic Awareness and Compound Phonemic Awareness. She identified tasks like blending (where sounds are blended together to form words or nonsense words: [k-æ-t] → [cat]) to be an easier, or a Simple PA task, which requires one operation, and tasks like deletion (say the word black . . . delete the [b] and say the word that remains [lack]) to be a more difficult or Compound PA task, which requires the performance of one operation, then holding that operation in shortterm memory while performing another operation. Children in Yopp’s study had an easier time blending than deleting phonemes and identification tasks such as rhyme and phoneme isolation were the easiest tasks for children to perform. English is not the only language that has been investigated in terms of the importance of PA to the early reading process. Studies conducted with children whose native languages include Spanish, Korean, Arabic and Latvian have further contributed to the large body of knowledge on the important role of PA and early reading (Abu-Rabia, Share & Mansour 2003; Carrillo 1994; Kim & Davis 2004; Sprugevica & Hoien 2003). Researchers have hypothesized that PA is “(a) a prerequisite for learning to read, (b) influenced by reading instruction and practice, and (c) both a cause and a consequence of reading acquisition (i.e., reciprocal)” (Smith, Simmons, Kameenui 1995). When researchers first began to investigate the relationship between PA and reading ability, they focused on the phoneme level since it was argued that letters in alphabetic systems (usually) represent individual phonemes. In order to learn to read, children need to be aware of the individual phonemes and phonetic segments in spoken words before they would be able to learn about the correspondence between phonemes (sounds) and graphemes (letters) (Castles & Coltheart 2004; Gough & Hillinger 1980). In addition, researchers have argued that an awareness of units such as rhymes will facilitate the mapping of phonemes to letter sequences (Castles & Coltheart 2004; Goswami 1993; Goswami & Bryant 1990). While the research into PA takes on a variety of formats and comes from different disciplines, the studies that inform the current research deal with the correlation between PA and beginning reading, PA in bilingual children learning to read in English, and the nature and role of PA in adult monolingual learners who are beginning readers.

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

245

2.1. Correlations between PA and decoding ability Over the past three decades research documenting the causal relationship between PA and reading has grown and strengthened. Recent reviews of the research have concluded that the data provide strong enough evidence to establish this causal relationship between PA and early reading for monolingual learners (Adams 1990; Rack, Snowling, Olson 1992; Spector 1995). A large number of correlational studies have consistently shown significant and predictive relationships between PA and early reading success among monolingual children (Mann 1984; Vellutino & Scanlon 1987; Wagner, Torgesen, Laughon, Simmons & Rashotte 1993; Wagner, Torgensen, Rashotte, Hecht, Barker, Burgess, Donahue & Garon 1997), as well as correlations between PA and children’s subsequent reading and spelling abilities (Adams 1990; Bradley & Bryant 1985; Mann 1993; Share & Stanovich 1995). Moreover, evidence for the causal relationship between PA and reading exists in the empirical studies that have investigated the positive effect of explicit instruction in PA on children’s spelling and reading achievement (Ball & Blachman 1991; Castiglioni-Spalten & Ehri 2003; Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster,Yaghoub-Zadeh, Shanahan 2001; McCutchen, Abbot, Green, Beretvas, Cox, Poller, Quiroga & Gray 2002). In essence, “An awareness of phonemes is necessary to grasp the alphabetic principle that underlies our system of written language” (Chard & Dickson 1999: 263). 2.2. PA in bilingual children learning English Research conducted with bilingual children learning to read in English has provided evidence for correlations between PA in the L2 (English) and literacy in the L2 (Stuart-Smith & Martin 1997).In addition, evidence has emerged for the cross-linguistic transfer of PA skills and has highlighted the positive ways that L1 PA abilities can be applied to the L2 reading (Cisero & Royer 1995; Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison & Lacroix 1999; Dickinson, McCabe, ClarkChiarelli & Wolf 2004; Durgunoglu, Nagy & Hancin-Bhatt 1993; Durgunoglu & Oney 1999; Gottardo 2002; Gottardo, Yan, Siegel & Wade-Woolley 2001; Walpole 2001). Moreover, L1 PA scores in kindergarten have been shown to be predictive of L2 PA scores in first grade for children learning English as a second language (Cisero & Royer 1995). 2.3. PA and adult monolingual beginning readers Researchers have also investigated PA and its relationship to reading in adult learners who are non-readers. Cross-linguistic research (English, Portuguese,

246

Margo DelliCarpini

Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Turkish) suggests that older learners who cannot read an alphabetic system have difficulty manipulating phonemes. Non-literate adult learners perform very poorly on traditional PA tasks, like phoneme deletion or substitution (Lukatela, Carello, Shankweiler & Liberman 1995; Morias, Bertelson, Cary & Alegria 1986). Moreover, recent work by Durgunoglu and Oney (2002) suggests that, at least in terms of PA, similar cognitive processes exist between children and non-literate adults acquiring reading skills in Turkey (in their native language) and that adults who “received explicit letter, sound and syllable instruction showed more significant gains in word-recognition and spelling performance” (Durgunoglu & Oney 2002:261) than adults enrolled in traditional adult literacy programs in Turkey. To summarize, there is strong evidence for the correlation between PA and early reading in monolingual and bilingual children, the transfer of PA in the L1 to L2 reading, and the positive effect of explicit instruction of PA skills for both children and adults who may have deficits in their PA abilities, either due to lack of formal education or a reading disability. Research has also provided evidence for the similarity between early literacy acquisition between bilingual adults and children (DelliCarpini 2006). With the increase of adult ELLs who have not yet learned to read in either their native language or in English as their second language, it would be an obvious extension of the L1 research to investigate the relationship of PA and learning to read in a second language for the first time for these older learners. To address this, in part, the present study sought to answer the following questions: – Does PA in a second language in adult learners predict initial decoding ability in that language (in the same way that it does for monolingual children learning to read for the first time)? – Are some types of PA (as tested by the various subtests) more predictive of initial decoding ability than others for adult L2 learners? If so, which types of PA seem to be important to beginning reading for these learners?

3. The study 3.1. Participants The study involved 26 adult ESL students (native speakers of Spanish) attending adult education programs in a suburban county in New York State. Participants were followed for a one year period and assessed on measures of PA and decoding ability. Participants’ age ranged from 18–46 years old with an average age of 22.7 years. 65% of the participants were male (17) and 35% were female (9).

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

247

Participants were randomly identified from course rosters and class placement in either Beginning ESL Literacy or Beginning ESL levels.8 Program placement was determined by trained intake counselors employed by the respective programs. Once students were identified as possible participants, an interview was conducted and students with self-reported levels of prior education totaling less than 4 years were included in the study. In fact, the average overall level of prior formal education was very low for these students and all reported being unable to read in English and not reading well or at all in Spanish. Data were collected during four collection sessions over the school year (October, December, February and April). 3.2. Classroom context Participants were enrolled in three related adult education. The first program was a traditional adult education program that had a large ELL population across several sites in the county and data was collected at two of the sites. The second program was an English Literacy Civics Program (EL/Civics) that focused on the development of English literacy skills through the content area of civics education and citizenship preparation. The third program was an Even Start Family Literacy Program that integrated adult education, parenting education, early childhood education, and interactive literacy activities between caregivers and their children. 3.3. Tasks A battery of commercially produced tasks designed to investigate the level of a subject’s PA and decoding ability in English were employed (see appendix A for the instruments used). These tasks were administered for research purposes and were not part of the programs’ assessment systems. A variety of existing measures were used to ensure that the assessment tools were field tested and to address a full range of PA skills, options that are not always available when using one instrument. For example, some of the English PA measures were assessed using the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Version II9 /CTOPP (Wagner,Torgesen & Rashotte 1999) which has internal consistency that exceeds .80 and has very limited error potential. In addition, some measures were also taken from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised (1998) which also has reliabilities at the .80 level, so the reliability of assessment tools was ensured in this way. The assessment measures selected are commonly used in both educational settings and research settings to determine the level of PA, the effect of inter-

248

Margo DelliCarpini

vention on PA ability, and the correlations between PA and decoding, as well as the predictive nature of PA to later decoding ability. Based on the research in the field, the selected tasks have been shown to be related to each other and to reading. By using commercially produced assessments, similar to those which have been used in numerous other PA research studies, the findings of this study have the ability, in part, replicate the studies that inform this research. Each of the tasks was administered individually and each testing session took approximately 45 minutes per person. Tasks were administered and scored as per the published directions, and for the purposes of this study, both raw scores and percent correct scores were established (see results section). All tasks were modeled and 3–5 practice tokens were administered before the scored part of the assessment began to ensure that participants understood the directions (given in both Spanish and English) and task. A brief description of the tasks follows: – Segmentation: Two segmentation tasks from the CTOPP were administered. In the first, phoneme segmentation, the investigator said a word out loud and then asked the subjects to push pennies towards the researcher to indicate the number of constituent phonemes they heard in each word. The instructions10 for this task specifically asked participants to push a penny forward for each sound they hear. The second segmentation task, phoneme blending, requires subjects to say a word that the researcher had stretched out. This required subjects to recompose, or blend the constituent phonemes of a word. For example, the researcher would say [k-æ-t] and the correct response would be [cat]. – Isolation: In the phoneme isolation task, taken from the Phonological Awareness Test /PAT (Robinson & Slater 1997) participants were asked to identify either beginning or ending phonemes of the word provided (referred to as sounds by the investigator). – Deletion: In the phoneme deletion task (CTOPP), participants had to say the word that remains after they delete a phoneme. For example, the investigator gave the directions, “take away the first sound in the word and say what is left”. If the stimulus is [black] and the instructed phoneme [b] is deleted, the remaining word is [lack]. – Substitution: The phoneme substitution task (PAT) required participants to substitute one phoneme for another and say the ‘new’ word. For example, if the original word was [black] and participants were instructed to take away the [b] and add [f]. The remaining word was [flack].

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

249

– Decoding tasks: Real and invented word decoding tasks were administered. These tasks were from the Basic Skills cluster of the Woodcock Reading Mastery tests (Woodcock –Johnson). The Word Identification Test involves real words and the Word Attack Test involves pseudo words. 3.4. Statistical Analysis Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted. Initially, means, standard deviations, ranges, (and percent correct and converted means /CM for PA tasks)11 were computed for all study variables including the PA measures (i.e. phoneme segmentation, phoneme blending, phonological isolation, phonological substitution, and phonological deletion) and the reading acquisition measures (i.e. real word decoding and invented word decoding) at all four time points. Correlations among the five measures of PA and among the two measures of reading acquisition were then computed at each time point. The next step was to compute total scores for PA and for reading acquisition. This was done by converting each of the raw scores into z-scores (with means of 0 and standard deviations of 1) and then summing the scores separately for each time point. That is, z-scores for the five measures of PA were summed to arrive at total scores at each time point for each language (hereafter referred to as the PA scores), and z-scores on the two measures of decoding ability were summed to arrive at total scores at each time point for each language. In this manner, each of the five PA tasks and both of the decoding tasks had equal influence on the respective composite scores. Two-tailed tests and an alpha (α ) level of .05 were used for all hypothesis tests. At each time point, two multiple regression analyses were performed with the five PA tasks as the predictors and either (a) decoding invented word scores or (b) decoding real word scores as the outcome variable, for a total of eight multiple regression analyses. To determine which PA tasks were most strongly related to the decoding tasks, both the statistical significance of each PA task and partial correlations were examined.

4. Results Table 1 illustrates (1) the general task performance at all data collection points and (2) the development of skills over time (means and standard deviations). In addition, the minimum score and maximum score on each task is provided. All twenty-six participants were included in each task. The number of task items,

250

Margo DelliCarpini

which represents the maximum score possible, is as follows: PA segmentation, 15; PA Blending, 15; PA Isolation, 15; PA Substitution, 15; PA Deletion, 10. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for PA Tasks Minimum and maximum performance on each task at each time point with means and standard deviations. Task PA Segmentation English Time 1 PA Segmentation English Time 2 PA Segmentation English Time 3 PA Segmentation English Time 4 Task PA Blending English Time 1 PA Blending English Time 2 PA Blending English Time 3 PA Blending English Time 4 Task PA Isolation English Time 1 PA Isolation English Time 2 PA Isolation English Time 3 PA Isolation English Time 4 Task PA Substitution English Time 1 PA Substitution English Time 2 PA Substitution English Time 3

Min. 0

Max. 9

Mean 2.54

SD 2.80

1

9

2.94

2.80

2

11

4.15

3.25

2

15

7.04

3.64

Min. 0

Max. 6

Mean 2.66

SD 1.79

3

7

3.88

2.25

5

10

4.04

2.68

8

15

12.38

2.40

Min. 0

Max. 10

Mean 3.73

SD 3.27

2

12

5.46

3.56

5

15

7.23

4.08

2

15

9.27

3.72

Min. 0

Max. 3

Mean .65

SD 1.65

0

7

1.31

2.02

0

8

2.27

2.16

251

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

PA Substitution English Time 4 Task PA Deletion English Time 1 PA Deletion English Time 2 PA Deletion English Time 3 PA Deletion English Time 4

0

10

3.54

2.53

Min. 0

Max. 10

Mean 1.35

SD 3.11

0

10

3.19

3.42

0

10

4.42

3.43

0

10

4.42

3.43

Table 1.1 and 1.2 further illustrate PA task performance. For the purposes of analysis, the first PA assessment interval was termed the pre-test and the final assessment interval was termed the post-test. The number of items on each subtest differed, so in order to compare difficulty among measures, a converted means (CM) was used (Yopp, 1988). The CM was arrived at by averaging the percent correct for each subject on each of the subtests.

Table 1.1. Pre-test performance Pre-test PA Task Rhyme Isolation (15) Blending (15) Segmentation(15) Deletion (10) Substitution (15)

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

% correct

CM

0 0 0 0 0

10 6 9 10 3

3.73 2.66 2.54 1.35 0.65

3.27 1.79 2.8 3.11 1.65

24.8% 17.0% 16.9% 13.5% 4.0%

0.266 0.186 0.171 0.094 0.066

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

% correct

CM

8 2 2 0 0

15 15 15 10 10

12.38 9.27 7.04 4.42 3.54

2.4 3.72 3.64 3.43 2.53

82.5% 61.8% 46.9% 44.20% 23.6%

0.838 0.666 0.473 0.469 0.266

Table 1.2. Post-test PA Task Blending (15) Isolation (15) Segmentation(15) Deletion (10) Substitution (15)

252

Margo DelliCarpini

Participants began with very low levels of PA in English. This finding is consistent with findings from other work investigating the PA skills of nonliterate mono-lingual adults. In addition to development of PA over time for these learners, evidence for a hierarchy of task difficulty emerges between time 1 and time 4. Phoneme substitution is most difficult for these participants, and isolation is the easiest for them to perform at all time points. As mentioned earlier, task complexity has been a focus of PA research with children and monolingual adults (Jim´enez & Venegas 2004; Stahl & Murray 1994; Yopp 1988). The results here suggest that PA for this group of students does fall into a pattern very similar to the relative of difficulty Yopp (1988) found in her study with kindergarten children.12 In the Yopp study, rhyme was found to be easiest for the children to perform, followed by isolation, and phoneme deletion the most difficult. In the present study, the hierarchy of difficulty for the participants, from least difficult to most difficult, was as follows: isolation/blending, segmentation, deletion and substitution. In terms of the relationship between PA and decoding ability, which researchers investigating beginning reading in children learning an alphabetic system have shown to be a critical factor in the process, as mentioned earlier in this paper, the results of this research provide evidence for a high level of correlation between PA and decoding ability at each time point (Table 2). In other words, phonological awareness skills are related to successful decoding for these learners. Table 2. Correlations between English PA scores and English decoding ability at each time point

English Decoding ability Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

English PA Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

Time 4

.87∗ .90∗ .85∗ .79∗

Note. ∗ p < .0005.

The correlations were statistically significant (ranging from .79 to .90 with ps < .0005). The data suggest that PA in English is correlated to decoding ability in English for adult second language learners acquiring initial literacy skills in English and therefore, the presence of PA for ESL literacy level learners is a critical component in learning to read in English.

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

253

To determine which measures of PA in English are more predictive of decoding ability in English the scores on the individual PA and decoding ability tasks were used, rather than the composite scores. The correlational analyses were followed by two multiple regression analyses at each time point with the five PA as the predictors and either (a) invented word decoding scores or (b) real word decoding scores as the outcome variable. The first regression analyses were performed at Time 1. Overall, 85.3% of the variance in real word decoding (RWD) was explained by the five PA tasks (F(5, 20) = 23.13, p < .0005) and 87.5% of the variance in invented word decoding (IWD) was explained by the five PA tasks (F(5, 20) = 22.95, p < .0005). In terms of the specific PA tasks, blending (β = .32, t = 2.58, p = .018), isolation (β = .38, t = 2.55, p = .019), and deletion (β = .66, t = 3.74, p = .001) were statistically significant for RWD. The partial correlation between deletion and real word decoding (.64) was higher than any of the other partial correlations. In terms of IWD, both deletion (β = .72, t = 4.42, p < .0005) and isolation (β = .36, t = 2.61, p = .017) were statistically significant. The partial correlation between deletion and invented word decoding (.70) was higher than that between isolation and invented decoding (.50), indicating that deletion was the best predictor of invented word decoding. The second regression analyses were performed at Time 2 and at this point in time 71.9% of the variance in RWD was explained by the five PA tasks (F(5, 20) = 10.26, p < .0005). Additionally, 85.2% of the variance in IWD was explained by the five PA tasks (F(5, 20) = 28.02, p < .0005). In terms of RWD, none of the PA tasks were statistically significant individually, but the partial correlation between blending and RWD (.38) was higher than any of the other partial correlations. When looking at the IWD task, only deletion (β = .51, t = 2.58, p = .018) was statistically significant. The partial correlation between deletion and IWD (.50) was also higher than any of the other partial correlations. The third regression analyses were performed at Time 3 and 61.2% of the variance in RWD was explained by the five PA tasks (F(5, 20) = 6.32, p = .001). The five PA tasks explained. 71.4% of the variance in IWD (F(5, 20) = 10.00, p < .0005) at this point in time. In terms of the specific PA tasks, none were statistically significant but isolation (.40) had the highest partial correlations to RWD. In terms of the correlations between the five PA tasks and IWD, as with RWD at this time point, none were statistically significant, although deletion had the highest partial correlation (.32). The fourth regression analysis was performed at Time 4. At this point in time 57.9% of the variance in RWD was explained by the five PA tasks (F(5, 20) = 5.50, p = .002). In terms of the specific PA tasks, only isolation (β = .44, t = 2.08,

254

Margo DelliCarpini

p = .0503) approached statistical significance. The partial correlation between isolation and RWD (.42) was higher than any of the other partial correlations for RWD. In terms of IWD, 60.3% of the variance was explained by the five PA tasks (F(5, 20) = 6.08, p = .001). In terms of the specific PA tasks, only substitution (β = .56, t = 2.42, p = .025) was statistically significant. The partial correlation between substitution and IWD (.48) was also higher than any of the other partial correlations.

5. Discussion The present study establishes a relationship between PA and initial decoding ability for adult second language learners who have low or no L1 literacy and who share an L1 (Spanish). There is evidence for some tasks being more highly correlated to decoding in this population, but further investigation will be required to firmly establish these tasks as the best predictors of L2 early reading. The results indicate that PA in the L2 is correlated with initial L2 decoding ability for these adult ESL students. This supports the general claim that there is a causal relationship between L2 PA and L2 decoding ability in literacy level ESL adult students. In terms of correlations, there were significant correlations between specific tasks and decoding ability. Deletion was most highly correlated with invented word decoding ability, and for real word decoding ability, deletion and isolation tasks were statistically significant. In research on PA with children, isolation has been shown to be crucial to reading and evidence emerges for its importance in real word decoding in this research with adult L2 adult learners as well. What emerges from the above data is that PA in general is correlated with decoding ability for adult L2 learners of English, but no one individual task emerges as ‘the PA task’ which could be used as a diagnostic. At different times, different tasks seem to be more highly correlated individually than others; however, the important conclusion is that PA in general is correlated with beginning decoding ability for adult L2 populations and as such, with further investigation into the role of task type could be used as a diagnostic tool as well as an instructional device. Although this research did not specifically address the issue of task difference in measuring PA, research that has addressed this issue for children and adults (Jim´enez & Venegas 2004; Lukatela, Carello, Shankweiler & Liberman 1995; Morias, Cary, Alegria & Bertelson 1979; Stahl & Murry 1994) has found phoneme isolation to be the easiest task for learners. An examination of the means (Table 1.1) shows that isolation was the easiest for this group as well,

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

255

extending the earlier finding to older learners and the adult ELL population. In related research, Jim´enez and Venegas (2004) found that for low literacy adult native speakers of Spanish found phoneme isolation to be the easiest PA task to perform, which supported the findings from research with children (Stahl & Murray 1994). The results from the present study support the findings from both of these studies. The question of the path to initial reading ability for older ELLs with little or no L1 reading skills is the primary focus of this research. Despite the current educational focus on reading and literacy skills for learners in all age groups, there has been little to no systematic research on word level strategies and initial literacy development for older ELLs who are learning to read for the first time in their second language. In order to learn to read an alphabetic system, learners must first acquire a word level awareness (Calfee, Lindamood & Lindamood 1973; Fox & Routh 1975; Treiman & Baron 1981; Tunmer & Nesdale 1985). For early readers comprehension depends on successful decoding ability (Gough & Juel 1991; Stanovich 1982). If the relationship between PA and decoding ability is similar for adults and children learning to read for the first time, then, with further research, it may be established that subsequent reading comprehension ability is dependant on successful decoding ability for these adult L2 beginning readers as well. Such a finding would have implications for practice in terms of what pedagogically sound approaches to teaching reading would best meet the needs of literacy level adult ELLs. 5.1. Pedagogical implications The finding that PA is an important factor in decoding success, a critical stage of the alphabetic reading process has implications for practice. It would follow that a routine diagnostic should include a base-line measure of PA using one of many commercially and valid assessment measures. For learners who are found to have deficits in PA abilities, pedagogical approaches that recognize this importance and include activities that promote awareness of the sound structure of words may facilitate the development of PA, enhance success during the decoding stage, and put learners on a path to advanced literacy development. The role of word level skills has been under- focused at the adult level for a variety of reasons, but one notable reason is the prevalent use of oral assessment measures in United States’ federally funded adult ESL programs. When programs and funding agencies rely on an instrument that focuses one skill over others for placement, student assessment, and, most importantly program evaluation and program funding, the types of skills that are included in this assessment may become the skills that are over emphasized in the program’s curriculum.

256

Margo DelliCarpini

An oral assessment measure would certainly contribute to this if there is no counterbalance in the form of reading and writing assessment. For the students who have not mastered reading in their native language, but find their way to a new country which places a great emphasis on the ability to read and write for communication, social interaction, critical analysis, to acquire information and, perhaps most importantly, to achieve economic selfsufficiency, it is critical that they be put on a path of literacy development that draws on their rich schema and gives them access to participation in the community. These students need to develop the basic skills necessary to decode text and then progress through the learning to read stage to one where they are reading to learn. 5.2. Directions for future research The sample size in this study was small, and replication with larger populations is a needed direction for future research. In addition, participants shared the same native language (Spanish) and investigation into populations with different L1 backgrounds, including non-alphabetic backgrounds, is necessary to fully understand the relationship between PA and decoding in adults who are learning to read for the first time or who are developing emergent literacy skills in their second language. Finally, the nature of instruction was not the focus of the present study, and future research that investigates different instructional approaches and intervention protocols can be conducted to further unpack the role of PA in early literacy development for adult ESL literacy level students.

6. Conclusions This study was designed to investigate the role of PA in initial decoding ability for beginning adult L2 readers of English. Evidence for the correlation of PA to decoding ability has emerged in the population under study. Like the child and monolingual adult studies that have informed this research, the data in this study show that the correlations between English PA and English decoding ability are statistically significant. Based on the inferential statistical analysis the conclusion can be drawn, as in the child studies, that PA in English is predictive of decoding ability in English for this population. In terms of which tasks were most highly correlated with decoding ability, for both real and invented word decoding, deletion and isolation tasks were the best predictors of decoding ability. This supports the child studies that discuss isolation as being a critical factor in learning to read an alphabetic system. In addition, the data suggest

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

257

that literacy level adult ESL students and monolingual children have similar underlying cognitive processes, as evidenced for the similarity in the hierarchy of task difficulty and the correlation between phoneme isolation and decoding in English and general PA ability in English and English decoding ability. While the results of this study extend the importance of PA skills and initial literacy development in an alphabetic system to an additional population, the results are a small contribution to the area of second language reading research. Further investigation into the development of initial reading in the second language for adults who have not acquired these skills in their L1 and are learning for the first time in their L2 will provide valuable information for researchers and practioners alike, and will help to inform practice and develop strategies that best meet the needs of students such as the population under investigation in this work.

Appendix Assessment Instruments Employed Tastk

Instument

Poneme Isolation Phoneme Substitution Phoneme Segmentation Phoneme Blending Phoneme Deletion

Ponological Awareness Test (PAT) PAT Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) CTOPP CTOPP

Notes 1. National Reporting System (NRS) definitions of adult ESL levels which are used at the U.S. Federal level to determine funding and program placement for adult education programs receiving federal funding; Beginning ESL Literacy: Individual has no or minimal reading or writing skills in any language. May have little or no comprehension of how print corresponds to spoken language and may have difficulty using a writing instrument. Beginning ESL: Individual can recognize, read and write numbers and letters, but has a limited understanding of connected prose and may need frequent re-reading; can write a limited number of basic sight words and familiar words and phrases; may also be able to write simple sentences or phrases, including very simple messages. Can write basic personal information. Narrative writing is disorganized and unclear; inconsistently uses simple punctuation (e.g., periods, commas, question marks); contains frequent errors in spelling. 2. Formerly the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS).

258

Margo DelliCarpini

3. The NAAL defines literacy from a functional perspective as “the ability to use printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential.” (NAAL Question and Answers, p. 1, USDOE, 2005). 4. The category ‘Non-literate in English’ is a newly established category that identifies all adults who lack minimum basic reading skills necessary to participate in the main National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). This category was established to answer the outstanding issue of the broadness of category 1 in the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). The ‘non-literate in English’ category included an assessment for the least literate adults completing the survey (NAAL, USDOE, 2005). 5. The identification of a respondent as Hispanic does not assume that the person is a non-native speaker (NNS) of English, but it can be interpreted from the report that a sub-set of those identified as Hispanic are NNS. 6. The NALS has divided literacy ability into three sections: Prose Literacy, Document Literacy and Quantitative Literacy. In addition, the NALS includes a range of skills that focus on not only decoding and comprehension, but on the range of literacy skills and practices that an adult needs to function in society. Questions used authentic formats and involved test items such as using newspapers (to measure prose literacy) using a transportation schedule (to measure document literacy) and using a loan advertisement that required participants to calculate interest (to measure quantitative literacy). 7. Yopp specifically investigated: rhyme, auditory discrimination, phoneme blending, phoneme counting, phoneme deletion, phoneme segmentation, sound isolation and word- to word matching. 8. National Reporting System (NRS) Guidelines: http://www.nrsweb.org/reports/EFL %20Table%204-4-06.doc 9. for ages 7–24 10. All instructions were given in both Spanish and English. 11. The number of items on each sub-test differed, so in order to compare difficulty among measures, a converted means (CM) was used (Yopp, 1988). The CM was arrived at by averaging the percent correct for each subject on each of the subtests. 12. Yopp (1988) did not use phoneme substitution as an assessment.

References Abouzeid, Mary. 1992. Stages of word knowledge in reading disabled children. In S. Templeton& D. R. Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy, 279–306. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Abu-Rabia, Salim, David Share and Maysaloon Said Mansour. 2003. Word recognition and basic cognitive processes among reading-disabled and normal readers in the Arabic language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16. 423–442.

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

259

Adams, Marilyn. 1990. Beginning to read:Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adams, Rebecca and Miriam Burt. 2002. Research on reading development of adult English language learners: An annotated bibliography. Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from: (http://www.cal.org/caela/esl resources/bibliographies/readingbib. html accessed 23 August 2010). Armbruster, Bonnie, Fran, Lehr and Jean Osborn. 2003. A child becomes a reader: Birth through preschool. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy. Ball, Ellen and Benita Blachman. 1991. Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and development of spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1). 49–66. Barone, Diane and Lesley Mandel Morrow. 2003. Literacy and young children: Researchbased practice. New York: Guilford Press. Bentin, Shlomo. 1992. Phonological awareness, reading, and reading acquisition: A survey and appraisal of current knowledge. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, 193–210. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland. Barton, David and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local literacies: A study of reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge. Bradley, Lynette., and Peter Bryant. 1983. Categorizing sounds and learning to read – A causal connection. Nature, 301. 419–421. Bradley, Lynette, and Peter Bryant. 1985. Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Burt, Miriam., Peyton, Joy Kreeft, and Rebecca Adams. 2003. Reading and adult English language learners: A review of the research. Washington, DC: National Center for ESL Literacy Education. Burt, Miriam, Peyton, Joy Kreeft, and CarolVan Duzer. 2005. How should adult ESL reading instruction differ from ABE reading instruction? Washington, DC: Center for English Language Acquisition. (http://www.cal.org/caela/esl resources/briefs/reading dif.html accessed 23 August 2010). Calfee, Robert.C., Patricia Lindamood & Charles Lindamood. 1973. Acoustic-phonetic skills and reading- Kindergarten through 12 grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(3). 293–298. Carrillo, Marisol. 1994. Development of phonological awareness and reading acquisition. A study in Spanish language. Reading and Writing, 6. 279–298 Castiglioni-Spalton, Maria and Linnea Ehri. 2003. Phonemic awareness instruction: Contribution of articulatory segmentation to novice beginners’ reading and writing. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7. 25–52. Castles, Anne. & Max Coltheart. 2004. Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91(1), 77–111. Center for Applied Linguistics. 2003. Best Plus. Washington DC: CAL. Chard, David., and Shirley Dickson. 1999. Phonological awareness: Instructional and assessment guidelines. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5. 261–270.

260

Margo DelliCarpini

Cisero, Cheryl, and James Royer. 1995. The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology 20(3., 275–303. Comeau, Liane, Pierre Cormier, Eric Grandmaison and Diane Lacroix. 1999. A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1). 29–43. Cunningham, James, Patricia Cunningham, James Hoffman and Hallie Yopp. 1998. Phonemic awareness and the teaching of reading. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. DelliCarpini, Margo. 2006. Early reading development in adultELLs. The Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(2). 192–196 Dickinson, David., Allyssa McCabe, Nancy Clark-Chiarelli and Anne Wolf. 2004. Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness in low-income Spanish and English bilingual preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25. 323–347. Droop, Mienke., and Ludo Verhoeven. 2003. Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly 38 (1). 78–103. Durgunoglu, Aydin Yücesan and Banu Öney. 2002. Phonological awareness in literacy acquisition: It’s not only for children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(3). 245–266. Durgunoglu, Aydin Y¨ucesan, William Nagy & Barbara Hancin-Bhatt. 1993. Cross Language Transfer of Phonological Awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3). 453–465. Ehri, Linnea. C., Simone Nunes, Dale Willows. Barbara Valeska Schuster, Zohreh Yaghoub-Zadeh and Timothy Shanahan. 2001. Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36. 250–287. Ehri, Linnea, Lee Wilce and B. Taylor. 1988. Children’s categorization of short vowels in words and the influence of spellings. In K. E. Stanovich (Ed.), Children’s reading and the development of phonological awareness, 149–177. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Eskey, David. 1988. Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language problems of second language readers. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. 93–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, Barbara, & Donald Routh. 1984. Phonemic analysis and synthesis as word attack skills: Revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76. 1059–1064. Gee, James Paul. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Goswami, Usha. 1993. Towards an interactive analogy model of reading development – decoding graphemes in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56. 443–475. Goswami, Usha., & Peter Bryant. 1990, Phonological skills and learning to read. London: Erlbaum Gottardo, Alexandra. 2002. The relationship between language and reading skills in bilingual Spanish-English speakers. Topics in Language Disorders, 22(5). 46–70.

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

261

Gottardo, Alexandra., Yan, Bernice., Linda Siegel and Lesley Wade-Woolley.2001. Factors related to English reading performance in students with Chinese as a first language: More evidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93. 530–542. Gough, Philip, and M. L. Hillinger. 1980. Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30. 179–196. Gough, Philip, and Connie Juel,. 1991. The first stages of word recognition. In L. Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to Read, 47–56. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hinkel, Eli. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1). 109–131. Jim´enez, Juan and Enrique Venegas. 2004. Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to reading skills in low-literacy adults. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (4). 798–810. Kim, Jeesun. & Chris Davis. 2004. Characteristics of poor readers of Korean hangul: Auditory, visual and phonological processing. Reading and Writing, 17(1/2). 153– 185. Klassen, Cecil. & Barbara Burnaby. 1993. “Those who know:” Views on literacy among adult immigrants in Canada. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (3). 77–397. Liberman, Isabelle Yoffe, Donald Shankweiler and Alvin Liberman. M. 1989. The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In Shankweiler, D. and I.Y Liberman, (Eds.) Phonology and reading disability: solving the reading puzzle, 1–33. International Academy of Research on Learning Disabilities Monograph Series. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lundberg, Ingvar. 1989. Lack of phonological awareness: A critical factor in dyslexia. In C. V. Euler, I. Lundberg, & G. Lennerstrand (Eds.), Brain and reading, 221–232. London: Macmillan Press Limited. Mann, Virginia. 1993. Phoneme Awareness and Future Reading Ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26 (4). 259–269. Mann, Virgina.. 1984. Longitudinal prediction and prevention of early reading difficulty. Annals of Dyslexia, 34. 117–136. McCutchen, Deborah., Robert Abbott, Laura Green, S. Natasha Beretvas, Susanne Cox, Nina Potte, Teresa Quiroga and Aaudra Gray. 2002. Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3(1). 69–86. National Assessment of Adult Literacy. 1992 & 2003. http://nces.ed.gov/naal/ National Institute for Literacy 2006. Frequently asked questions: What is literacy? Washington, DC: NIFL. (http://novel.nifl.gov/nifl/faqs.html accessed 23 August 2010). Rack, John., Margaret Snowling and Richard Olson. 1992. The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: a review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1). 28–53. Robson, Barbara. 1982. Hmong literacy formal education, and their effects on performance in an ESL class. In B. T. Downing & D. P. Olney, (Eds.), The Hmong in the west: Observations and reports, 201–225. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

262

Margo DelliCarpini

Sabatini, John., Richard Venezky, Polina Kharik and Richa Jain. 2000. Cognitive Reading Assessment for Low Literate Adults: An Analytic Review and New Framework. Technical Report TR00-01. Sponsored by Office of Educational Research & Improvement, Washington DC Philadelphia, PA. National Center on Adult Literacy (NCAL) Slavin, Robert., & Alan Cheung. 2005. A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75 (2., 447–284. Smith, Sylvia, Deborah C.Simmons & Edward Kameenui. 1995. Synthesis of Research on Phonological Awareness: Principles and Implications for Reading Acquisition. (Technical Report No. 21). Eugene: National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, University of Oregon. Spector, Janet. 1995.Phonemic Awareness Training: Application of Principles of Direct Instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11(1). 37–52. Sprugevica, Ieva. & Torleiv Hoien. 2003. Enabling skills in early reading acquisition: A study of children in Latvian kindergartens. Reading and Writing16(3). 159–177. Stahl, Steven and Bruce Murray. 1994. Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8. 221–234. Stanovich, Keith. 1982. Individual differences in the cognitive process of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15. 485–493 Strucker, John. 1997. What silent reading tests alone can’t tell you. Focus on Basics, 1 (B). 13–17. Stuart-Smith, Jane and Deirdre Martin. 1997. Investigating literacy and pre- literacy skills in Panjabi/English schoolchildren. Educational Review, 49(2). 181–197. Torgesen, Joseph., Richard. K., Wagner, Carol. A. Rashotte, Elaine Rose, Patricia Lindamood, Tim Conwayand Cyndi Garvan. 1999. Preventing reading failure in children with phonological processing difficulties: group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4). 579–593. Treiman, Rebecca and Jonathon Barron. 1983. Phonemic analysis training helps children benefit from spelling-sound rules. Memory & Cognition, 11. 382–389. Tunmer, William, and Andrew Nesdale.1985. Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning Reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (4). 417–527. U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. 2006. Adult education and family literacy act: Report to congress on state performance. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy 2005. State administered adult education program, program year 2003–2004 enrollment. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education. 1992. National adult literacy survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (www.ed.gov/NCES/nadlits/overview.html accessed 11 July 2006).

Phonemic awareness and beginning adult L2 reading

263

Vellutino, F. R., & D. M. Scanlon. 1988. Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. In K. E. Stanovich (Eds.), Children’s reading and the development of phonological awareness, 77–120. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press. Vellutino, Frank and Donna Scanlon. 1987. Phonological Coding, Phonological Awareness, and Reading Ability: Evidence from a Longitudinal and Experimental Study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33 (3). 321–363. Vellutino, Frank and Donna Scanlon. 1991. The effects of instructional bias on word identification. In L. Rieben and C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to Rea, 189–204. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wagner, Richard., Joseph Torgesen, Pamela Laughon, Karen Simmons & Carol Rashotte. 1993. Development of Young Readers’ Phonological Processing Abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (1). 83–103. Wagner, Richard, Joseph Torgesen and Carol Rashotte. 1994. Development of reading related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology 30. 73–87. Wagner, Richard., Joseph Torgesen and Carol Rashotte. 1999. Comprehensive test of phonological Processing/CTOPP. Austin, Texas: PRO-ED. Wagner, Richard, Joseph Torgesen, Carol Rashotte, Steve Hecht, Theodore Barker, Stephen Burgess, John Donahue and Tamara Garon. 1997. Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33 (3.) 468–479. Yopp, Hallie. 1988. The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly 23, 159–177. Margo DelliCarpini received her Ph.D. in Linguistics and Master’s degree in TESOL from Stony Brook University. She is a professor of TESOL at Lehman College, CUNY where she works with TESOL teacher candidates and conducts research on second language literacy development and teacher collaboration. Email her at margo.dellicarpini@lehman. cuny.edu