Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts: Australian and European Perspectives (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts Edited by

Anne Pauwels, Joanne Winter and Joseph Lo Bianco

Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities Titles include: Anne Judge LINGUISTIC POLICIES AND THE SURVIVAL OF REGIONAL LANGUAGES IN FRANCE AND BRITAIN Máiréad Nic Craith EUROPE AND THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE Anne Pauwels, Joanne Winter and Joseph Lo Bianco (editors) MAINTAINING MINORITY LANGUAGES IN TRANSNATIONAL CONTEXTS Glyn Williams SUSTAINING LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN EUROPE Evidence from the Euromosaic project Forthcoming titles: Maya Khemlani David, Vanithamani Saravanan and Peter Sercombe LANGUAGE, IDENTITIES AND EDUCATION IN ASIA Gabrielle Hogan-Brun (editor) MINORITY COMMUNITIES IN A CHANGING WORLD Nancy Hornberger (editor) CAN SCHOOLS SAVE INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES? Policy and Practice on Four Continents Yasuko Kanno LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION IN JAPAN Dovid Katz TEN LIVES OF YIDDISH Máiréad Nic Craith LANGUAGE, POWER AND IDENTITY POLITICS Vanessa Pupavac (editor) LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN CONFLICT Serbo-Croatian Language Politics Graham Hodson Turner A SOCIOLINGUISTIC HISTORY OF BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE

Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities Series Standing Order ISBN 1–4039–3732–X (outside North America only) You can receive future titles in this series as they are published by placing a standing order. Please contact your bookseller or, in case of difficulty, write to us at the address below with your name and address, the title of the series and the ISBN quoted above. Customer Services Department, Macmillan Distribution Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS, England

Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts Edited by

Anne Pauwels The University of Western Australia

Joanne Winter The University of Western Australia

and

Joseph Lo Bianco The University of Melbourne

Selection and editorial matter © Anne Pauwels, Joanne Winter and Joseph Lo Bianco 2007 Chapters © their authors 2007 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2007 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN-13: 9780230019195 hardback ISBN-10: 0230019196 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pauwels, Anne. Maintaining minority languages in transnational contexts/Anne Pauwels, Joanne Winter & Joseph Lo Bianco. p. cm. “ (Palgrave studies in minority languages and communities) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 9780230019195 (cloth) ISBN-10: 0230019196 (cloth) 1. Language policy“Europe. 2. Language policy“Australia. 3. Language maintenance“Europe. 4. Language maintenance“ Australia. 5. Linguistic minorities“Europe. 6. Linguistic minorities“ Australia. I. Winter, Joanne, 1958 II. Lo Bianco, Joseph. III. Title. P119.32.E85P38 2007 306.44 94“dc22 2006047141 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne

Contents

List of Tables

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

Notes on Contributors

x

1 Managing and Maintaining Minority Languages in the Era of Globalization: Challenges for Europe and Australia Anne Pauwels

1

Part I

Demography and Meaning

2 Community Languages and the 2001 Australian Census Sandra Kipp 3 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Minority Languages in Multicultural Europe Guus Extra

Part II

13

30

Policy and Planning

4 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe: Propositions for a European Language Policy Peter Hans Nelde

59

5 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy: Europe and Australia Joseph Lo Bianco

78

Part III Policy and Practice in Specific Settings 6 Maintaining a Language Other than English Through Higher Education in Australia Anne Pauwels v

107

vi Contents

7 Inconsistencies and Discrepancies in Official Approaches to Linguistic Diversity: The Case of Norway Tove Bull

124

8 Communication and Community: Perspectives on Language Policy in Sweden and Australia since the Mid-1970s Sally Boyd

141

9 Language Maintenance and the Second Generation: Policies and Practices Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

180

Author Index

201

Subject Index

203

List of Tables 2.1 Source of immigrants, 1995–2000 (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2.2 Top 20 community languages in Australia in 2001 and 1996 and changes (%) from 1996 and 1991 2.3 Concentrations of community languages in Melbourne and Sydney, 2001 2.4 Top 10 community languages in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth, 2001 2.5 Language shift in the first generation in Australia, 2001 and 1996 2.6 Language shift, 2001 (G1), 1996 (G1, G2) 2.7 Language shift by State and Territory, 2001 3.1 The Netherlands populations based on the combined birth country criterion (BC-PMF) versus the nationality criterion 3.2 Criteria for the definition and identification of population groups (P/F/M = person/father/mother) 3.3 Overview of census questions in four multicultural contexts 3.4 Overview of the MCP database 3.5 Ranked LVI per language group 3.6 Status of CLT in European primary and secondary education, according to nine parameters in six countries (Sw/G/N/B/F/Sp = Sweden/Germany/Netherlands until 2004/Belgium/France/Spain) 5.1 Kinds of nationalism in Europe: A geographic distribution 5.2 Selected demographic variables and bilingualism (%) 5.3 Australia’s linguistic demography 5.4 Overview of the National Policy on Languages 5.5 National policy commitments to education in languages other than English 6.1 Top 20 community languages in universities in Australia 7.1 Birthplaces of immigrants in Norway 7.2 Languages with more than 1000 registered students 8.1 Ten largest foreign-born groups in Sweden in 2002 8.2 The 10 most commonly studied mother tongues in Sweden in 2000 vii

15 16 18 19 21 23 25

37 38 39 43 45

49 82 97 98 99 100 115 136 137 146 150

viii List of Tables

8.3 Minorities and minority language in Sweden 8.4 Funding for Commonwealth language programmes, 1990–94 9.1 Participants included in the case study

151 167 183

Acknowledgements We would like to express thanks to Jill Lake for editorial assistance with this book. Sincere thanks also go to the Institute of Advanced Studies at the University of Western Australia for providing financial support for the 2003 Symposium: Maintaining Minority Languages in a Transnational World and for a publication subsidy for the book. Anne Pauwels, Joanne Winter and Joseph Lo Bianco Editors

ix

Notes on Contributors

Sally Boyd Sally Boyd is full Professor in Linguistics at the University of Göteborg, Sweden. She has degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Göteborg. Professor Boyd is one of the leading Swedish scholars in the study of language contact and immigrant language policy with specific reference to Sweden and other Nordic countries. She has published widely on ethnic minorities and language maintenance including a book entitled Language Survival: A Study of Language Contact, Language Shift and Language Choice in Sweden (1985). Tove Bull Tove Bull is Professor of Nordic Languages at the University of Tromsø, Norway. She was Rector of the University between 1996 and 2001. She has also been Vice-Rector. Her main research interests are language and gender, and language contact and change. She is currently working on a project about language contact between Norwegian and Sámi. She has taught Nordic linguistics at all levels and in different disciplines (sociolinguistics, dialectology, language history, gramma) in various universities in Norway and abroad. Guus Extra Guus Extra holds the chair of Language and Minorities at Tilburg University, Netherlands, and since 1999 he is also the Director of Babylon, Centre for Studies of Multilingualism in the Multicultural Society at that university. After studying and graduating from the University of Nijmegen (NL) in Applied Linguistics, he became a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University and at UC Berkeley (1978/79). Professor Extra has published extensively on multilingualism in the Netherlands and Europe. Sandra Kipp Sandra Kipp is Australian Research Council Postdoctoral Fellow in the School of Languages at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Since 1981 Sandra has worked extensively in the area of language demography and language maintenance/shift, working with Michael Clyne to x

Notes on Contributors

xi

publish articles and monographs based on the 1991 and 1996 Australian Censuses, as well as a number of more in-depth studies of particular community language groups in Melbourne, Australia. Joseph Lo Bianco Joseph Lo Bianco is Professor of Language and Literacy Education at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is the author of Australia’s first language policy the National Policy on Languages (NPL) (1987). The NPL has received international acclaim for its innovative approach to language planning. He has led Language Australia, which incorporated the National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia (NLLIA), since its inception in 1990. Professor Lo Bianco was also Chair of the Australian Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education. He has been a consultant on language policy to South Africa, Scotland, the USA, Sri Lanka, Canada and Cambodia. He publishes in multiculturalism, literacy education, language maintenance, planning and policy. Peter Nelde Peter H. Nelde is Professor and Chair in General and German Linguistics at the Brussels University (KUB), Belgium, and Head of the Research Centre on Multilingualism. He initiated interdisciplinary research in contact linguistics, edited Contact Linguistics – An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (2 vols – 1996, 1997), the Yearbook Sociolinguistica and the series Plurilingua. He conducted numerous projects on linguistic minorities for the European Union (‘Euromosaic’ and ‘Atlantis’) and on language policy (‘Monolingualism is curable’). Anne Pauwels Anne Pauwels is Professor of Linguistics and Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Western Australia, Australia. She is Chair of the Steering Committee for an Australian national research project Innovative Approaches to Provision of Languages Other than English in Australian Higher Education (Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund) managed by the Deans of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. Her main areas of research include immigrant language contact in Australia, language and gender as well as language policy relating to higher education. She is the author of Boys and Foreign Language Learning (2006), Women Changing Language (1998), Cross Cultural Communication in the Health Sciences (1995) and co-author of Immigration and Australia’s Language Resources (AGPS, 1995).

xii Notes on Contributors

Joanne Winter Joanne Winter is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Western Australia. Her research focuses on the interaction of discourse, identities and gender. She also works on gender-inclusive language planning and policy in world Englishes. Her recent publications investigate questions of gender and bilingual identities (International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Australian Journal of Linguistics) and discursive alignments and gender-inclusive agency in the classroom (Current Issues in Language Planning).

1 Managing and Maintaining Minority Languages in the Era of Globalization: Challenges for Europe and Australia Anne Pauwels The University of Western Australia

Globalization, transnational movement and linguistic diversity Whilst economic forces have been the primary drivers of globalization, socio-political changes as well as technical developments have contributed to shaping and speeding up the process. These included the political changes affecting Eastern Europe with the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, the strengthening and expansion of the European Union, to name some northern hemisphere examples. The rapid expansion and increasing sophistication of communication technologies and means of transportation further assisted the process of globalization by facilitating virtual and actual transnational movement. With the mass production of communication software, a much greater number of people can communicate cheaper, more often, faster and in more diverse ways with people around the globe. These developments are likely to impact also on the ways in which transnational movers, that is migrants, refugees and other sojourners, keep in touch with their home or former communities. Similarly long-distance travel has become within reach of many more people on a more frequent basis. This has impacted on migration and settlement patterns. For example, there is greater evidence of transnational movement and mobility by ‘migrating’ people who perhaps 20 years ago would have settled in a new environment with limited travel to and from their previous country. Since the late 1990s, migration scholars (e.g., Al-Ali and Koser, 2002; Castles, 2000; Vertovec, 1999) have started to focus more on the transnational aspect of 1

2

Managing and Maintaining Minority Languages

migration examining not only adaptation processes to the new society, but also the maintenance of social relations and connections with the ‘home’ country thus investigating migrant lives across international borders (e.g., Baldassar, 2001). This change in transnational movement and migration does not only affect the ‘professional’ sector of migrants, but also the unskilled, manual and even illegal sector (Koser, 2001). With globalization becoming or being the buzzword of the new millennium, it is not surprising that the academy has become involved in its critical study. Language and linguistic scholarship have not been immune from this focus. The period from the mid-1980s to 2005 have seen an expansion in studies examining the role of English in the process of globalization, the status of English as a global language and the impact of this development on the status, function and sometimes ‘survival’ of other languages in the world. Particularly contested and controversial are the investigations of the role of English in the globalizing process with scholars taking up radically different positions ranging from a belief that English was incidental to the process (Crystal, 1997) to views of linguistic imperialism (Philipson, 1992) and linguistic hegemony (Pennycook, 1994). Furthermore, if English continues its ascendancy as the global lingua franca, we may see a steep increase in the study of English as a second or foreign language possibly impacting on the study of other (foreign) languages. To date this trend is already visible in many European countries where English is becoming the first foreign language to be studied displacing languages like French and German. Other areas of language study, which are clearly affected by this development, include the study of multilingualism and linguistic diversity as well as that of language policy. For example, there is a need to examine thoroughly the impact of improved and cheaper transportation modes and communication technologies on the language maintenance efforts of migrants and other sojourners. Investigating the ‘threat’ to linguistic diversity by the expanding role of English is also starting to shape the study of multilingualism. This is a question of examining situations not only where English is in direct contact with other languages, but also where English poses an indirect ‘threat’ to linguistic diversity. An example of the latter involves English acquiring functions previously held solely by the national language (e.g., as a major language of education, business and trade). This could put pressure on the national status of that language which may try to recapture its preferred status by curbing the use and functions of other languages used in the community and country. Most affected by these worldwide developments (e.g., globalization, global movements, ‘global’ terrorism) as well

Anne Pauwels

3

as regional trends (e.g., the expansion of the EU, the ‘demise’ of the Soviet Union) is of course the field of language policy and planning as its raison d’être is the study of the management of language and communication issues and problems. Applied linguistic scholars of language planning and policy continue to be at the forefront of identifying the issues, alerting and advising agencies and polities on language management matters as well as critically analysing and commenting on various policy developments and decisions. It is within this context that a group of Australian and European scholars working on language policy, language maintenance and multilingualism gathered in Perth in June 2003 to discuss the impact of some of these developments and trends in their respective spheres of operation: Australia, Europe and specific entities within Europe.

Australian and European scholars working together on minority language policies in a globalizing world The Perth symposium continued as well as renewed the long-standing dialogue and collaboration that Australian and European scholars have had in relation to the study of language contact, linguistic diversity and the management thereof. In the past, such exchanges have focused on linguistic demography, on the analysis of language contact phenomena such as code-switching, on language maintenance efforts and on specific aspects of language policy. This affinity between Australian and European scholars is not surprising given the historical links between the two continents with regard to language. Until the late twentieth century, Europe was the main provider of immigrants to Australia shaping its linguistic diversity to a large extent. Although the period from the mid1980s to 2005 have seen a shift from an Australian language scene dominated by European languages to one in which Asian and Middle Eastern languages are more prevalent (see Chapter 2), the latest Census data (2001) continue to show the presence of many European languages including Italian (still the most widely spoken European language other than English today), Greek, German, Polish, Dutch, the languages of the former Yugoslavia, Czech and Slovak as well as Frisian, Basque, Norwegian, Latvian and Lithuanian. Furthermore, Australian language policy practitioners such as Joseph Lo Bianco have strengthened this relationship by being actively involved in language planning and policy initiatives in Europe (see Chapter 5). Although the symposium focused mostly on the challenges faced by Australia, the EU and some of its constituent parts in the light of globalization and other large-scale socio-political developments, it is

4

Managing and Maintaining Minority Languages

inevitable that comparisons are made of how these different polities react in terms of worldwide developments. Comparing European and Australian language policies is a problematic exercise as stated by Joseph Lo Bianco (see Chapter 5) not least because of the very different nature of the respective polities. Australia is a sovereign national (federated) polity whereas Europe, though moving towards some form of political union, is still made up of many sovereign national states. This fundamental difference affects the processes of policy-making and policy implementation, as is demonstrated in the contributions by Guus Extra, Joseph Lo Bianco and Peter Nelde. More useful comparisons continue to be those made between Australia and specific states within Europe as has been done by Sally Boyd in her comparison of language policy developments in Sweden and Australia. Nevertheless, Europe and Australia both face the challenges of globalization and of changing patterns in transnational movements which demand linguistic responses and adjustments. Comparing how these ‘polities’ deal with these challenges is the topic of this collection: it is a valuable exercise, which furthers insights into the complexities of language planning and language policy.

Common challenges: Australia–Europe Linguistic demography data Fundamental to any examination of multilingualism and subsequent planning or policy initiatives is access to data documenting the linguistic diversity of a particular entity, region or community. Having access to data, let alone accurate or optimal data, about linguistic diversity continues to be a major challenge for most nations, states or supranational bodies. Although researchers (see Chapters 2 and 3) have highlighted some of the problems surrounding the collection of language data through a national Census in Australia, there is no doubt that Australian language researchers have been fortunate in having been able to use a national survey (Census) since 1976 to detail the linguistic demography of Australia. Sandra Kipp’s contribution to this book clearly demonstrates the immense resource that this type of data collection has been for understanding as well as planning multilingualism in Australia. To date, European scholars have been less well equipped to work on linguistic demography: collection of language data at European level is not yet a reality although information on population figures in EU member states can be obtained from the Statistical Office of the EU in Luxembourg (EuroStat). At the level of individual countries,

Anne Pauwels

5

the situation is very disparate with some countries such as Belgium opposing the inclusion of a language question in national census surveys (see Chapter 4) and others only collecting information about particular groups. Indeed the contributions by Tove Bull, Sally Boyd and Guus Extra show the disparities in data available on speakers of minority languages. Furthermore, it also shows that language information on non-European immigrant groups is particularly scant. Extra’s contribution provides some suggestions for improving collection of language data.

Educational provisions for minority languages and minority language speakers Central to language management and planning is the way in which the polity or state deals with speakers of minority languages in the educational domain. Does the state recognize the need to provide assistance to these inhabitants, and if so what is the nature of that assistance and who can access it? The contributions to this book provide a rich palette of approaches to these questions in relation to Australia (Boyd, Lo Bianco, Pauwels, Winter and Pauwels) and several states in Europe including Norway (Bull), Sweden (Boyd, Extra), Scotland (Lo Bianco), Belgium (Extra, Nelde), France (Extra), Germany (Extra, Nelde), the Netherlands and Spain (Extra). The European contributions show clearly that the treatment of minority languages in education aligns with the status assigned to these languages at both national and European level: for example, minority languages covered and protected by the European Charter for regional or minority languages and the Framework convention for the protection of national minorities have more (consistent) coverage in education and are better provided for than those of immigrant minorities, especially if the latter are of non-European origin. In fact, Bull points out that in the context of Norway there is definitely a hierarchical principle governing the treatment of languages and especially minority languages, which places the immigrant languages at the bottom of the pile. This is in contrast to Australia where the status and plight of indigenous languages (Australian Aboriginal Languages) are very precarious with limited maintenance or revival programmes available in schools. In Australia hierarchies of languages in education also exist and have been subject to both drastic and subtle changes since the post-Second World War period. Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels document four dominant institutional voices that have regulated and/or guided language education initiatives in Australia vis-à-vis immigrant community languages.

6

Managing and Maintaining Minority Languages

A similarity between Australia and Europe lies in the policy and scholarly preoccupation with educational provisions for minority/community languages at the primary and/or secondary level of schooling. Anne Pauwels discusses how tertiary (university) education in Australia has largely ignored its potential to play a significant role in community language education (especially from a language maintenance perspective) and makes some suggestions how this role could be actualized. A similar observation could be made for Europe where significant provisions are made at tertiary level to enable students to acquire competence in another language of the EU through studying in another EU country (e.g., Erasmus programme). However, such educational programs are not extended to cover non-EU languages or the many non-European immigrant languages.

The ‘threat’ or dominance of English as a global language Both continents need to face the challenges that the increasing spread of English as the global lingua franca places on their management of languages. Of course, the challenges differ between those states that have English as their dominant (official and/or national) language and those in which it has the status of ‘foreign’ language. For Australia, the United Kingdom and Ireland the growing global importance of English places further stress on promoting policies and making provisions for the study of other – community or foreign – languages. Australia’s language policies continue to stress the relevance and importance for all Australians of learning another language, and there is evidence that since the introduction of the National Policy on Languages (Lo Bianco, 1987) the teaching of ‘other’ languages (community or foreign) has expanded both in terms of number of languages available for study and the number of students undertaking language study. However, the commitment of resources to maintain this level of participation has been reduced in real terms and has often become restricted to specific types of languages and studies (see Chapter 8). Furthermore, the number of students undertaking the study of another language past the compulsory stage continues to be disappointing. In fact, since the removal of a (foreign) language requirement for university entry in the 1960s, the percentage of secondary school students studying another language in their final year of schooling has hovered around 14 per cent. This compares with approximately 40 per cent of finalyear students undertaking language study in the 1960s. The situation of foreign and community language learning in the British Isles could be

Anne Pauwels

7

viewed as even less encouraging than in Australia. Despite Ireland’s and the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU the number of students participating in as well as the number of schools offering study in one of the EU languages continues to be low (for details, see e.g., Chapter 5; Nuffield, 2000). In addition, the rich linguistic diversity including both indigenous regional and immigrant languages which characterizes the British and Irish population is not reflected in its language offerings: only a few of the immigrant languages are available for study at A levels. In Lo Bianco’s chapter, the paucity of choice in language learning in Scotland is exposed. The challenges posed by the ‘globalization’ of English for European countries without English as dominant language and for the EU itself are multiple. At the level of the EU the frequent and possibly dominant use of English as a lingua franca and as working language outside the ‘official’ arenas of the Parliament, Council and Commission causes concern among some European member states, in particular France and Germany (see Chapter 4). The dominance of English in the ‘foreign’ language learning arena is seen as particularly complex: Extra’s contribution outlines this complexity very well. In 1995, the European Commission opted for trilingualism as a policy goal for all European citizens. Apart from their ‘mother tongue’, each citizen should learn at least two other ‘community’ languages. Although not made explicit it was understood that the concept of ‘mother tongue’ referred to the national languages of the particular nation states and that the concept of ‘community languages’ similarly referred to the national languages of other EU member states. Later European Commission documents mentioned the importance of one of the two languages to be learnt by each citizen to be a language with high international prestige: although English was not named explicitly there was sufficient room for the interpretation that this statement referred predominantly to English. The Euro-Barometer figures on foreign languages confirm the dominance of English as the leading first foreign language studied by Europeans (32 per cent): this is far ahead of other languages such as French, German, Spanish and Italian. Currently the number of Europeans who know a second ‘foreign’ language is still very low (approximately 2 per cent). If English continues to dominate in the category of first foreign language studied and the number of students taking up a second foreign language remains low, then there is no doubt that the multilingual profile and capacity of Europeans will suffer. Boyd’s chapter alerts to another potential threat posed by English: the threat of English encroaching on language functions formerly

8

Managing and Maintaining Minority Languages

reserved for the national and/or majority language. She notes that in 1997 the Swedish Language Council published a report documenting the status of Swedish as part of its expanding role, that is from an agency concerned with corpus planning to one which also involves itself in status planning. Boyd identifies the global spread of English as one of the main triggers for this investigation: unlike the Académie Française which considers English loanwords in French problematic, the Swedish Language Council is not perturbed by this phenomenon but expresses concern about ‘domain’ loss for Swedish, that is the use of English is expanding rapidly in domains such as education (mainly tertiary), politics (especially relating to the EU), business/trade as well as the media, entertainment and through new communication technologies. Boyd reports that some members even think that this expansion may reduce Swedish to a ‘home language’ and ultimately to a language inadequate for use in high status and high profile domains. This sentiment about English posing a threat to the status of national languages is also expressed in countries like Norway (see Chapter 7), Denmark and the Netherlands. There is clearly a need for more research, in particular to study the extent of this ‘intrusion’ of English and its possible consequences not only for the national majority language, but also for the other languages spoken in a country.

Language planning in the future: Australia and Europe With respect to future language planning, the challenges for Europe and Australia may indeed be very different. At this stage Australia is unlikely to change dramatically in political terms. There continues to be talk of Australia becoming a republic but that transition is unlikely to affect language policy matters in a significant way. Language policy and planning in Australia are driven primarily by social and economic factors and policies. The period from the mid-1970s to 2005 have shown that changes in these impact on the linguistic landscape and the language policies of Australia as documented in the chapters by Kipp, Boyd, Lo Bianco, Winter and Pauwels. These changes have not been very dramatic resulting in a reversal or a major upset in the hierarchy of languages in Australia. The supremacy of English as national, dominant and official language has not been, or is, not under threat. The impact is felt more within the category of immigrant community languages where the position and status of certain languages may increase or decrease depending on socio-political changes as well as economic movements both ‘at

Anne Pauwels

9

home’ and ‘on the world stage’. The rapidly increasing transnational mobility mentioned above opens up new avenues for the maintenance and even increased use of immigrant languages especially in the case of the second generation (children of migrants) (see Chapter 9). For Europe the immediate future challenges for language planning and language management are likely to be of a magnitude not seen for a long time. This is due in part to the continuing substantial intra-European political changes and alignments. Peter Nelde’s contribution outlines many of these challenges and also offers ways of managing linguistic diversity and multilingualism in Europe by proposing a pan-European language policy premised on maintaining bilingualism. Although this book is focused on language policy and practices vis-à-vis minority languages in Europe and Australia, its contributors highlight a number of propositions and conditions which language planners in other regions or polities could benefit from in their planning exercises. As such, this book transcends the boundaries of Australia and Europe and provides some lenses on the managing of minority languages in transnational contexts.

References Al-Ali, N. and Koser, K. (eds) (2002) New Approaches to Migration, Transnational Communities and the Transformation of Home. Routledge: London/New York. Baldassar, L. (2001) Visits Home: Migration Experiences Between Italy and Australia. Melbourne University Press: Melbourne. Castles, S. (2000) Ethnicity and Globalisation, from Migrant Worker to Transnational Citizen. Sage: London. Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Koser, K. (2001) ‘New approaches to asylum?’, International Migration, 39, 6: 85–102. Lo Bianco, J. (1987) National Policy on Languages. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra. Nuffield (2000) Languages: The Next Generation. The Final Report and Recommendations of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry. The Nuffield Foundation: London. Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Longman: London. Philipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Vertovec, S. (1999) ‘Conceiving and researching transnationalism’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22, 2: 447–62.

This page intentionally left blank

Part I Demography and Meaning

This page intentionally left blank

2 Community Languages and the 2001 Australian Census Sandra Kipp The University of Melbourne

Introduction With migration becoming an increasingly global phenomenon, and with many countries taking on the new role of ‘immigrant nation’ where previously they had supplied emigrants to countries such as the United States or Australia, the issue of the management of linguistic resources is extremely timely. On the one hand, of course, there is the requirement to provide all permanent residents of a nation with access to an official language, through which they can enter employment, obtain education and participate in community life. On the other hand, there is the issue of what will become of the language of the immigrant, when that differs from the language of the host community – will it be actively discouraged from the outset, will it be retained until such time as the immigrant can function in the official language of the host country, will it be tolerated as a marker of identity for the first generation of immigrants, or will it be maintained, developed and transmitted to subsequent generations? And, to go one step further, will it remain within the confines of the community language group and their descendants, or will it be shared with the wider community? Australia presents a particularly valuable case study in the management and monitoring of linguistic resources, in that there has been a question on language use in the National Census since 1976, the same question (targeting home language use) since 1986. This has enabled the analysis of Australia’s changing language demography over nearly three decades, documenting both the continuing presence of language communities established during the immediate post-war period (and before) and the ongoing diversification of languages and source countries of migration, particularly from 13

14 Community Languages

the mid-1970s. Changing language demography is the result of both immigration trends, which are closely linked to public policy and social climate, both in the source country and in Australia, and intergenerational transmission, which varies quite significantly between language groups and is also the result of both pre- and post-migration experiences. This contribution will consider first the overall linguistic landscape of Australia, and how that has changed (particularly from the 1970s) and continues to change. It will then consider briefly some of the issues involved in intergenerational transmission of community languages.

Language demography, 1976–2001 The 2001 Australian Census shows a continuing shift away from the largely European community language demography established during the large immigration intake of the immediate post-war period, and continued through the 1960s and 1970s, towards one based more on the languages of the Middle East and Asia, dominated by Arabic, Vietnamese and the Chinese varieties but with rapidly growing numbers of speakers of languages from the Indian subcontinent and ‘other Asia’ – the Philippines in particular, but also increasingly Korea and Indonesia (Clyne and Kipp, 2002). This process began in the early 1970s with the dismantling in 1973 by the Whitlam Government of the ‘White Australia Policy’ that had been in effect since Federation (1901). The introduction of a ‘Structured Selection Assessment System’ (or ‘points’ system) opened the way for ‘non-white’ immigrants to compete for entry on the same basis as ‘white’ immigrants, and effected a dramatic change in Australia’s ethnic and linguistic profile. For example, over 80 per cent of the post-war immigration to date from Greece, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands occurred before 1971, whereas 89 per cent of the postwar immigration from Asia and the Middle East took place after 1970, and 52 per cent after 1980. Immigration from North-east Asia, with a large component of highly skilled people, grew from 4 per cent of the total immigrant intake in 1982–83 to 18 per cent of the total in 1990–91, dropping back to 12.3 per cent by 2000. Throughout the 1980s the most important source countries for migration after the United Kingdom (UK) were located in South-east and North-east Asia: Vietnam, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – not necessarily always in that order. The proportion of migrants from the UK had, however, dropped from 41.3 per cent in 1973–74 to 18.7 per cent in 1983–84. During the early 1990s there was a relative decrease in

Sandra Kipp

15

Table 2.1 Source of immigrants, 1995–2000 (Australian Bureau of Statistics)

Oceania (includes New Zealand) UK/Ireland S. Europe W. Europe N. Europe E. Europe Former USSR + Baltic States Middle East North Africa S.E. Asia N.E. Asia S. Asia N. America S. America, Cent. Am, Caribbean Rest of Africa Total immigrants

1995–96 (%)

1996–97 (%)

1997–98 (%)

1998–99 (%)

1999–2000 (%)

164

195

230

267

282

122 89 21 04 13 267

122 72 24 05 14 259

128 76 21 04 252 N.A.

112 76 19 03 233 N.A.

108 53 20 03 204 N.A.

66 11 133 188 78 25 13

63 10 132 176 65 28 12

64 11 125 132 69 26 09

50 12 130 129 63 19 09

54 11 122 123 79 11 07

55

58

81

86

85

99,139

85,752

77,327

84,143

92,272

immigrant numbers from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Malaysia, although proportionately numbers from Vietnam, the Philippines and the PRC remained relatively steady. The 1990s saw an increase in migration from Eastern Europe, beginning from 1992 and largely linked to the Humanitarian Program. From 1995, the situation has been as follows (Table 2.1): If we assume that immigrants from the UK, New Zealand and most of those from ‘rest of Africa, including South Africa’1 and North America will be from an English-speaking background, then between 46 and 49 per cent of the immigration programme in 1999–2000 would fit into this category. This is very comparable with the situation in 1963–64, when some 50 per cent of the immigration programme was from English-speaking countries, but not with that in 1983, where only 29 per cent fitted in this category, or 1991, where the proportion was even lower (22 per cent). Immigration intake policy appears to be swinging away from non-English-speaking countries, and away from source countries that are culturally quite different from Australia. Since 1988–89, when the total immigration intake peaked at 1,24,700 there has also been a steady downturn in immigrant numbers overall, which stood at 92,272 in 1999–2000, 35.4 per cent of which, however,

16 Community Languages

was ‘non-program’ (i.e., non-visaed) immigration (largely New Zealand citizens). The current migration programme is divided among ‘Skills’, ‘Family’, ‘Humanitarian’, ‘Special Eligibility’ and ‘Non-program’ (i.e., non-visaed) streams, with a climate of economic rationalism seeing the emphasis move from the ‘Family’ category to the ‘Skills’ category (comprising 52 per cent of the total immigration programme in 1997– 98, the highest to that point of time). While official rhetoric (based on birthplace statistics for the Australian population) may still extol the virtues of Australia’s cultural diversity, such diversity is not at present reflected in actual immigration intake and this must have implications for Australia’s linguistic profile in the future.

National language demography, 2001 Table 2.2 reveals that the most widely used community languages throughout Australia in 2001 remain, as in 1996, Italian, Greek, Table 2.2 Top 20 community languages in Australia in 2001 and 1996 and changes (%) from 1996 and 1991 Language

Italian Greek Cantonese Arabic (incl. Lebanese) Vietnamese Mandarin Spanish Tagalog (Filipino) German Macedonian Croatian Polish Turkish Serbian Hindi Maltese Netherlandic French Korean Indonesian

2001

Change from 1996 (%)

1996

3,53,606 2,63,718 2,25,307 2,09,371 1,74,236 1,39,288 93,595 78,879 76,444 71,994 69,850 59,056 50,692 49,202 47,817 41,392 40,187 39,643 39,528 38,724

−59 −23 +114 +179 +192 +513 +25 +121 −228 +08 +10 −59 +98 +321 +407 −84 −12 +06

3,75,834 2,69,831 2,02,194 1,77,641 1,46,192 92,065 91,270 70,343 99,050 71,414 69,152 62,774 46,169 37,238 33,988 45,179 40,686 39,392 29,930 27,195

Change from 1991 (%) −156 −77 +389 +286 +581 +1559 +34 +334 −326 +117 +107 −118 +208 +1022 +1104 −219 −147 −129 +1001 +424

Sandra Kipp

17

Cantonese, Arabic and Vietnamese. The next language is now Mandarin, which has experienced a 51.3 per cent increase in home users since 1996 (on top of a 68.5 per cent increase between 1991 and 1996), and with Spanish and ‘Tagalog (Filipino)’2 has overtaken German, previously ranked sixth. Outside of the top 20 languages, Samoan has seen an increase of 45.5 per cent since 1996, from 15,614 speakers to 22,711. This, like the large increases for Mandarin and Serbian, is due mainly to new migration. German has seen the most dramatic drop in use yet noted in a 5-year Census period, down nearly 23 per cent from 1996, and down 32.6 per cent from 1991 (Clyne and Kipp, 2002). It should be noted that in the Censuses from 1986 to 2001 each respondent has been asked whether he/she regularly uses a language other than English in the home, and, if so, what the main language other than English is. This means (particularly for older established communities) that the use of the language other than English is underestimated by Census figures. As young people move out of the parental home, they often make English the language of their new home but continue to use the community language in the homes of parents or other older relatives and in community groups. The only large-scale research comparing home use and regular use was undertaken on the basis of an ABS survey of 2/3 of 1 per cent of the Australian population conducted in 1983 (see Clyne, 1991). The survey showed a massive differential in the two uses for German (with 48.25 per cent of speakers with German as L1 the first language acquired using it at home, but 83.57 per cent with relatives and friends) and large ones for French (66 per cent at home, 87.02 per cent with relatives and friends) and Italian (81.85 per cent at home, 95.98 per cent with relatives and friends).

Language demography in the urban and non-urban areas Due to the emphasis on the development of Australia’s secondary industries in the immediate post-war years, much of the migration during that time was to urban areas, especially the capital cities of Sydney and Melbourne, a trend which has been ongoing. Table 2.3 shows some of the more highly ‘concentrated’ languages and their points of concentration. It demonstrates the importance of Sydney as a destination for speakers from the Middle East, North-east Asia, the Indian subcontinent and the Pacific, as well as the concentration of some of the newer migration from Africa in Melbourne. Residents of non-urban areas are continuing to use languages other than English significantly less than those of capital/urban areas (for

18 Community Languages Table 2.3 Concentrations of community languages in Melbourne and Sydney, 2001 Melbourne

Sydney

Language

%

Language

%

Oromo Yiddish Albanian Somali Hakka Tigrinya Sinhalese Hebrew Turkish Pashto Timorese Amharic

85.3 81.8 68.3 64.4 59.6 57.1 55.5 52.7 52.5 52.2 50.8 50.3

Armenian Korean Assyrian Arabic Asante Fijian Nepali Akan Bengali Tongan Marathi Wu Hindi Urdu Lao Teochew Cantonese Tagalog (Filipino)

76.4 74.7 72.8 68.0 67.1 66.7 66.1 65.3 63.6 62.7 61.7 60.1 57.1 56.7 54.0 53.3 51.7 50.9

instance, community language use amounts to 4.7 per cent for the non-urban areas in New South Wales Sydney is the state capital; for non-urban areas in Victoria [state capital is Melbourne] the figure is 4.9 per cent). The exception is the Northern Territory, where 41 per cent of the population uses a language other than English outside Darwin compared with 14.2 per cent in Darwin.3 Sydney was the city with the largest proportion of residents using a language other than English in the home in 2001 (29.2 per cent compared to Melbourne’s 26.9 per cent), and the state capital of Tasmania, Hobart, had the smallest proportion (5 per cent). While some community languages, such as Vietnamese, are distributed very evenly between capital cities, others are much more strongly represented in one city than in others (due to factors such as point of arrival, employment opportunities, chain migration of family members to established groups). The data in Table 2.3 and the data presented in Table 2.4 for Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth would suggest that

Sandra Kipp

19

Table 2.4 Top 10 community languages in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth, 2001 Ranking

Melbourne

Sydney

Adelaide

Brisbane

Perth

1

Italian 1,34,675

Arabic 1,42,467

Italian 37,803

Cantonese 13,796

Italian 32,893

2

Greek 1,18,755

Cantonese 1,16,384

Greek 25,119

Vietnamese 13,374

Cantonese 14,889

3

Vietnamese 63,033

Greek 83,926

Vietnamese 12,355

Mandarin 13,244

Vietnamese 11,587

4

Cantonese 59,303

Italian 79,683

Polish 7454

Italian 11,368

Mandarin 10,882

5

Arabic 45,736

Vietnamese 65,923

German 7103

Greek 8239

Indonesian 6322

6

Mandarin 37,994

Mandarin 63,716

Cantonese 6609

Spanish 6874

Croatian 6313

7

Macedonian 30,859

Spanish 44,672

Arabic 4252

Samoan 6768

Polish 6161

8

Turkish 26,598

Tagalog 40,139

Serbian 3862

German 5736

Macedonian 5782

9

Spanish 21,852

Korean 29,538

Mandarin 3825

Tagalog 5288

German 5724

10

Croatian 21,690

Hindi 27,283

Croatian 3457

Hindi 4669

Arabic 5293

Australian capital cities have developed, to some extent, characteristic and divergent linguistic profiles. For example, Brisbane, with a very small share of the post-war European migration, is the only city to have Asian languages in the top three positions. Italian, still the most used community language nationally, is the ‘top’ language in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, with Greek also prominent in Melbourne and Adelaide. In Perth, while Italian still has more speakers than the next two languages combined, the next four places are occupied by Asian languages. Of the Chinese varieties, Cantonese is relatively more important nationwide, but Mandarin is now the faster growing language (see Table 2.2). Vietnamese is one of the top three languages in all cities except Sydney, which is characterized by the dominance of Arabic. However, the growth patterns of the Asian versus European language groups (see Table 2.1), and the age profiles of their speakers, indicate that

20 Community Languages

the next Census will see a continuing increase in speakers of languages such as Vietnamese and Mandarin. For example, the most widely used home language of 0–14-year-olds in Melbourne is not Italian, but Vietnamese, with Italian dropping to fifth position after Greek, Arabic and Cantonese. In Sydney, both Vietnamese and Mandarin have more speakers in this age group than either Greek or Italian (Vietnamese has nearly three times as many as Italian), and in Perth, there are more 0– 14-year-old speakers of Vietnamese than there are of Italian. The younger generation figures suggest that the ‘difference’ between cities in terms of languages spoken will become less marked over the next decade. Within the capital cities, languages are also not distributed evenly, with some languages highly concentrated in a particular Local Government Area (LGA) or group of LGAs and others more evenly dispersed across the entire metropolitan area. Some cities, notably Melbourne, have very few LGAs where there is no significant presence of any community language group, while in others, such as Sydney, Perth and Adelaide, there continue to be a significant proportion of LGAs which are to all intents and purposes monolingual. The most highly concentrated languages (for which we have data) across the cities are Khmer, Macedonian, Turkish and Indonesian (not always in that order), while the least concentrated is German. Concentration patterns are of course also dynamic, with some languages (e.g., Greek in Melbourne) becoming more dispersed after a period of concentration.

Language shift Language demography is clearly not just a result of changing or continuing migration trends, but also of the maintenance of a community language among the first generation of immigrants and its successful transmission to succeeding generations. Language shift in the first generation (G1) is calculated as the proportion of persons born in a particular (non-English-speaking) country who now use only English in the home. As already noted with reference to total numbers of community language speakers, lack of use in the home does not imply no use at all, as the language may well be used with other family and community members outside of the home. From 1986 to 1996, second generation (G2) shift could be calculated as the proportion of persons born in Australia with one or both parents born in a particular (nonEnglish-speaking) country who now use only English in the home. It was not possible to calculate language shift for the second generation in the same way in 2001, as the Census question on parental birth-

Sandra Kipp

21

place was changed to include only two options: ‘in Australia’ or ‘outside Australia’. In place of the open-ended parental birthplace question, an ‘ancestry’ question was added, giving each respondent the opportunity to describe his/her ancestry. The first two ancestries given were coded and processed. These changes in the Census composition impact on the work done in Australia on language maintenance and shift in a number of ways. On the positive side, birthplace has never been a particularly satisfactory surrogate for ‘language first spoken’, particularly in the case of countries with ethnically mixed populations such as Vietnam (Vietnamese and Chinese), Egypt (Arabic/Greek/Italian/French) or Greece (Greek and, in the north, Macedonian). The addition of an ancestry question has enabled us to confirm a very low level of shift for Vietnamborn of both Chinese and Vietnamese ancestry, and it has allowed us to calculate for the first time a language shift rate for Macedonian speakers from northern Greece. On the negative side, it is a subjective, rather than an objective, measure, and the connection with language is even more tenuous than that between birthplace and language. In the case of the Australian-born, we have no way of knowing how many generations back the ancestry extends, or whether it is from the father’s or the mother’s side. In addition, the question becomes even more subjective in the second generation, being dependent on the degree to which the respondent wishes to identify with any one of what is for most of us an extremely complex multiple ancestry. Any link with language becomes tenuous in the extreme. Due to the difficulty in providing comparable data for 2001 for both the first and second generations, the following discussion will focus on the first generation, with some reference to 1996 data for the second generation. Table 2.5 concentrates on G1 and provides a comprehensive list of birthplaces and associated language shift. Table 2.5 Language shift in the first generation in Australia, 2001 and 1996 Birthplace

Vietnam Eritrea Somalia Iraq Taiwan

English only at home (%) 2001

1996

24 30 34 36 38

2.7 na* na 4.9 3.4

22 Table 2.5 (Continued) Birthplace

English only at home (%) 2001

Cambodia China (People’s Republic) Republic of Macedonia El Salvador Lebanon Greece Turkey Hong Kong Republic of Korea Chile Russian Federation Ukraine Ethiopia Italy Indonesia Japan Argentina Portugal Other South America Egypt Poland Brazil Spain Mauritius Philippines Hungary Malaysia France Latvia Malta Sri Lanka Lithuania Switzerland India Singapore Germany Austria The Netherlands ∗

not available from our data.

40 43 47 48 62 71 71 103 111 122 133 135 149 159 164 169 170 174 184 217 223 241 251 273 274 350 359 368 382 382 404 417 446 476 489 540 544 626

1996 2.8 4.6 3.0 na 5.5 6.4 5.8 9.0 11.6 9.8 na na na 14.7 15.4 15.4 na na 17.2 20.5 19.6 na 22.4 na 24.8 31.8 33.3 37.2 na 36.5 na na 42.7 na 47.8 48.2 48.3 61.9

Sandra Kipp

23

Table 2.6 gives the language shift rates for selected languages in 1996 for G1 and G2 and in 2001 for G1 only. Table 2.6 Language shift, 2001 (G1), 1996 (G1, G2) Birthplace

Language Shift (%) Ist Generation (G1)

2nd Generation 1996 (G2)

2001 1996 Endogamous Mother Father x x Austria 544 Chile 122 France 368 Germany 540 Greece 71 Hong Kong 103 Hungary 350 Italy 159 Japan 169 Korea 111 Republic of 62 Lebanon Macedonia 47 Republic of 382 Malta The 626 Netherlands Other South 184 American countries Poland 223 PRC 43 Spain 251 Taiwan 38 Turkey 71

Exogamous G2 aggregated aggregated

483 98 372 482 64 90 318 147 154 116 55

800 127 465 776 161 87 642 426 54 54 114

894 558 770 900 446 439 859 731 650 590 342

922 689 833 936 551 539 907 809 792 657 490

911 623 804 920 519 487 894 791 689 615 436

897 380 777 897 280 357 821 579 576 180 201

30 365

74 700

332 920

413 940

386 929

148 821

619

911

955

972

965

950

172

157

613

742

671

505

196 46 224 34 58

584 171 383 50 50

810 461 696 287 347

898 581 783 307 523

869 528 750 292 466

757 374 630 210 161

There are clearly many factors influencing the fate of a community language in a country of immigration, and it is evident from Tables 2.5 and 2.6 that not all language communities react to the migration experience in the same way insofar as their language use patterns are concerned. The following discussion is not intended as a comprehensive coverage of all factors involved in language maintenance and shift either in Australia or internationally, but rather as a demonstration of how such factors are typically interrelated and their effects interdependent.

24 Community Languages

As indicated in Table 2.5, most immigrant groups for which we have data have experienced a slow but steady increase in the rate of language shift in the decade since 1991. With the exception of the France-born (who did, however, experience a particularly large increase in language shift between 1991 and 1996), the groups showing a decrease in language shift in 2001 are all prominent within the immigration programme in different ways and to different extents. While the humanitarian programme is a small component of overall immigration, Iraq has been an important source country during the 1990s. Mandarin is one of the most rapidly growing community languages, and, although the increases in speakers of Vietnamese (up 19.2 per cent) and Korean (up 32.1 per cent) between 1996 and 2001 are not as great as that for Mandarin (up 51.3 per cent), they are still significant, and much of the increase is still due to continuing migration (largely through the business and family reunion programmes). The decrease in the shift rate of the overseas-born for these groups can be attributed to a short period of residence in a growing sector of the community, increasing mobility (with corresponding frequency of return visits to the source country) and the revitalization that continuing migration provides for the established community (Kipp and Clyne, 2003). Community language groups clearly differ markedly from each other in terms of size, although from our data it seems that it is concentration patterns, rather than numbers per se which are most likely to influence language maintenance or shift. While there are relatively small communities with low shift rates (e.g., Somali-born) and larger communities with mid to high shift rates (e.g., Filipino- and Malta-born), it is usually the case that a language is best maintained in the state in which it forms the largest proportion of the total population (Table 2.7). Where this is not the case, it is generally Victoria or South Australia where the language is better maintained than would be expected, and this probably reflects the long history of non-English-speaking migration to these states and the early development of multicultural policies there. It is also true that many of the very well maintained languages are very highly concentrated at the Local Government Area level (e.g., Macedonian, Khmer, Turkish). Close proximity to other speakers, together with the clustering of language-specific facilities, work in the interest of intergenerational transmission of the language, and Fishman’s (1991) notion of family–neighbourhood–community transmission of language is dependent on this sort of concentration. However, it does not in itself guarantee the maintenance of a community language. This is exemplified by the case of Maltese, which is very highly

Sandra Kipp

25

Table 2.7 Language shift by State and Territory, 2001 Birthplace

NSW %

VIC %

QLD %

SA %

WA %

ACT %

TAS %

NT %

Argentina Austria Cambodia Chile PRC France (see above) Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary Iraq Italy Japan Republic of Korea Latvia (see above) Lebanon Lithuania (see above) FY Republic of Macedonia Malta The Netherlands (see above) Philippines Poland Somalia (see above) Spain Taiwan Turkey Ukraine (see above) Vietnam

153∗ 573 37 118 36 341 557 69 79 372 34 166 171 72 384 55 487

164 523 39 108 38 397 531 62 88 304 32 139 186 180 328 61 334

239 530 88 207 95 379 549 161 172 371 116 238 136 132 501 221 545

233 532 35 140 80 404 529 67 162 350 50 146 206 502 366 117 359

212 582 68 150 62 379 561 145 208 399 57 175 183 286 486 165 593

237 541 112 113 73 371 575 97 224 403 114 210 298 223 429 99 409

333 665 00 150 171 422 574 111 309 570 83 278 223 403 585 273 402

500 646 00 170 111 448 547 60 238 485 00 218 270 584 545 333 667

48

41

104

109

42

118

250

500

383 642

336 638

593 632

491 640

682 599

600 624

865 611

824 710

227 241 58 232 42 74 132

254 222 26 247 43 53 99

405 279 18 277 22 197 271

346 174 00 339 70 138 165

401 194 56 306 79 162 247

311 226 167 220 135 279 127

514 285 333 356 53 375 341

296 357 00 241 231 250 00

22

18

39

31

33

62

194

89

∗

State with the highest proportion of speakers per head of population.

concentrated at the LGA level, but displays a medium to high shift rate (see Table 2.5). Where language shift is well underway for other reasons (in the case of Maltese, pre-existing experience with English and initial low perceived status for Maltese), close settlement probably serves to reinforce that pattern. The language shift figures also demonstrate that it is generally those groups which are culturally more removed from mainstream Anglo-Australia that shift to English least (Clyne, 1991;

26 Community Languages

Kipp and Clyne, 2003). Cultural distance is usually accompanied by or expressed in differing degrees of religious distance – for example, Greek Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Lebanese Maronite, Islam from a number of linguistic backgrounds, where Greek, Macedonian, Arabic and Turkish are all well maintained, over a number of generations (see Table 2.6). Sometimes the community language, or a form of it, is utilized in religious observance, and sometimes it is not. Where it is not, as in the case of Somali-born Muslims, there is some evidence that the community language may suffer in succeeding generations as the result of the competing demands of Arabic, English and Somali (Clyne and Kipp, 2006). Cultural and/or religious distance may also interact with other (themselves interrelated) factors, including recency of arrival, English proficiency and pre-migration experience. Some newly arrived languages (from communities with varying degrees of ‘distance’ from the Anglo-Australian mainstream) may have had pre-migration experience with English (e.g., Filipino, Sinhalese, Hindi, Urdu, Cantonese from Hong Kong), although the status of English will not have been the same in all of these cases. Some community language groups may have differing levels of experience with English (e.g., Somalis, with British colonial rule in the north of the country, and Italian in the south). Some groups (e.g., Macedonian speakers from Northern Greece) may have had pre-migration experience of language maintenance in an environment of linguistic and social oppression. The attitude of the host community (one of Kloss’s (1966) ‘ambivalent’ factors) is an extremely important underlying factor in language use patterns (again interacting with factors such as cultural distance and core value theory), and conflict may either be resolved or repeated in a country of migration. It is a factor that also correlates with period of residence, with different groups arriving in a host country at different times into different ‘climates’ with regard to cultural and linguistic diversity. In the case of Australia, this would include a highly ‘assimilationist’ period from the immediate post-war years until the late 1960s, a more ‘open’ period of development and implementation of multicultural policies from the 1970s through to the mid- to late 1980s, then a re-fragmentation of policy driven by a strong ethos of economic rationalism in the 1990s and beyond. An example of a group which has benefited from ‘marginal’ status both in the homeland and in the country of migration is the Macedonian-speaking community in Melbourne. The post-war ‘vintage’ of Macedonian speakers came largely from northern Greece, where they experienced a high degree of both social and linguistic oppression, resulting in the retreat of Macedonian to the home domain, where it

Sandra Kipp

27

was generally well maintained. This pattern was continued in Australia. During the 1980s and beyond, this ‘vintage’ was joined by speakers of Macedonian from the Republic of Macedonia, where Macedonian was an official language and speakers had been able to develop their Macedonian through the education system. Co-settlement in Melbourne with the earlier vintage benefited both groups – the earlier vintage benefited from the revitalization and linguistic skills of the later group, and the later group benefited from the strong will to maintain the language that was present in the earlier group. Both groups benefited from the unity of purpose engendered by the moves of the Victorian Government in the early 1990s, under pressure from a Greek lobby, to ‘rename’ their language as ‘Macedonian (Slavonic)’. This was perceived as a highly discriminatory act, and a prolonged, and eventually successful, legal campaign followed, led by a small number of Macedonian language teachers (Clyne and Kipp, 2006). The documented increase in Macedonian speakers from 1991 through to 2001 almost certainly owes as much to increased ‘claiming’ of the language than to new migration. The legal battle in Victoria took place against the backdrop of established multiculturalism in Australia, and the experience of what other groups could achieve. Unity has been an issue for many community language groups in Australia, in a number of different ways. For example, the lack of political, social and linguistic unity in a group such as the Somalis, largely as the result of clan and language division in the homeland (central to the Civil War that led to much of the migration), has proved a major obstacle to the establishment of appropriate institutions of language maintenance. While the degree of mutual intelligibility between language varieties in this case appears to be quite high, the political divide is significant. The result to date has been that, although there have been a number of initiatives from different sectors of the community, and the Somali speakers are the youngest community on which we have data (more than 40 per cent are aged between 0 and 14 years), there is as yet no Somali programme in the mainstream education system. On the other hand, some language groups, such as the Filipinos, are finding that the immigration process is a unifying one linguistically, with Filipino (a ‘planned’ language with uncertain status in some parts of the Philippines) fulfilling a very useful function as a lingua franca in a country of migration. Grandparents are very important for all groups in terms of community language transmission, with accessibility varying with period of residence and type of migration (e.g., families are typically more fragmented

28 Community Languages

in groups settling under the humanitarian programme). Marriage patterns are also important, in that the 1996 statistics (Table 2.6) make it very clear that language shift rates are considerably lower in those families where both parents speak (or can be presumed to speak) the community language. High exogamy rates may occur with and compound other factors already promoting language shift – for example, the case of the Philippines-born, who have pre-existing competence in English, who see themselves as linguistically and socially versatile (see below), and where there are a large proportion of women in Australia married to non-Filipino men. An issue which is best explored in in-depth studies is that of the symbolic weight of a language for its speakers, or its position in the core value systems of a language group (see e.g., Smolicz, 1981; Smolicz et al., 1990). While there have been problems with the application of this factor (Clyne, 1991), including the problematic status of language as a core value in its own right (as opposed to its use in conjunction with another core value, such as religion), the degree to which language is related to a speaker’s identity has been shown by the in-depth studies carried out by Clyne and Kipp in Melbourne to be a good indicator of its continuing use (Clyne and Kipp, 1999, 2006). This is particularly important in the second generation – the studies cited showed that the G2 typically saw the main function of the community language as communication with family and older members of the community, while the G1 typically saw it as one of the indicators of their identity. The intergenerational differential in language use (and particularly language preference) tended to be marked accordingly. The best-transmitted language of those studied was Macedonian (extending to the third generation), and this was the only group where there was significant mention by the G2 of the community language as a marker of identity. This is probably the result of the actual and perceived marginalization of Macedonian in both the homeland and Australia (see above). Where a group such as the Philippines-born actually pride themselves on their social and linguistic versatility (Clyne and Kipp, 2006), one particular language is likely to play a far less important role in their self-identification.

Concluding remarks Research on the language data from the 2001 Census has noted both the consolidation of trends already evident in the last Census and the acceleration of change, particularly from the patterns established in the

Sandra Kipp

29

post-war immigration boom. Demographic trends have been considered in this chapter both in relation to the migration programme and the linguistic retentiveness of language communities in Australia. While the discussion around linguistic retentiveness has not been intended as an exhaustive treatment of language shift/maintenance and the factors affecting it, it has highlighted both the interrelated nature of such factors as well as the importance of both pre- and post-migration experiences to continuing language use patterns.

Notes 1. Most of these have entered through the ‘Skill’ stream and may be expected to be first language speakers of English, or at least fluent speakers of English. 2. This term, used by the ABS in the 2001 Census, fails to capture any intended differentiation between Tagalog as a regional language and Filipino, the national language (based on Tagalog, the language spoken in and around Manila). 3. The languages other than English used in the regional and rural areas of the Northern Territory are almost exclusively indigenous.

References Clyne, M. (1991) Community Languages: The Australian Experience. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Clyne, M. and Kipp, S. (1999) Pluricentric Languages in an Immigrant Context. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. Clyne, M. and Kipp, S. (2002) ‘Australia’s changing language demography’, People and Place, 10, 3: 29–35. Clyne, M. and Kipp, S. (2006) Tiles in a Multilingual Mosaic: Macedonian, Filipino and Somali in Melbourne. Pacific Linguistics: Canberra. Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Kipp, S. and Clyne, M. (2003) ‘Trends in the shift from community languages: Insights from the 2001 Census’, People and Place, 11, 1: 33–41. Kloss, H. (1966) ‘German American language maintenance efforts’, in J. Fishman (ed.) Language Loyalty in the United States. Mouton: The Hague, pp. 206–52. Smolicz, J.J. (1981) ‘Core values and cultural identity’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4: 75–90. Smolicz J.J., Lee, L., Murugaian, M. and Secombe, M.J. (1990) ‘Language as a core value of culture among tertiary students of Chinese and Indian origin in Australia’, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 1: 229–46.

3 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Minority Languages in Multicultural Europe Guus Extra Tilburg University

Introduction In this chapter we focus on the status of immigrant minority (IM) languages at home and at school from four different European perspectives. In the first section we offer phenomenological perspectives on the semantics of our field of study and some central notions in this field. In the second part we discuss the utilization and effects of different demographic criteria for the definition and identification of (school) population groups in a multicultural society. Next we offer sociolinguistic perspectives on the distribution and vitality of IM languages across Europe. In this context the rationale and major outcomes of the Multilingual Cities Project, realized in six major multicultural cities in different European Union (EU) nation states, are presented. Finally we offer comparative perspectives on educational policies and practices in the domain of IM languages in the six EU countries under discussion. We conclude with an outlook on how multilingualism can be promoted for all children in an increasingly multicultural Europe.

Phenomenological perspectives This initial section deals with the semantics of our field of concern and with some central notions in this field. First of all, we discuss the linkage between the concepts of language and identity. It should be mentioned a priori that the literature on this theme is more characterized by value-loaded normative rhetoric than by non-passionate considerations. Edwards (1985) made an emphatic plea for the latter rather than the former approach. The concept of identity is closely related to the 30

Guus Extra

31

concepts of ethnicity and nationalism, or ethnic identity and national identity. It often refers to the identity of ethnic minority groups in a particular nation state and emphasizes the ‘othering’ in comparison with the majority of inhabitants of that nation state (Roosens, 1989). It should be mentioned, however, that all inhabitants of a nation state belong to an ethnic group, although majority groups rarely identify themselves as such. In fact, the Greek word ethnos refers to nation. For an extensive discussion of the concepts of nation, nationality, and nationalism we refer to Fishman (1989: 105–75). The topic is further complicated by the co-existence of the concepts national and ethnic minorities. These concepts refer most commonly to the co-existence of regional (indigenous) and immigrant (nonindigenous) minorities who often make use of indigenous and nonindigenous minority languages, respectively. The vitality of both types of minority languages can diminish through intergenerational processes of language shift. However, even when such languages lose their communicative value, they often maintain an important symbolic value for minority groups. Whereas the majority language of a nation state functions as a marker of external group boundaries, minority languages function as markers of internal group boundaries. Although the concepts of both nationality and ethnicity are based on group allegiances, the difference between them is primarily one of scale and size. The concepts of ethnicity and ethnic identity have a complex load. They may refer to objective and/or subjective properties of majority and minority groups in terms of a shared language, culture, religion, history, ancestry, or race. In all cases, reference is made to factual (objective) and/or perceived (subjective) group characteristics. The concepts of language and ethnicity are so closely related that language functions as a major component in most definitions of ethnicity. Fishman (1977) even considers language to be the most characteristic marker of ethnic identity. For some minority groups, however, language is to a higher degree a core value of their identity than it is for other groups (e.g., Smolicz, 1980, 1992). It is impossible to speak about ethnic identity without reference to other ethnic identities or to national identity. The equation of language and national identity, however, is based on a denial of the co-existence of majority and minority languages within the borders of any nation state and has its roots in the German Romanticism at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century (e.g., Edwards, 1985; Fishman, 1989 for historical overviews). Equating German with Germany was a reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment and was also based

32 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages

on anti-French sentiments. The concept of nationalism emerges at the end of the 18th century, the concept of nationality only a century later. Romantic philosophers like Johan Gottfried Herder and Wilhelm von Humboldt laid the foundation for the emergence of a linguistic nationalism in Germany on the basis of which the German language and nation were conceived as superior to the French ones. The French, however, were no less reluctant to express their conviction that the reverse is true. Although every nation state is characterized by heterogeneity, including linguistic heterogeneity, nationalistic movements have always invoked this classical European discourse in their equalization of language and nation. The United States has not remained immune to this nationalism either. The English-only movement US English was founded in 1983 out of fear for the growing number of Hispanics on American soil (Fishman, 1988). This organization has offered resistance against bilingual Spanish–English education from the beginning because such an approach would lead to ‘identity confusion’. Similarly, attempts have been made to give the assignment of English as the official language of the United States a constitutional basis. This is done on the presupposition that the recognition of other languages (in particular Spanish) would undermine the foundations of the nation state. This nationalism has its roots in a white, protestant, English-speaking elite (Edwards, 1994: 177–78). The relationship between language and identity is not static but a dynamic phenomenon. During the last decades of the 20th century this relationship has undergone strong transnational changes. Within the European context, these changes have occurred in three different arenas (e.g., Oakes, 2001): 1. in the national arenas of the EU member states: the traditional identity of these nation states is challenged by major demographic changes (in particular in urban areas) as a consequence of migration and ‘minorization’. 2. in the European arena: the concept of a European identity emerges as a consequence of increasing cooperation and integration at the European level. 3. in the global arena: our world becomes smaller and more interactive as a consequence of the increasing availability of information and communication technology. Major changes in each of these arenas have led to the development of the concepts of transnational citizenship and transnational multiple

Guus Extra

33

identities. Inhabitants of Europe no longer identify exclusively with singular nation states, but give increasing evidence of multiple affiliations. At the EU level, the notion of a European identity was formally expressed for the first time in the Declaration on European Identity of December 1973 in Copenhagen. Numerous institutions and documents have propagated and promoted this idea ever since. The most concrete and tangible expressions of this idea to date have been the introduction of a European currency in 2002 and the proposal for a European constitution in 2004. In discussing the concept of a European identity, Oakes (2001: 127–31) emphasizes that the recognition of the concept of multiple transnational identities is a prerequisite rather than an obstacle for the acceptance of a European identity. The recognition of multiple transnational identities does not only occur to the traditional inhabitants of European nation states, but also to newcomers in Europe. Multiple transnational identities and affiliations will ask for new competencies of European citizens in the 21st century. These include the ability to deal with increasing cultural diversity and heterogeneity (e.g., Van Londen and De Ruijter, 1999). Multilingualism can be considered as a core competence for such ability. In this context, processes of both convergence and divergence occur. In the European and global arena, English has increasingly assumed the role of lingua franca for international communication (Oakes, 2001). The rise of English has occurred at the cost of all other national languages of Europe, including French. At the same time, a growing number of newcomers in the national arenas of the EU member states express their need of competencies in the languages of both their source and target countries. Europe has a rich diversity of languages. This fact is usually illustrated by reference to its national languages. However, there are many more languages spoken by the inhabitants of Europe. Examples include Welsh, Basque, or Arabic and Turkish. These languages are usually referred to as ‘minority languages’ even when in Europe as a whole there is not one majority language. The languages referred to are representatives of regional minority and immigrant minority languages, respectively. Over the centuries there have always been speakers of IM languages in Europe, but these languages have only recently emerged as community languages spoken on a wide scale in North-Western Europe, due to intensified processes of immigration and minorization. Turkish and Arabic are good examples of the so-called ‘non-European’ languages that are spoken and learned by millions of inhabitants of the EU member states. Although IM languages are often conceived and transmitted as core values by IM language groups, they are much less protected than

34 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages

regional minority languages by affirmative action and legal measures in education, for instance. In fact, the learning and certainly the teaching of IM languages are often seen by speakers of dominant languages and by policy makers as obstacles to integration. At the European level, guidelines and directives regarding IM languages are rather scant and outdated. In the European public discourse on IM groups, two major characteristics emerge (e.g., Extra and Verhoeven, 1998): IM groups are often referred to as foreigners and as being in need of integration. First of all, it is common practice to refer to IM groups in terms of non-national residents and to their languages in terms of non-territorial, non-regional, non-indigenous, or non-European languages. The call for integration is in sharp contrast with the language of exclusion. This conceptual exclusion rather than inclusion in the European public discourse derives from a restrictive interpretation of the notions of citizenship and nationality. From a historical point of view, such notions are commonly shaped by a constitutional ius sanguinis (law of the blood) in terms of which nationality derives from parental origins, in contrast to ius solis (law of the soil) in terms of which nationality derives from the country of birth. When European emigrants left their continent in the past and colonized countries abroad, they legitimized their claim to citizenship by spelling out ius solis in the constitutions of these countries of settlement. Good examples of this strategy can be found in English-dominant immigration countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa. In establishing the constitutions of these (sub)continents, no consultation took place with native inhabitants, such as Indians, Inuit, Aboriginals, and Zulus respectively. At home, however, Europeans predominantly upheld ius sanguinis in their constitutions and/or perceptions of nationality and citizenship, in spite of the growing numbers of newcomers who strive for an equal status as citizens. A second major characteristic of the European public discourse on IM groups is the focus on integration. This notion is both popular and vague, and it may actually refer to a whole spectrum of underlying concepts that vary over space and time (e.g., Kruyt and Niessen, 1997 for a comparative study of the notion of ‘integration’ in five EU countries since the early 1970s). The extremes of the spectrum range from assimilation to multiculturalism. The concept of assimilation is based on the premise that cultural differences between IM groups and established majority groups should and will disappear over time in a society which is proclaimed to be culturally homogeneous. On the other side of the spectrum, the concept of multiculturalism is based on the premise that such differences are an asset to a pluralist society, which actually

Guus Extra

35

promotes cultural diversity in terms of new resources and opportunities. While the concept of assimilation focuses on unilateral tasks for newcomers, the concept of multiculturalism focuses on multilateral tasks for all inhabitants in changing societies (e.g., Cohn-Bendit and Schmid, 1992; Taylor, 1993). In practice, established majority groups often make strong demands on IM groups for integration in terms of assimilation and are commonly very reluctant to promote or even accept the notion of cultural diversity as a determining characteristic of an increasingly multicultural environment. It is interesting to compare the underlying assumptions of ‘integration’ in the European public discourse on IM groups at the national level with assumptions at the level of cross-national cooperation and legislation. In the latter context, European politicians are eager to stress the importance of a proper balance between the loss and the maintenance of ‘national’ norms and values. A prime concern in the public debate on such norms and values is cultural and linguistic diversity, mainly in terms of the national languages of the EU. National languages are often referred to as core values of cultural identity. It is a paradoxical phenomenon that in the same public discourse IM languages and cultures are commonly conceived as sources of problems and deficits and as obstacles to integration, while national languages and cultures in an expanding EU are regarded as sources of enrichment and as prerequisites for integration. The public discourse on integration of IM groups in terms of assimilation versus multiculturalism can also be noticed in the domain of education. Due to a growing influx of IM pupils, schools are faced with the challenge of adapting their curricula to this trend. The pattern of modification may be inspired by a strong and unilateral emphasis on learning (in) the language of the majority of society, given its significance for success in school and on the labour market, or by the awareness that the response to emerging multicultural school populations cannot be reduced to monolingual education programming (e.g., Gogolin, 1994). In the former case, the focus will be on learning (in) the national language as a second language only, in the latter case on offering more languages in the school curriculum.

Demographic perspectives Most Western European countries have a growing number of IM populations which differ widely, both from a cultural and from a sociolinguistic point of view, from the mainstream indigenous population. In spite of more stringent immigration policies in most EU countries, the prognosis is that IM populations will continue to grow as a consequence of the

36 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages

increasing number of political refugees, the opening of the internal European borders, and political and economic developments in Central and Eastern Europe and in other regions of the world. Comparative information on population figures in EU member states can be obtained from the Statistical Office of the EU in Luxembourg (EuroStat). An overall decrease of the indigenous population has been observed in all EU countries over the last decades; at the same time, there has been an increase in the IM figures. Although free movement of migrants between EU nation states is legally permitted, most IM groups in EU countries originate from non-EU countries. For various reasons, reliable demographic information on IM groups in EU countries is difficult to obtain. For some groups or countries, no updated information is available or no such data have ever been collected at all. Moreover, official statistics only reflect IM groups with legal resident status. Another source of disparity is the different data collection systems being used, ranging from nation-wide census data to more or less representative surveys. Most importantly, however, the most widely used criteria for IM status, nationality and/or country of birth, have become less valid over time because of an increasing trend towards naturalization and births within the countries of residence. In addition, most residents from former colonies already have the nationality of their country of immigration. In most EU countries, only population data on nationality and/or birth country (of person and/or parents) are available. To illustrate this, Table 3.1 gives recent statistics of population groups in the Netherlands, based on the birth country criterion (of person and/or mother and/or father – PMF) versus the nationality criterion, as derived from the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). Table 3.1 shows strong criterion effects of birth country versus nationality. All IM groups are in fact strongly underrepresented in nationalitybased statistics. However, the combined birth country criterion of person/mother/father does not solve the identification problem either. The use of this criterion leads to non-identification in at least the following cases:

• an increasing group of third and further generations (e.g., the Indonesian/Moluccan and Chinese communities in the Netherlands); • different ethnocultural groups from the same country of origin (cf. Turks versus Kurds from Turkey or Berbers versus Arabs from Morocco);

Guus Extra

37

• the same ethnocultural group from different countries of origin (cf. Chinese from China versus Vietnam); • ethnocultural groups without territorial status (cf. the Roma people). From the data presented in Table 3.1 it becomes clear that collecting reliable information about the actual number and spread of IM population groups in EU countries is no easy enterprise. In 1982, the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs recognized the abovementioned identification problems for inhabitants of Australia and proposed including questions in their censuses on birth country (of person and parents), ethnic origin (based on self-categorization in terms of which ethnic group a person considers himself/herself to belong to), and home language use. As yet, little experience has been gained in EU countries with periodical censuses, or, if such censuses have been held, with questions on ethnicity or (home) language use. Given the decreasing significance of nationality and birth country criteria, collecting reliable information about the composition of IM groups in EU countries is one of the most challenging tasks facing demographers. In Table 3.2 the four criteria mentioned are discussed in terms of their major advantages or disadvantages (see also Extra and Gorter, 2001: 9).

Table 3.1 The Netherlands populations based on the combined birth country criterion (BC-PMF) versus the nationality criterion Groups

BC-PMF (1999)

Nationality (1999)

Difference (1999)

Dutch Turks Moroccans Surinamese Antilleans Italians (Former) Yugoslavs Spaniards Somalians Chinese Indonesians Other groups

1,30,61,000 3,00,000 2,52,000 2,97,000 99,000 33,000 63,000

1,50,97,000 1,02,000 1,28,600 10,500 − 17,600 22,300

20,36,000 1,98,000 1,23,400 2,86,500 99,000 15,400 40,700

30,000 27,000 28,000 4,07,000 11,63,000

16,800 8900 7500 8400 3,39,800

13,200 18,100 20,500 3,98,600 8,23,200

Total

1,57,60,000

1,57,60,000

Source: CBS (2000/2002).

−

38

Table 3.2 Criteria for the definition and identification of population groups (P/F/M = person/father/mother) Criterion

Advantages

Disadvantages

Nationality (NAT)

Objective relatively easy to establish

(Intergenerational) erosion through naturalization or double NAT

(P/F/M)

NAT not always indicative of ethnicity/identity Some (e.g., ex-colonial) groups have NAT of immigration country

Birth country (BC)

Objective relatively easy to establish

(P/F/M)

Intergenerational erosion through births in immigration country BC not always indicative of ethnicity/identity Invariable/deterministic: does not take account of dynamics in society (in contrast of all other criteria)

Selfcategorization (SC)

Touches the heart of the matter

Subjective by definition: also determined by the language/ethnicity of interviewer and by the spirit of times

Emancipatory: SC takes account of person’s own conception of ethnicity/identity

Multiple SC possible

Historically charged, especially by the Second World War experiences Home language (HL)

HL is most significant criterion of ethnicity in communication processes HL data are prerequisite for government policy in areas such as public information or education

Complex criterion: who speaks what language to whom and when? Language is not always core value of ethnicity/identity Useless in one-person households

Guus Extra

39

Table 3.2 reveals that there is no simple solution to the identification problem. Different criteria may complement and strengthen each other. Complementary or alternative criteria have been suggested and used in various countries with a longer immigration history, and, for this reason, with a longstanding history of collecting census data on multicultural population groups. This holds in particular for non-European Englishdominant immigration countries like Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United States. To identify the multicultural composition of their populations, these four countries employ a variety of questions in their periodical censuses. In Table 3.3, an overview of this array of questions is provided; for each country the given census is taken as the norm. Table 3.3 Overview of census questions in four multicultural contexts Questions in the census

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Nationality of respondent Birth country of respondent Birth country of parents Ethnicity Ancestry Race Mother tongue Language used at home Language used at work Proficiency in English Religion

Total dimensions

Australia Canada South USA Coverage 2001 2001 Africa 2000 1996 + + +

+ +

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+

+ +

+ + + + + + + + + + +

7

11

5

+ +

+

+ 7

4 4 2 2 3 3 1 4 1 3 3 30

Both the type and the number of questions are different per country. Canada has a prime position with the highest number of questions. Only three questions have been asked in all countries, whereas two questions have been asked in only one country. Four different questions have been asked about language. The operationalization of questions also shows interesting differences, both between and within countries across time (see Clyne, 1991 for a discussion of methodological problems in comparing the answers to differently phrased questions in Australian censuses from a longitudinal perspective). Questions about ethnicity, ancestry and/or race have proven to be problematic in all of the countries under consideration (e.g., Broeder and

40 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages

Extra, 1998; Roosens, 1989). In the United States, five racial categories have been distinguished (i.e., American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, White, Other), and immediately afterwards two ethnic origin categories (i.e., +/− Hispanic origin). The racial classification has increasingly come under attack by the mixed-race or multiracial movement and by those who argue that no racial classification exists or can be developed in such a way that biological variation is greater between than within racial categories (e.g., Vermeulen, 1999). In some countries, ancestry and ethnicity have been conceived as equivalent, as in the US census question in 2000: What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin? Or take the Canadian census question in 2001: To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person’s ancestors belong? The Australian census question in 2001 only involves ancestry and not ethnicity, that is What is the person’s ancestry? with the following comments for respondents: Consider and mark the ancestries with which you most closely identify. Count your ancestry as far as three generations, including grandparents and great-grandparents. As far as ethnicity and ancestry have been distinguished in census questions, the former concept related most commonly to present self-categorization of the respondent and the latter to former generations. In what ways respondents themselves interpret both concepts, however, remains a problem that cannot be solved easily. While an ethnicity question has been asked in the recent censuses of two countries (see Table 3.3), four language-related questions have been asked in one to four countries. Only in Canada has the concept of ‘mother tongue’ been included. It has been defined for respondents as language first learnt at home in childhood and still understood, while questions 8 and 9 relate to the language most often used at home/work. Table 3.3 shows the added value of language-related census questions on the definition and identification of multicultural populations, in particular the added value of the question on home language use compared to questions on the more opaque concepts of mother tongue and ethnicity. Although the language-related census questions in the four countries differ in their precise formulation and commentary, the outcomes of these questions are generally conceived as cornerstones for educational policies with respect to the teaching of English as a first or second language and the teaching of languages other than English. This overview shows that large-scale home language surveys are both feasible and meaningful, and that the interpretation of the resulting database is made easier by transparent and multiple questions on home language use. These conclusions become even more pertinent in the

Guus Extra

41

context of gathering data on multicultural school populations. European experiences in this domain have been accumulated in particular in Great Britain and Sweden (see Extra and Yagmur, 2004 for an overview). In both countries extensive municipal home language statistics have been collected through local educational authorities by asking school children questions about oral and written skills in other languages than the national language and about the participation and need for education in these languages. An important similarity in the questions about home language use is that the outcomes are based on reported rather than observed facts. Answers to questions on home language use may be coloured by the language of the questions itself (which may or may not be the primary language of the respondent), by the ethnicity of the interviewer (which may or may not be the same as the ethnicity of the respondent), by the targeted goals of the sampling (which may or may not be defined by national or local authorities) and by the spirit of times (which may or may not be in favour of multiculturalism). These problems become even more evident in a school-related context of pupils as respondents. Further the answers may be coloured by peer group pressure and the pupils’ answers may lead to interpretation problems in attempts to identify and classify languages. For a discussion of these and other possible effects we refer to Nicholas (1992) and Alladina (1993). The problems referred to are inherent characteristics of largescale data gathering through questionnaires about language-related behaviour and can only be compensated by small-scale data gathering through observing actual language behaviour. Such small-scale ethnographic research is not an alternative solution to large-scale language surveys, but a potentially valuable complement (e.g., Broeder and Extra, 1998). Given the decreasing significance of nationality and birth country criteria in the European context, the combined criteria of selfcategorization and home language use are potentially promising alternatives for obtaining basic information on the increasingly multicultural composition of European nation states. The added value of home language statistics is that they offer valuable insights into the distribution and vitality of home languages across different population groups and thus raise the awareness of multilingualism. Empirically collected data on home language use also play a crucial role in the context of education. Such data will not only raise the awareness of multilingualism in multicultural schools; they are in fact indispensable tools for educational policies on the teaching of both the national majority language

42 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages

as a first or second language and the teaching of minority languages. Obviously, a cross-national home language database would offer interesting comparative opportunities from each of these perspectives.

Sociolinguistic perspectives Given the overwhelming focus on mainstream language acquisition by IM groups, there is much less evidence on the status and use of IM languages across Europe as a result of processes of immigration and minorization. In contrast to regional minority languages, IM languages have no established status in terms of period and area of residence. Obviously, typological differences between IM languages across EU nation states do exist, for example in terms of the status of IM languages as EU languages or non-EU languages, or as languages of formerly colonialized source countries. Taken from the latter perspective, Indian languages are prominent in the United Kingdom, Arabic languages in France, Congolese languages in Belgium, and Surinamese languages in the Netherlands. Tosi (1984) offers an early case study on Italian as an IM language in England. Most studies of IM languages in Europe have focused on a spectrum of IM languages at the level of one particular multilingual city (Baker and Eversley, 2000; Kroon, 1990), one particular nation state (Alladina and Edwards, 1991; Caubet et al., 2002; Extra and De Ruiter, 2001; Extra and Verhoeven, 1993a; Extra et al., 2002; LMP, 1985), or on one particular IM language at the national or European level (Jørgensen, 2003 on Turkish in Europe; Obdeijn and De Ruiter, 1998; or Tilmatine, 1997 on Arabic in Europe). A number of studies have taken both a cross-national and a crosslinguistic perspective on the status and use of IM languages in Europe (e.g., Extra and Gorter, 2001; Extra and Verhoeven, 1993b; Fase et al., 1995; Husén and Opper, 1983; Jaspaert and Kroon, 1991). Churchill (1986) has offered an early cross-national perspective on the education of IM children in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries, whereas Reid and Reich (1992) have carried out a cross-national evaluative study of 15 pilot projects on the education of IM children supported by the European Commission. Here, we present the major outcomes of the Multilingual Cities Project (MCP), carried out as a multiple case study in six major multicultural cities in different EU nation states. For a full report of the project we refer to Extra and Yagmur (2004). In the participating cities, ranging from Northern to Southern Europe, Germanic and/or Romance languages

Guus Extra

43

Table 3.4 Overview of the MCP database City

Schools

Schools in survey

Brussels

117∗

110∗

11,500

10,300

6–12

Göteborg

170

122

36,100

21,300

6–12

Hamburg

231 public 17 catholic

218 public 14 catholic

54,900

46,000

6–11

Lyon

173∗∗

42∗∗

60,000

11,650

6–11

Madrid

708 public 411 catholic

133 public 21 catholic

2,02,000 99,000

30,000

5–12

41,170

27,900

4–12

19,000

13,700

12–17

The Hague 142 primary 30 secondary

109 primary 26 secondary

Pupils in schools

Pupils in survey

Age range pupils

∗

Dutch-medium schools only. Réseau d’Education Prioritaire only. Source: Extra and Yagmur (2004: 115).

∗∗

have a dominant status in public life. Table 3.4 gives an overview of the resulting database (only in The Hague were data also collected at secondary schools). The total cross-national sample consists of more than 1,60,000 pupils. On the basis of the home language profiles of all major language groups, a cross-linguistic and pseudo-longitudinal comparison was made of the reported multiple dimensions of language proficiency, language choice, language dominance, and language preference. For comparative analyses, these four dimensions have been operationalized as follows: • language proficiency – the extent to which the home language under consideration is understood; • language choice – the extent to which this language is commonly spoken at home with the mother; • language dominance – the extent to which this home language is spoken best; • language preference – the extent to which this home language is preferably spoken. The operationalization of the first and second dimensions (language proficiency and language choice) was aimed at a maximal scope for

44 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages

tracing language vitality. Language understanding is generally the least demanding of the four language skills involved, and the mother acts generally as the major gatekeeper for intergenerational language transmission (Clyne, 2003). The final aim was the construction of a language vitality index (LVI), based on the outcomes of the four dimensions presented above. These four dimensions are compared as proportional scores in terms of the mean proportion of pupils per language group that indicated a positive response to the relevant questions. The LVI is, in turn, the mean value of these four proportional scores. This LVI is by definition an arbitrary index, in the sense that the chosen dimensions with the chosen operationalizations are equally weighted. The outcomes of the local surveys were aggregated in one crossnational home language survey (HLS) database. Two criteria were used to select 20 languages for cross-national analyses: each language should be represented by at least three cities and each city should be represented in the cross-national HLS database by at least 30 pupils in the age range of 6–11 years. Our focus on this age range was motivated by comparability considerations: this range is represented in the local HLS databases of all participating cities (see Table 3.4). Romani/Sinte was included in the cross-national analyses because of its special status in our list of 20 languages as a language without territory status. Two languages have an exceptional status: English ‘invaded’ the local HLS’s as a language of international prestige, and Romani/Sinte is solidly represented in Hamburg and Göteborg only. In the cross-national and cross-linguistic analyses, three age groups and three generations are distinguished. The age groups consist of children aged 6/7, 8/9, and 10/11 years old. The three generations have been operationalized as follows: G1 – pupil + father + mother born abroad; G2 – pupil born in country of residence, father and/or mother born abroad; G3 – pupil + father + mother born in country of residence. On the basis of this categorization, intergenerational shift can be globally estimated. In Table 3.5 we present a ranking of the LVI per language group of the combined pupil group (aged 6–11 years). Romani/Sinte was found to have the highest language vitality across the groups, and English and German had the lowest. The bottom position of English was explained by the fact that this language has a higher status as lingua franca than as language at home. The top position of Romani/Sinte was also observed in earlier and similar research amongst children in the Netherlands, and confirmed by various other studies of this particular language community. One reason why language vitality is

Guus Extra

45

Table 3.5 Ranked LVI per language group Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Language group Romani/Sinte Turkish Urdu Armenian Russian Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian Albanian Vietnamese Chinese Arabic Polish Somali Portuguese Berber Kurdish Spanish French Italian English German

LVI 70 68 68 63 60 59 59 58 58 58 56 55 54 52 51 48 44 39 36 33

Source: Based on Extra and Yagmur (2004: 375).

a core value for the Roma across Europe is the absence of source country references as alternative markers of identity – in contrast to almost all other language groups under consideration. There are strong differences between language groups in the distribution of pupils across different generations. In most language groups, second-generation pupils are best represented and third-generation pupils least. In conformity with expectations, the obtained data finally show a stronger decrease of language vitality across generations than across age groups. The strongest intergenerational shift between first- and third-generation pupils emerges for Polish, whereas the strongest intergenerational maintenance of language vitality occurs for Romani/Sinte and Turkish. The local language surveys have delivered a wealth of hidden evidence on the distribution and vitality of IM languages at home across European cities and nation states. Apart from Madrid, latecomer amongst our focal cities in respect of immigration, the proportion of primary school children in whose homes other languages were used next to or instead of the mainstream language ranged per city from one-third to more

46 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages

than a half. The total number of traced other languages ranged from 50 to 90 per city; the common pattern was that few languages were referred to often by the children and that many languages were referred to only a few times. The findings show that making use of more than one language is a way of life for an increasing number of children across Europe. Mainstream and non-mainstream languages should not be conceived of in terms of competition. Rather, the data show that these languages are used as alternatives, dependent on such factors as type of context or interlocutor. The data make also clear that the use of other languages at home does not occur at the cost of competence in the mainstream language. Many children who addressed their parents in another language reported to be dominant in the mainstream language. Amongst the major 20 languages in the participating cities, 10 languages are of European origin and 10 languages stem from abroad. These findings show that the traditional concept of language diversity in Europe should be reconsidered and extended. The outcomes of the local language surveys also demonstrate the high status of English amongst primary school children across Europe. Its intrusion in the children’s homes is apparent from the position of English in the top-5 of non-national languages referred to by the children in all participating cities. This outcome cannot be explained as an effect of migration and minorization only. The children’s reference to English also derives from the status of English as the international language of power and prestige. English has become the dominant lingua franca for crossnational communication across Europe. Moreover, children have access to English through a variety of media, and English is commonly taught in particular grades at primary schools. In addition, children in all participating cities expressed a desire to learn a variety of languages that are not taught at school. The outcomes of the local language surveys also show that children who took part in instruction in particular languages at school reported higher levels of literacy in these languages than children who did not take part in such instruction. Both the reported reading proficiency and the reported writing proficiency profited strongly from language instruction. The differences between participants and non-participants in language instruction were significant for both forms of literacy skills and for all the 20 language groups. In this domain in particular, the added value of language instruction for language maintenance and development is clear.

Guus Extra

47

Educational perspectives Across Europe, large contrasts occur in the status of IM languages at school, depending on particular nation states, or even particular federal states within nation states (as in Germany), and depending on particular IM languages, being national languages in other European (Union) countries or not. Most commonly, IM languages are not part of mainstream education. In Great Britain, for example, IM languages are not part of the so-called ‘national’ curriculum, and they are dealt with in various types of the so-called ‘complementary’ education during out-of-school hours (e.g., Martin et al., 2004). Here, we present the major outcomes of our comparative study on the teaching of IM languages in the six EU cities and countries of the MCP under discussion. Being aware of cross-national differences in denotation, we will use the concept community language teaching (CLT) when referring to this type of education. Our rationale for the CLT concept rather than the concepts mother tongue teaching or home language instruction is the inclusion of a broad spectrum of potential target groups. First of all, the status of an IM language as ‘native’ or home language is subject to change through intergenerational processes of language shift. Moreover, in secondary education, both minority and majority pupils are often de jure (although seldom de facto) admitted to CLT. From a historical point of view, most of the countries in the MCP show a similar chronological development in their argumentation in favour of CLT. CLT was generally introduced into primary education with a view to family remigration. This objective was also clearly expressed in Directive 77/486 of the European Community, on 25 July 1977. The Directive focused on the education of the children of ‘migrant workers’ with the aim ‘principally to facilitate their possible reintegration into the Member State of origin’. As is clear from this formulation, the Directive excluded all IM children originating from non-EU countries, although these children formed the large part of IM children in European primary schools. At that time, Sweden was not an EU member state, and CLT policies for IM children in Sweden were not directed towards remigration but modeled according to bilingual education policies for the large minority of Finnish-speaking children in Sweden. In the 1970s, the above argumentation for CLT was increasingly abandoned. Demographic developments showed no substantial signs of families re-migrating to their source countries; instead, a process of family reunion and minorization came about in the target countries.

48 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages

This development resulted in a conceptual shift, and CLT became primarily aimed at combating disadvantages. CLT had to bridge the gap between the home and the school environment, and to encourage school achievement in ‘regular’ subjects. Because such an approach tended to under-appreciate ethnocultural dimensions, a number of countries began to emphasize the intrinsic importance of CLT from cultural, legal, and economic perspectives: • in cultural respects, CLT can contribute to maintaining and advancing a pluralist society; • in legal respects, CLT can meet the internationally recognized right to language development and language maintenance, in correspondence with the fact that many IM groups consider their own language of key value to their cultural identity; • in economic respects, CLT can lead to an important pool of profitable knowledge in societies which are increasingly internationally oriented. In Table 3.6 we give a cross-national summary of the outcomes of our comparative study of nine parameters of CLT in primary and secondary education. A comparison of all nine parameters makes clear that CLT has gained a higher status in secondary schools than in primary schools. In primary education, CLT is generally not part of the ‘regular’ or ‘national’ curriculum, and, consequently, it tends to become a negotiable entity in a complex and often opaque interplay of forces by a variety of actors, in contrast with other curricular subjects. Another remarkable fact is that in some countries (particularly France, Belgium, Spain, and some German federal states), the consulates or embassies of the countries of origin fund CLT. In these cases, the national government does not interfere in the organization of CLT, or in the requirements for and the selection and employment of teachers. A paradoxical consequence of this phenomenon is that the earmarking of CLT budgets is often safeguarded by the above-mentioned consulates or embassies. National, regional, or local governments often fail to earmark budgets, so that funds meant for CLT may be appropriated for other educational purposes. It should be mentioned that CLT for primary school children in the Netherlands has been completely abolished in the school year 2004/2005, resulting in Dutch-only education in multicultural and multilingual primary schools. The higher status of CLT in secondary education is largely due to the fact that instruction in one or more languages other than the

49 Table 3.6 Status of CLT in European primary and secondary education, according to nine parameters in six countries (Sw/G/N/B/F/Sp = Sweden/ Germany/Netherlands until 2004/Belgium/France/Spain) CLT parameters

Primary education

Secondary education

1. Target groups

IM children in a broad vs. narrow definition in terms of the spectrum of languages taught (Sp < N B F < G Sw)

de iure: mostly IM pupils, sometimes all pupils (in particular N)

language use and language proficiency (G N B Sp < Sw F)

de facto: IM pupils in a broad vs. narrow sense (see left) (limited participation, in particular B Sp)

2. Arguments

Mostly in terms of a struggle against deficits, rarely in terms of multicultural policy (N B vs. other countries)

mostly in terms of multicultural policy, rarely in terms of deficits (all countries)

3. Objectives

Rarely specified in terms of (meta-) linguistic and (inter)cultural skills (Sw G Sp vs. N B F)

specified in terms of oral and written skills to be reached at interim and final stages (all countries)

4. Evaluation

Mostly informal/subjective through teacher, rarely formal/objective through measurement and school report figures (Sw G F vs. B N Sp)

formal/objective assessment plus school report figures (Sw G N vs. B F Sp)

5. Minimal enrolment

Specified at the level of classes, schools, or municipalities (Sw vs. G B F vs. N Sp)

specified at the level of classes, schools, or municipalities (Sw N vs. other countries)

6. Curricular status

Voluntary and optional within vs. outside regular school hours (G N Sp vs. S B F) 1–5 hours per week

voluntary and optional within regular school hours one/more lessons per week (all countries)

7. Funding

by national, regional or local educational authorities by consulates/embassies of countries of origin (Sw N vs. B Sp, mixed G F)

by national, regional or local educational authorities by consulates/embassies of countries of origin (Sw N F vs. B Sp, mixed G)

50 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages Table 3.6 (Continued) CLT parameters

Primary education

Secondary education

8. Teaching materials

from countries of residence from countries of origin (Sw G N vs. B F Sp)

from countries of residence from countries of origin (Sw N F vs. B Sp)

9. Teacher qualifications

from countries of residence from countries of origin (Sw G N vs. B F Sp)

from countries of residence from countries of origin (Sw N F vs. B Sp)

Source: Extra and Yagmur (2004: 385).

national standard language is a traditional and regular component of the (optional) school curriculum, whereas primary education is highly determined by a monolingual habitus (e.g., Gogolin, 1994). Within secondary education, however, CLT must compete with ‘foreign’ languages that have a higher status or a longer tradition. Community language teaching may be part of a largely centralized or decentralized educational policy. In the Netherlands, national responsibilities and educational funds are gradually being transferred to the municipal level, and even to individual schools. In France, government policy is strongly centrally controlled. Germany has devolved governmental responsibilities chiefly to its federal states, with all their mutual differences. Sweden grants far-reaching autonomy to municipal councils in dealing with educational tasks and funding. In general, comparative cross-national references to experiences with CLT in the various EU member states are rare (Broeder and Extra, 1998; Fase, 1994; Reich, 1991, 1994; Reid and Reich, 1992; Tilmatine, 1997), or they focus on particular language groups (Obdeijn and De Ruiter, 1998; Tilmatine, 1997). There is a great need for educational policies in Europe that take new realities of multilingualism into account. Processes of internationalization and globalization not only have brought European nation states to the world, but they have also brought the world to European nation states. This bipolar pattern of change has led to both convergence and divergence of multilingualism across Europe. On the one hand, English is on the rise as the lingua franca for international communication across the borders of European nation states at the cost of all other national languages of Europe, including French. In spite of many objections against the hegemony of English (Phillipson, 2003), this process of convergence will be enhanced by the extension of the EU in an eastward direction. Within the borders of European

Guus Extra

51

nation states, however, there is an increasing divergence of home languages due to large-scale processes of migration and intergenerational minorization. The call for differentiation of the monolingual habitus of primary schools across Europe originates not only bottom-up from IM parents or organizations, but also top-down from supra-national institutions which emphasize the increasing need for European citizens with a transnational and multicultural affinity and identity. Multilingual competencies are considered prerequisites for such an affinity and identity. Both the European Commission and the Council of Europe have published many policy documents in which language diversity is cherished as a key element of the multicultural identity of Europe – now and in the future. This language diversity is considered to be a prerequisite rather than an obstacle for a united European space in which all citizens are equal (not the same) and enjoy equal rights (Council of Europe, 2000). The maintenance of language diversity and the promotion of language learning and multilingualism are seen as essential elements for the improvement of communication and for the reduction of intercultural misunderstanding. The European Commission (1995) opted in a so-called Whitebook for trilingualism as a policy goal for all European citizens. Apart from the ‘mother tongue’, each citizen should learn at least two ‘community languages’. In fact, the concept of ‘mother tongue’ referred to the national languages of particular nation states and ignored the fact that mother tongue and national language do not coincide for many inhabitants of Europe. At the same time, the concept of ‘community languages’ referred to the national languages of two other EU member states. In later European Commission documents, reference was made to one foreign language with high international prestige (English was deliberately not referred to) and one so-called ‘neighbouring language’. The latter concept related always to neighbouring countries, never to nextdoor neighbours. The heads of state and government of all EU member states called upon the European Commission to take further action to promote multilingualism across Europe, in particular by the learning and teaching of at least two foreign languages from a very young age (Nikolov and Curtain, 2000). The final Action Plan 2004–2006, published by the European Commission (2003) may ultimately lead to an inclusive approach in which IM languages are no longer denied access to Europe’s celebration of language diversity. In particular, the plea for the learning of three languages by all EU citizens, the plea for an early start to such learning

52 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages

experiences, and the plea for offering a wide range of languages to choose from open the door to such an inclusive approach. Although this may sound paradoxical, such an approach can also be advanced if the role of English as lingua franca for intercultural communication across Europe is accepted. Against this background, the following principles are suggested for the enhancement of multilingualism at the primary school level:

1 In the primary school curriculum, three languages are introduced for all children: • • •

the standard language of the particular nation state as a major school subject and the major language of communication for the teaching of other school subjects; English as lingua franca for international communication; an additional third language opted from a variable and varied set of priority languages at the national, regional, and local level of the multicultural society.

2 The teaching of all these languages is part of the regular school curriculum and subject to educational inspection. 3 Regular primary school reports contain information on the children’s proficiency in each of these languages. 4 National working programmes are established for the priority languages referred to under (1) in order to develop curricula, teaching methods, and teacher training programmes. 5 Part of these priority languages may be taught at specialized language schools.

This set of principles is aimed at reconciling bottom-up and top-down pleas in Europe for multilingualism, and is inspired by large-scale and enduring experiences with the learning and teaching of English (as L1 or L2) and one Language Other Than English (LOTE) for all children in Victoria, Australia. When each of the above-mentioned languages should be introduced in the curriculum and whether or when they should be subject or medium of instruction has to be spelled out according to particular national, regional, or local demands. Derived from an overarching conceptual and longitudinal framework, priority languages could be specified in terms of both regional and immigrant minority languages for the development of curricula, teaching methods, and teacher training programmes. Moreover, the increasing internationalization of pupil populations in European schools requires that a language policy be introduced for all school children in which the

Guus Extra

53

traditional dichotomy between foreign language instruction for indigenous majority pupils and home language instruction for IM pupils is put aside. Given the experiences abroad (e.g., the Victorian School of Languages in Australia), language schools can become expertise centres where a variety of languages is taught, if the children’s demand is low and/or spread over many schools. In line with the proposed principles for primary schooling, similar ideas could be worked out for secondary schools where learning more than one language is already an established curricular practice. The above-mentioned principles would recognize multilingualism in an increasingly multicultural environment as an asset for all children and for society at large. The EU, the Council of Europe, and UNESCO could function as leading transnational agencies in promoting such concepts. The UNESCO Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity (last update 2002) is highly in line with the views expressed here, in particular in its plea to encourage linguistic diversity, to respect the mother tongue at all levels of education, and to foster the learning of several languages from the youngest age.

References Alladina, S. (1993) ‘South Asian languages in Britain’. In G. Extra and L. Verhoeven (eds), pp. 55–65. Alladina, S. and Edwards, V. (eds) (1991) Multilingualism in the British Isles (Vol. 1, The Older Mother Tongues and Europe; Vol. 2, Africa, the Middle East and Asia). Longman: London/New York. Baker, P. and Eversley, J. (eds) (2000) Multilingual Capital: The Languages of London’s School Children and Their Relevance to Economic, Social and Educational Policies. Battlebridge Publications: London. Broeder, P. and Extra, G. (1998) Language, Ethnicity and Education: Case Studies on Immigrant Minority Groups and Immigrant Minority Languages. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Caubet, D., Chaker, S. and Sibille, J. (eds) (2002) Codification des Langues de France [Codification of the Languages of France]. l’Harmattan: Paris. CBS (2000/2002) Allochtonen in Nederland [Allochtones in the Netherlands]. CBS: Voorburg/Heerlen. Churchill, S. (1986) The Education of Linguistic and Cultural Minorities in the OECD Countries. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Clyne, M. (1991) Community Languages: The Australian Experience. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Clyne, M. (2003) Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Cohn-Bendit, D. and Schmid, T. (1992) Heimat Babylon, Das Wagnis der Multikulturellen Demokratie [Heimat Babylon, The Challenge of a Multicultural Democracy]. Hoffmann & Campe: Hamburg.

54 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages Council of Europe (2000) Linguistic Diversity for Democratic Citizenship in Europe: Towards a Framework for Language Education Policies, Proceedings Innsbruck (Austria) May 1999. Council of Europe: Strasbourg. Edwards, J. (1985) Language, Society and Identity. Basil Blackwell: Oxford. Edwards, J. (1994) Multilingualism. Routledge: London. European Commission (1995) Whitebook: Teaching and Learning, Towards a Cognitive Society. COM: Brussels. European Commission (2003) Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004–2006. COM: Brussels, www.europa.eu.int/ comm/education/policies/lang/languages/actionplan_en.html. Extra, G. and De Ruiter, J.J. (eds) (2001) Babylon Aan de Noordzee: Nieuwe Talen in Nederland [Babylon on the North Sea: New Languages in the Netherlands]. Bulaaq: Amsterdam. Extra, G. and Gorter, D. (eds) (2001) The Other Languages of Europe: Demographic, Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Extra, G. and Verhoeven, L. (eds) (1993a) Community Languages in the Netherlands. Swets & Zeitlinger: Amsterdam. Extra, G. and Verhoeven, L. (eds) (1993b) Immigrant Languages in Europe. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Extra, G. and Verhoeven, L. (eds) (1998) Bilingualism and Migration. Mouton De Gruyter: Berlin. Extra, G. and Yagmur, K. (eds) (2004) Urban Multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant Minority Languages at Home and School. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Extra, G., Aarts, R., van der Avoird, T., Broeder, P., and Yagmur, K. (2002) De Andere Talen van Nederland: Thuis en op School [The Other Languages of the Netherlands: At Home and in School]. Coutinho: Bussum. Fase, W. (1994) Ethnic Divisions in Western European Education. Waxmann: Münster/New York. Fase, W., Jaspaert, K. and Kroon, S. (eds) (1995) The State of Minority Languages: International Perspectives on Survival and Decline. Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse/ Exton. Fishman, J. (1977) ‘Language and ethnicity’. In H. Giles (ed.) Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. Academic Press: London, pp. 15–57. Fishman, J. (1988) ‘ “English only”: Its ghosts, myths, and dangers’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 74: 125–40. Fishman, J. (1989) Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Foblets, M. and Pang, C. (eds) (1999) Culture, Ethnicity and Migration. Acco: Leuven/Leusden. Gogolin, I. (1994) Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule [The Monolingual Habitus of the Multilingual School]. Waxmann: Münster/ New York. Husén, T. and Opper, S. (eds) (1983) Multicultural and Multilingual Education in Immigrant Countries. Pergamon Press: Oxford. Jaspaert, K. and Kroon, S. (eds) (1991) Ethnic Minority Languages and Education. Swets & Zeitlinger: Amsterdam/Lisse. Jørgensen, J. (ed.) (2003) Turkish Speakers in North Western Europe. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon.

Guus Extra

55

Kroon, S. (1990) Opportunities and Constraints of Community Language Teaching. Waxmann: Münster/New York. Kruyt, A. and Niessen, J. (1997) ‘Integration’. In H. Vermeulen (ed.) Immigrant Policy for a Multicultural Society: A Comparative Study of Integration, Language and Religious Policy in Five Western European Countries. Migration Policy Group: Brussels. LMP (Linguistic Minorities Project) (1985) The Other Languages of England. Routledge & Kegan: London. Martin, P., Creese, A., Bhaff, A., and Bhojani, N. (2004) Complementary Schools and Their Communities in Leicester: Final Report. School of Education: University of Leicester. Nicholas, J. (1992) Language Diversity Surveys as Agents of Awareness Raising and Change in Education, PhD thesis (unpublished). University of London. Nikolov, M. and Curtain, H. (eds) (2000) An Early Start: Young Learners and Modern Languages in Europe and Beyond. Council of Europe: Strasbourg. Oakes, L. (2001) Language and National Identity: Comparing France and Sweden. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Obdeijn, H. and De Ruiter, J.J. (eds) (1998) Le Maroc au coeur de l’Europe: L’enseignement de la langue et culture d’origine (ELCO) aux élèves marocains dans cinq pays européens [Morocco in the heart of Europe: The Teaching of the Home Language and Culture to Moroccan Students in Five European Countries]. Tilburg University Press, Syntax Datura: Tilburg. Phillipson, R. (2003) English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. Routledge: London/New York. Reich, H. (1991) ‘Developments in ethnic minority language teaching within the European community’. In K. Jaspaert and S. Kroon (eds), pp. 161–74. Reich, H. (1994) ‘Unterricht der Herkunftssprachen von Migranten in anderen europäischen Einwanderungsländern’ [The teaching of home languages of migrants in other European immigrant countries]. In A. Dick (ed.) Muttersprachlicher Unterricht: Ein Baustein für die Erziehung zur Mehrsprachigkeit [Mother Tongue Teaching: A Stepping Stone for the Education in Multilingualism]. Hessisches Kultusministerium: Wiesbaden, pp. 31–46. Reid, E. and Reich, H. (1992) Breaking the Boundaries: Migrant Workers’ Children in the EC. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Roosens, E. (1989) Creating Ethnicity: The Process of Ethnogenesis. Sage: Newbury Park. Smolicz, J. (1980) ‘Language as a core value of culture’, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11: 1–13. Smolicz, J. (1992) ‘Minority languages as core values of ethnic cultures: A study of maintenance and erosion of Polish, Welsh, and Chinese languages in Australia’. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, and S. Kroon (eds) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Benjamins: Amsterdam, pp. 277–305. Taylor, C. (1993) Multikulturalismus und die Politik der Anerkannung [Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition]. Fischer: Frankfurt. Tilmatine, M. (ed.) (1997) Enseignment des langues d’origine et immigration nordafricaine en Europe: Langue maternelle ou langue d’état? [The Teaching of Home Languages and North African Immigration in Europe: Mother Tongue or the Language of the State]. INALCO/CEDREA-CRB: Paris.

56 Comparative Perspectives on Immigrant Languages Tosi, A. (1984) Immigration and Bilingual Education: A Case Study of Movement of Population, Language Change and Education within the EEC. Pergamon Press: Oxford. UNESCO (2002) Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity. Paris, www.unesco. org/culture/pluralism/diversity. Van Londen, S. and De Ruijter, A. (1999) ‘Ethnicity and identity’. In M. Foblets and C. Pang (eds), 69–79. Vermeulen, H. (1999) ‘Essentializing difference? The census, multiculturalism and the multiracials in the USA’. In M. Foblets and C. Pang (eds), 81–98.

Part II Policy and Planning

This page intentionally left blank

4 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe: Propositions for a European Language Policy Peter Hans Nelde Catholic University of Brussels

Managing multilingualism for Europe In this book, I present the problems confronting a European language policy in five propositions. The terms of the fifth proposition – the Europeanization of language policy – will be examined more thoroughly in order to scrutinize conflict avoidance strategies, that is strategies which have already proven useful in multilingual countries and which may yet serve as a starting point for a discussion on how to neutralize conflicts all over Europe. The subsequent conclusions will try to demonstrate the extent to which contact linguistics may contribute to a politico-linguistic conflict analysis within an enlarged Europe. It would be like carrying coals to Newcastle if, at the beginning of the second millennium, one were to plead for multilingualism from a Brussels perspective. In Brussels, multilingualism and multiculturalism are everyday phenomena that can be encountered in innumerable situations. What is new, however, is that the inevitable interdependence of politics, economy, media culture and language has been acknowledged in the official language planning of the European Union (EU) which has created a politico-linguistic instrument – a ‘ministry’ (i.e., Directorate General XXII) that, to some extent successfully, tried to manage language issues. This official body was responsible for, among other things, cross-border academic exchange (e.g., Socrates, Erasmus, Tempus) and for the handling of indigenous linguistic minorities (using the so-called ‘lesser used languages’) which are entangled in conflicts of historical and socio-economic provenance. A long, overdue and thorough analysis of these minority languages undertaken in 1996, 1999 and 2004 and dealing with the Production and Reproduction of Minority 59

60 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe

Language Groups in the European Union, known as the Euromosaic Report, enriched and reinforced contact-linguistic research in important ways. Language planning and language policy have thus become established in the cultural planning of EU members in such a way that they are now even recognized by outsiders. Some new perspectives of contact linguistics that emerged in the midnineties have considerable potential of impacting on multilingualism in the new century. They can be summarized as follows: 1. Multilingualism is no longer an exception to the rule for many European countries but is becoming commonplace. In many instances this has already become a matter of course. 2. Whereas the predominant view expressed in post-war European sociolinguistic literature was that minorities turning to bilingualism are in danger of losing their mother tongue, multilingualism today increasingly serves as a driving economic force, creating more jobs and improving the standard of living (cross-border traffic, translation professions, supranational employers). 3. Economic driving forces such as globalization, promoting the major languages, are inconceivable without the strong tendencies towards regionalization that provide small and medium-sized languages in all spheres of a multilingual environment with new chances of survival. 4. Most recent developments have led from decades of defensive attitudes on the part of ‘small’ and ‘very small’ languages (German: kleine und Kleinstsprachen) towards a new line of reasoning that pinpoints the advantages of multilingual minority speakers, emphasizes them in the context of a new European discourse and thereby takes the offensive. Multilingual speakers of ‘small’ languages no longer need to deny their identity and exclusively assimilate to the prestigious languages. Their monolingual adversaries, however, will have to struggle much harder than before within a multilingual, multicultural Europe in order to enforce their opinion in a mono-directional, that is monolingual way. Against a background of these developments, I would like to outline five propositions for European language policy.

First proposition More than ever before, speakers in the early 21st century are confronted with strong demands to move towards a ‘New Multilingualism’.

Peter Hans Nelde

61

The EU’s initiative to acknowledge and implement 11 official and working languages is unique in human history. Since its introduction in 1995, this initiative has already borne fruit. Linguistic and cultural discrimination within the Union has since decreased rather than increased. The trend towards multilingualism, however, is not a modern concept or recent development. In his contribution on the language policy in old Austria, Hans Goebl (1997: 117–18) pointed out the deficient linguistic skills pervading contemporary Europe compared to those found in the post-medieval Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. In contrast to modern heads of state, the Habsburg emperors could boast an amazing knowledge of languages. The ‘less linguistically gifted’ among them were proficient in at least four idioms, whereas the ‘most linguistically gifted’ one had proficiency in nine or more different languages. In the light of an almost 200-year move towards monolingualism, this comparison cannot but produce meagre results for our contemporary leaders, inasmuch as Blair, Berlusconi, Chrétien, Hashimoto, Bush, Chirac, Howard and Schröder as representatives of Great Britain, Italy, Canada, Japan, the United States, France, Australia and Germany can hardly be considered multilingual. Besides the lack of shining examples in a new Europe, a range of socioeconomic and socio-political trends further underline the necessity of a ‘New Multilingualism’ in this new century: 1. The significance of nation states and the sovereignty of their governments have weakened considerably in recent years. In most domains of society, responsibilities of national states have been taken over by one of the administrative bulwarks of the EU including Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg thus diminishing the authority of EUmember states and their governments. 2. Neo-liberalism and internationalization have fostered tendencies towards rapidly advancing globalization that undermines the options of specific national economic and cultural legislative opportunities on the part of the individual countries and reduces their effectiveness. 3. In view of the linguistic and cultural developments in Asia and Africa, it becomes quite clear that due to the comparatively rapid rejuvenation of the population pyramid in these continents – in contrast to Europe and North America – and also due to the fact that several languages and cultures coexist as a matter of course, multilingualism has become a global standard, whereas monolingualism is becoming the exception.

62 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe

Presenting multilingualism in Europe in a clear, simple and concise manner we could say that in the whole of Europe more than 100 languages are spoken (Europe I). In the EU approximately 45 minority languages exist in addition to the 11 official and working languages, making a sum of at least 56 indigenous languages (Europe II). After extension to the eastern and southeastern parts of Europe in May 2004, the EU comprises more than 70 indigenous official and minority languages (Europe III). Even without taking into consideration the additional millions of members of migrant groups and their languages, such a welter of languages and cultures can, if at all, only be managed properly by a sophisticated language planning and language policy. To this end, two obstacles must be overcome which otherwise could lead to intercultural misunderstandings. The first one addresses the issue of terminology in relation to ‘language planning’ and the second one deals with conceptualization. Terminology The distinction that the English language makes between language planning, language policy and language politics can be found in other European languages, for example Dutch distinguishes between taalplanning (language planning), taalbeleid (language policy) and taalpolitiek (language politics). However, in German the second term – language policy – which is the decisive one for a European language policy, has no equivalent, since only Sprachplanung (language planning) and Sprachpolitik (language politics/language policy) exist. In French, the hierarchical element – planification linguistique (linguistic planning) – has been pushed aside in favour of a convincing term – aménagement linguistique – which is related to modern democratic as well as ecolinguistic concepts and contains the meaning linguistic household. Because English, French and German in the context of EU multilingualism are seen as primi inter pares and therefore decisive factors in the development of a common future language policy, the terminological differences with respect to these topics catch the eye and need resolving.

Conceptualization The first three contact-linguistic analyses of smaller language communities within the EU Euromosaic I (Nelde et al., 1995), Euromosaic II (Nelde et al., 1999) and Euromosaic III (Nelde et al., 2004)

Peter Hans Nelde

63

have shown quite clearly that up to the present day there has been no overall European concept, not even an overall European vision with respect to the linguistic and cultural coexistence of the 25 members of the Union. This is to be expected, as two divergent conceptual approaches which are hard to relate, let alone amalgamate, are an obstacle to a common attitude. Whereas a centralistic concept of language policy can be assigned to one group of states (France, for instance), some federally governed states (such as Germany) have opted for the subsidiarity principle. Other states (e.g., Great Britain) practise mixed forms of these two principles. These differences in concept are highly significant, as decisions on language policy based on a centralist principle will – first – depend on the existence of national (language) legislation, which will – secondly – be implemented hierarchically from top to bottom through administrative channels. Where the subsidiarity principle is applied, the ‘top’ legislative level and consequently the respective national laws and decrees are often lacking (Germany and Belgium, for instance, do not have national ministries of culture and education). Political decisions on language and culture are instead made at the lowest possible level (communal, regional, Land). Due to these differences in conceptualization, an EU-developed central language policy that does not consider the particularities of the historically developed structures is hardly conceivable and likely to fail.

Second proposition Contact-linguistic models serve in a special way to illustrate the multidisciplinary nature of multilingual phenomena. Contact linguistics by definition has a multidisciplinary nature, covers language contact phenomena of different kinds (linguistic and extra-linguistic) and contributes substantially to conflict analysis and conflict resolution (e.g., Goebl et al., 1996, 1997). In my opinion four contact-linguistic assumptions have a special significance for the handling of language conflicts and their neutralization: 1. There is neither contact nor conflict between languages, but between speakers and language communities (e.g., Haarmann, 1980; Oksaar, 1980). As a consequence, the possibility of comparing one single language in different contexts (e.g., Italian in Slovenia and in

64 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe

Switzerland) is highly restricted. Having a multiplicity of causes, these contacts and conflicts appear under various forms – from the open outbreak of hostilities (such as in Kosovo in 1998) to the ‘subliminalization’ of ‘subcutaneous’ conflicts in societies with a strong need for harmony (Scandinavia). A major cause for the frequency of all kinds of conflicts in linguistic communities is the asymmetry characteristic of any kind of multilingualism. Congruent language communities with an identical number of speakers, with languages that enjoy identical prestige and with an identical national product and a comparable standard of living, do not exist. Therefore, contact without conflict is hard to find. 2. Even if the statement that there is no linguistic contact without linguistic conflict (labelled Nelde’s Law by de Bot, 1997) might appear somewhat exaggerated, there is – in the field of European languages – no contact situation which cannot be described as a linguistic conflict at the same time. Noteworthy in this context is Mattheier’s view of linguistic conflicts among monolingual speakers (Mattheier, 1984). 3. Contact linguistics usually considers language as an essential secondary symbol of underlying primary causes of conflict of a socio-economic, political, religious, psychological or historic nature. Linguistic conflict thus somehow appears to be the ‘lesser evil’, since linguistic conflicts in many cases are much easier to correct and neutralize than conflicts that primarily have socio-political and other non-linguistic causes. Politicization and ideologization of the language factor frequently lead to conflicts in which language often appears to be a matter of minor importance but is easily employed as secondary symbol. There is an endless list of examples in contemporary Eastern and Southern Europe. Bosnia-Herzegovina: Will a ‘Bosnian’ language arise next to Serbo-Croat (abandoned in 1992) and its successor languages Serbian and Croat? Moldavia: Is it possible to maintain the unity of a state, if the land is divided by the same language into different alphabets (Latin and Cyrillic) and a different lexicon? Byelorussia: Can a language survive in a young state, if only 10 per cent of the school children are taught in Byelorussian? 4. Contact linguistics not only demonstrates that conflicts should not only be considered as negative, but proves at the same time that new structures can emerge from conflicts, structures which – in the case of minority speakers – might be more favourable than the previous ones.

Peter Hans Nelde

65

Third proposition Linguistic conflicts in Europe are not only historical, they are already preprogrammed for the future by European language politicians. Apart from the traditional language conflicts of an historical origin, there are at present conflicts between migrants and indigenous populations, between indigenous and non-indigenous groups fighting for or against their assimilation, integration, and so on. These are ‘natural’ conflicts that I, therefore, would like to distinguish from ‘artificial’ conflicts created by the introduction of new structures of (language) policy. Discussion of such conflicts leads us to a comparison of the old story of Babylon with modern Brussels: 4000 translators and interpreters working up to 2004 in 11 official and working languages in Europe II, since 2004 in 20 official and working languages often influenced and ‘afflicted’ by dozens of minority languages, most of them fighting for their survival. It is almost a mathematical problem: if there are 19 possibilities to use each of 20 languages, that makes 380 combinations – a number the Flemish artist Pieter Breughel could hardly have taken into consideration when he created his famous painting on the construction of the tower of Babel, as his building does not provide enough room for as many booths for simultaneous interpreting as presently needed in the EU Commission. It should be evident by now that the creation of a homogenous Europe in itself does not guarantee the solution of conflicts, whether naturally evolved or artificially created ones. What then are the possible solutions? (1) Is it the introduction of a planned language (Esperanto, sign language)? (2) Or does one move to the acceptance of a strong ‘vehicular’ language as a lingua franca (e.g., English)? (3) Or should preference be given to a small number of ‘major’ languages (such as German, French and English)? (4) Or does one work towards the maintenance of the status quo (20 official and working languages in 25 member states)? Can the present order, that is the acceptance of linguistic diversity, be further expanded and continued? To avoid Babylonian conditions, some restrictions on the freedom of language choice will certainly have to be tolerated. The enlargement in 2004 and 2007 of the EU will have to abandon the pattern of the almost automatic acknowledgement of national languages as community languages in favour of (3), or yet another new one. The problems in promoting and maintaining minority languages encountered by the EU ‘ministry’ mentioned earlier – an authority

66 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe

which had been pursuing language policies for smaller languages in cooperation with European minorities – clearly pinpoint the delicacy and complexity of any commitment on the part of a political authority. There is no agreement on how many minority languages and speakers exist in Europe II (40–50 minorities, depending on different contact-linguistic definitions, with as many as 30–55 million speakers from a total of 380 million ‘unionists’ in Europe II or as many as 50–80 million speakers from a total of 480 million ‘unionists’ in Europe III), nor on how to refer to them (the term ‘lesser used languages’ sounds somewhat helpless and artificial and is translated into French as langues moins répandues, which is not entirely equivalent), nor on common guidelines for a language policy with respect to the language communities, which – due to their historically developed social structures – can hardly be compared. If the politicians concerned with minority languages were not adopting such an exemplary attitude of reserve, new ‘artificial’ conflicts would almost be inevitable.

Fourth proposition The share that individual European languages have in present language conflicts varies with German as the biggest EU language presenting an interesting case. Apart from Russian, German is the most widely spoken language in Europe with approximately 100 million speakers. In addition it functions as an international language partly due to its prominent place as the second or third foreign language in schools, as one of the original languages in the EU tender procedures and decrees, as a negotiating language in multinational summits and as a colloquial language in the European institutions – its status and multiple roles also highlight, among other things, the comparatively high conflict potential inherent in the German language. Some examples will suffice to illustrate this: 1. German is characterized by a high degree of conflict imperilment, as its frequency of contact is higher than that of other languages. Today’s Germany borders 9 states; in most of its neighbouring countries, German is spoken (either as a minority or as a majority language). In at least 15 states (Europe II and III) German is the official or a minority language. 2. As far as non-indigenous (migrant) minorities are concerned, Germany experiences an extremely high degree of conflict

Peter Hans Nelde

67

diversification. Just consider the spectrum of immigrants who since the mid-1980s have been striving for acceptance and integration. For those not familiar with the situation it is certainly not easy to distinguish the different terms used with respect to these ‘newcomers’ and to reveal the different ideological points of view inherent or even hidden behind them, especially when the terms used display semantic similarities. For example, Fremdarbeiter (transit worker), Gastarbeiter (guest worker), ausländischer Arbeitnehmer (foreign worker), Arbeitsimmigrant (immigrant worker), Arbeitsemigrant (emigrant worker), Umsiedler (resettler), Aussiedler (person repatriated), Spätaussiedler (person of German origin repatriated relatively late after 1945), Rücksiedler (returnee), Asylant (person granted political asylum), Asylsucher (person seeking political asylum), Wirtschaftsflüchtling (economic refugee), Migrant (migrant), Remigrant (returning migrant), to mention only a few. Intercultural communication within Europe III may face another misunderstanding with respect to conflict: the other member countries (with the exception of Luxembourg) do not experience similar numbers of people coming into a country. Consequently, due to the lack of a comparable factual and ideological background, a considerable number of terms cannot be adequately translated into the other languages. 3. Ideology obviously plays a particular part in language contacts with German. Germany’s past – above all relating to the period of the Third Reich and Second World War – can be seen as an historical conflict burden. The construction of images or development of stereotypes (Breitenstein, 1968) is all too familiar from the entertainment industry. Since the fifties, popular TV serials and sitcoms such as Hogan’s Heroes (USA, broadcast in 1998 in Central Europe on cable TV) or more recently Allo, allo (Great Britain, broadcast in 1998 on different Western European channels) are perfect examples of a biased, black-and-white representation of the Germans: simpletons, or stodgy scoundrels, wrapped up with a touch of folkloristically underpinned sympathy – making them an ideal subject for researchers on attitude and prejudice. Because of this kind of coming to terms with the past (in German Vergangenheitsbewältigung), the acquisition of the German language is – at least for European students of German – impeded by a concomitant extra-linguistic burden that complicates access to it. 4. German also constitutes the biggest minority language in Europe I, II and III. In this role it is confronted with totally divergent

68 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe

concepts of the term ‘state’ and contrasting political ideas, structures and hence minority conflicts. It must certainly not have been easy for Germans outside of traditional German-speaking countries to find ideological common ground between their own culture and the culture of the host country, between previously socialist and western democracies, between socio-economically underprivileged majorities and majorities taking part in the neo-liberal upswing, as a quick glance at the list of the most important countries with German as minority language reveals: Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Russia and Poland. 5. A conflict of prejudice also becomes a learning conflict when the assumption is made that German is particularly hard to learn. Objective linguistic criteria of argumentation are mixed with subjective ones as Christ (1980, 1992) demonstrated convincingly. 6. Furthermore, the acquisition and mastering of a German standard language is complicated by a conflict of pluricentricity. For example, the words butcher (English) and boucher (French) have not one but several equivalents that appear to be understood by all German speakers. Only one of these translations, however, belongs to their respective – actively used – idiolect or sociolect (e.g., Schlachter, Schlächter, Fleischer, Metzger). 7. The current international status of German has the potential for linguistic conflict. Its under-representation in European as well as in international organizations (the United Nations, UNESCO, the EU) is limiting the German right to co-determination and might lead to socio-economic and political disadvantages. So far the Germans have demonstrated great restraint and have refrained from claiming a role more proportionate to their support of international organizations thereby avoiding the conflicts that might result from linguistic discrimination. It would be desirable to analyze the issue of ‘German in Conflict’ presented here in a multidisciplinary setting in order to deduce strategies to avoid conflicts. In a European context – characterized by numerous tensions and conflicts frequently centred around suppressed, underprivileged or simply small language communities (minorities) – the next objective should be to try to put strategies which have contributed to a conflict neutralization to the test.

Peter Hans Nelde

69

Fifth proposition A successful subsidiary language policy in Europe III in view of conflict neutralization must be ‘Europeanized’, that is it must become an integral part of a European language policy. A fundamental question in pursuit of this fifth proposition is which concepts multilingual states in Europe have developed, and which ones have succeeded in leading multilingual language communities towards a more peaceful coexistence? Despite their differing origins and starting points it is possible to discern several common principles and concepts to which countries like Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland have adhered to avoid linguistic conflict. The principle of territoriality A common belief among many monolinguals is that in bilingual countries all citizens speak two languages. Bilingualism in such a situation is better interpreted as two languages existing side by side and enjoying, at least in theory the same status and the same rights. This so-called ‘institutionalized bilingualism’ (or multilingualism) is a consequence of the territoriality principle that forces the people living in a given region, declared as monolingual by the authorities, to use the regional language at least for official communication. The territoriality principle must be distinguished from the personality principle. The latter allows each speaker to use his or her mother tongue or another language in all official and private domains, regardless of where he or she lives. Although the rather inflexible territoriality principle arouses criticism, it does work quite well in several multilingual countries, particularly in more prosperous ones like Canada, Belgium and Switzerland. Initially these two principles of multilingualism were opposed to one another – as was the case in Belgium, where up until the 1960s the personality principle had prevailed. The linguistic asymmetry in the country and the ensuing high prestige of the Romance language (French) brought about a high degree of ‘Frenchification’ of the country. Most remarkable are the results of the territoriality principle in the bilingual capital, Brussels. Here, the notorious ‘liberté du père de famille’ (the freedom of the male head of the family) to choose one of the national languages was not abandoned till the seventies. Instead of a bilingual structure, Brussels has now settled on two parallel monolingual systems in the official domains (education, administration, work place). In accordance with the territoriality principle, the two major

70 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe

parts of the country (Flanders and Wallonia), with the exception of few language border communities, are either monolingually French or Dutch. This implementation of the territoriality principle was received by outsiders with both aversion and admiration, as it had obviously served to preserve a small multilingual nation. In the case of Belgium, the consequences for the individual speaker nevertheless are severe: before the introduction of this principle social advancement was inevitably tied to proficiency of two languages (at least in the case of the Flemish and German population), whereas today many spheres of life can be managed in one language only, that is the language of the respective region. The Belgian government is highly sensitive when it comes to the consideration of the rights of the individual language communities. Even very small minorities are granted equal rights. One part of the German-speaking minority in eastern Belgium, amounting to less than 1 per cent of the total population, benefits from the language regulation policy between the two major parts of the country and is more or less treated like the Dutch- and French-speaking population. German has become the third national language. In Brussels airport, for instance, all signs are displayed in four languages consistently in the same order to avoid any discrimination of one language community. There are the three official Belgian languages – Dutch, French, German – plus English, the language of international air traffic. Another example relates to the police in charge of Belgian motorways who take into account all three national languages. In case of a traffic violation the driver is granted the choice between three national languages. The language chosen is then used to record the offence. Of course, such procedures are expensive, but they seem quite sensible in the context of conflict avoidance strategies. How many other countries are prepared to grant a language with as few speakers a similar status? If that status were denied, however, this kind of linguistic asymmetry would eventually entail greater conflicts with an economic as well as a political impact. With some restrictions the Belgian way of handling conflicts may henceforth be considered as a model for language planning on the part of the EU.

‘De-emotionalization’ Another favourable outcome of the language dispute in Belgium is a certain ‘de-emotionalization’ of the language question. But it is far from easy to strip language and cultural conflicts of their emotional elements. With the introduction of the territoriality principle, the Belgian legislators had hoped that strict language regulation in a few key domains

Peter Hans Nelde

71

would leave enough room for as much freedom as possible in the use of language in other spheres and domains. Whereas the monolingualism mandated by the territoriality principle in most multilingual countries affects at least two domains (education and public administration), the workplace has been added in Belgium which means that the territorial language must be used in all formal contracts between employers and employees. Accordingly, tensions resulting from a socially determined language choice (e.g., a higher-ranking official using a different language from that used by a lower ranking one) are reduced. Along with language legislation, a plan for federalization and regionalization was developed in order to prevent a centralized language planning policy following the French model. Since such regionalized (in Belgian terms ‘communalized’) language planning within the different language groups is implemented only in a few but nevertheless decisive spheres of life, the government adopts a rather permissive attitude in relation to other domains and compensates for the strictness of the laws on language and culture with tolerance.

Language censuses Instead of following the example of North America and Russia, where the population is assigned to the existing majority and minority languages according to large-scale language surveys (i.e., censuses), Belgium has sought its own way in dealing with numerical registration of minorities, proceeding on the principle that the rights and duties of a majority or a minority are not exclusively dependent on their number. That the size of a language community is no longer the decisive factor in the field of language planning entails that all considerations with respect to the protection of a language community start from the assumption that in order to achieve equal rights a numerically and socio-economically underprivileged minority deserves more support than the majority it is confronted with. Hence, the Belgian government has abandoned numerical language surveys as part of the population census, thereby certainly contributing greatly to the ‘de-emotionalization’. As Belgium differs distinctly in this respect from most other multilingual nations, we will take a closer look at the topic of language censuses, which seems to be a crucial factor for conflict. We have emphasized that bilingualism is always asymmetrical, that bilingual people will for some reason or other, depending on their socio-economic status, their cultural identity, and so on, always prefer one language. Therefore, a collection of data on bi- or multilingualism in the form of a numerical

72 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe

survey of the speakers will hardly produce socially reliable information on a particular region. In the census of 1933, for instance, 93 per cent of the inhabitants of Martelingen/Martelange, a small bilingual village near the border between Luxembourg and Belgium, claimed to speak German, and only 7 per cent declared themselves to be francophone (Nelde, 1979). In 1947, when the last official census was conducted in Belgium, the situation seemed to be reversed: the majority of speakers claimed to be francophone, whereas only a few per cent regarded themselves as speakers of German. The reason is all too obvious: most village residents were bilingual at the time of both censuses, but in 1933 (in the era of fascism) German was in favour, whereas in 1947 – after the end of the Second World War – German had lost this favoured status. People found it more convenient to turn to French. Therefore, quantitative data from a language census in multilingual conflict situations should be treated with some scepticism, as the information on multilingualism which they seem to deliver is often distorted by extra-linguistic factors.

Positive discrimination As a logical consequence of these considerations on de-emotionalization and language censuses, the focus of interest has shifted now to positive discrimination of language minorities. This shift in focus can be of considerable use for the language minorities of a future Europe. Positive discrimination means that minorities are granted more rights and advantages than they would be entitled to according to the proportional system. This is done in order for them to be able to develop their potential for language maintenance and growth in ways comparable to that of the majority. In the case of asymmetrical and particularly institutionalized multilingualism as discussed here, the structure of the educational system should, if necessary, explicitly promote the minority in order to give it a chance to produce similar results to those of the majority. In practice, this could imply the acceptance of smaller class sizes for speakers of smaller languages in school, or the provision of better pay for teachers confronted with special ‘multilingual’ requirements. Given these conditions, minority students should enjoy more rights and advantages, so as to obtain equal promotion prospects in the long run. Another form of positive discrimination is to reward all those who work in a bilingual surrounding. Postal workers operating in a multilingual town, for instance, could earn more than their monolingual colleagues, because of the higher linguistic

Peter Hans Nelde

73

demands in their daily practice. Such a measure would obviously lead to an improvement in prestige and status of bilinguals.

Market economy and language In the wake of the de-emotionalization of the language dispute in Belgium, other ways to avoid and resolve conflicts have emerged. Today, the multilingual situation in Belgium can be described as particularly liberal in respect of the three national languages as well as the most important foreign and neighbouring languages. It now has become much easier for individual speakers to choose the language they need according to their personal and professional objectives. Individual linguistic behaviour and individual language acquisition correspond to the free market. In this way, multilingualism, freed from numerous historical and social prejudices, stereotypes and emotions, could adapt to supply and demand. In addition, there is a purely economic aspect: Brussels’ function as a capital and an international meeting point has further increased the willingness among its population to learn foreign languages, since fluency in additional languages pays off (e.g., Grin, 1996). Thus the Belgian example shows that economically based language choice, determined by supply and demand, is a more successful motive for multilingualism than a centralized language planning policy which – being static and therefore rather inflexible – poorly adapts itself to ever-changing language needs.

Concluding remarks Having discussed European, especially Belgian, solutions to some of the problems caused by the existing multilingual situation in Europe, it must be stressed that there is no general model for multilingualism that can be implemented in all cultures, for all countries and under all circumstances. The specific context of each multilingual situation must be mirrored in the regional and overall language policy of the respective country. Policy must be made to measure the language community in question in order to be able to correspond to the existing economic needs. The different examples presented here indicate quite clearly that a single politico-linguistic programme for the solution of the language problems within a unified Europe is bound to fail. There are no general, overall solutions. Language policy must be adjusted to each specific case,

74 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe

situation and context as is demonstrated by the language planning strategies in multilingual countries like Australia and Canada. In these concluding remarks I would like to draw attention to the fact that to date there is limited cooperation between indigenous and nonindigenous (immigrant) groups in demanding linguistic rights. This is replicated to some extent in the scholarship surrounding these groups. Both groups mainly draw attention to the comparatively poor prestige of their languages and cultures as a common disadvantage with respect to the dominant group. However, there is little if any evidence of cooperation in the demand for linguistic rights within the European context. The need for this kind of cooperation, however, should be obvious, as comparable disadvantages require common solutions. Undoubtedly, the new, often socially defined minorities such as migrants, guest workers, returnees, expatriates, resettlers, refugees, emigrants and transmigrants come to the fore of European politics. All of these groups have given rise to a new consciousness among minority populations, resulting in a promotion of indigenous minorities rather than in their suppression. A new, regional consciousness, aimed at smaller units – like the ‘small is beautiful’ movement of the sixties and seventies – has succeeded in directing the attention of researchers, politicians and those in charge of cultural matters more and more to minorities whose socio-cultural and also economical–political significance cannot be questioned any further in a culturally viable Europe. Still the attitude of majority groups towards linguistic and cultural minorities tends to be much more negative in the case of immigrant or non-indigenous groups than in the case of indigenous minorities. Confrontations between indigenous minorities and dominant majorities on the one hand and migrants and dominant majorities on the other take place at different levels (social, political, economic, cultural), even as discrimination on the part of the majority makes itself felt in a similar form. In contact linguistics, only very few researchers have investigated both types of linguistic minorities together in spite of the positive effects that might be entailed by common action. For example, in the Netherlands, Switzerland and France, indigenous and non-indigenous groups are described and analysed in entirely different ways. Similarly in Great Britain there is a lack of contact between those linguists concerned with the so-called ‘decolonized’ languages and those analysing the Celtic languages in Scotland and Wales. Without any doubt, the apparent extralinguistic differences among conflict situations are a reason for this lack of cooperation. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are hardly

Peter Hans Nelde

75

any proposals for conflict resolution that aim at neutralizing similar linguistic conflicts among both groups. We need to move to a re-evaluation of this situation and contactlinguistic research can make a powerful contribution to this. Here are some obvious reasons. First, the rural communities who preserved the language and other identity markers of their minority were mostly located at the periphery of the various European states and for this reason often considered as marginal in the past. If they wanted to participate in welfare and economic progress, they had to adapt to the processes of urbanization and industrialization. In the course of this process – if it took place – they often lost their characteristic features, including their language. Now, quite a few of these communities find themselves in the heart of a new Europe, as they often lie on the new crucial contact axes. From a geographical and a geo-political point of view, they are no longer in a marginal position. Furthermore, it may well be that a supranational Europe will be much more prepared to tolerate regionalism than the former national states. This implies that these communities are now undergoing a process of shifts in social structure. This process must be analyzed from a contact linguistic viewpoint. For a better understanding of what has been and still is going on in some of these communities, we should, above all, take a closer look at those groups of speakers who have managed to preserve their language and tradition. Minority groups such as the Catalans give a clear idea of what can contribute to the maintenance and promotion of a minority group. In this context, local and regional development deserves more attention. Secondly, multilingualism in Europe’s major cities is a rather new phenomenon. In some cases, it has already been examined more closely on an empirical level, in others, a lot remains to be done in order to improve the insight into contact-linguistic developments. In this area, research on prejudice incorporates linguistics, and problems and conflicts can arise from multilingual and multicultural contacts. These can be explained sociologically not only by attempts of the dominant group to secure social advancement for its members, but also by a feeling of being threatened as the arrival of other groups seems to blur one’s own identity. Thirdly, the problem of languages in the EU remains widely undiscussed and therefore unsolved. Whatever the solution will be – 3, 4, 11, 20 or more working languages – the Europe of the future will not be monolingual. The entry of the Scandinavian neighbours – countries where English has always been favoured as a second language – and Austria to the Union or the entry of the Baltic and Slavic countries may

76 Maintaining Multilingualism in Europe

change the linguistic balance of power in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg and has already enlivened the debate. Fourthly, we must examine the language conflicts along EU borders to former Eastern-Bloc countries, where language seems to be developing more and more into a symbol of resurgent nationalism. Here, one has to distinguish between conflicts with historical roots and those which have been kindled artificially – for reasons related to the redefining of borders, the foundation of new states or for simply ideological reasons. Accordingly, potential causes for language conflict exist not only in Europe but all over the world. They frequently become noticeable as polarising tendencies. History has taught us about the possible consequences of the suppression of conflicts. Therefore, contact linguists should produce sensible contributions to the analysis, description and control of the complicated linguistic situations occurring everyday in front of the researcher’s eyes all over the world – not only in Australia and Europe.

References de Bot, K. (1997) ‘ “Neldes’s law” revisited, Dutch as a diaspora language’. In Wölck, W. and de Houwer, A. (eds) Recent Studies in Contact Linguistics. Plurilingua XVIII, Dümmler: Bonn, pp. 51–59. Breitenstein, R. (1968) Der hässliche Deutsche [The Ugly German]. Beck: München. Christ, H. (1980) Fremdsprachenunterricht und Sprachenpolitik [Foreign Language Teaching and Language Policy]. Klett-Cotta: Stuttgart. Christ, H. (1992) Fremdsprachenunterricht f ür das Jahr 2000 [Foreign Language Teaching in 2000]. Klett-Cotta: Stuttgart. Goebl, H. (1997) ‘Die altösterreichische Sprachenvielfalt und -politik als Modellfall von heute und morgen’ [The old Austrian linguistic diversity and language policy as a model for today and tomorrow]. In Rinaldi, U., Rindler-Schjerve, R. and Metzeltin, M. (eds) Sprache und Politik [Language and Politics]. Istituto Italiano di Cultura: Wien, pp. 103–121. Goebl, H., Nelde, P., Wölck, W. and Zdenek, S. (eds) (1996) Contact Linguistics I. de Gruyter: Berlin/New York. Goebl, H., Nelde, P., Wölck, W. and Zdenek, S. (eds) (1997) Contact Linguistics II. de Gruyter: Berlin/New York. Grin, F. (1996) ‘The economics of language, survey, assessment, and prospects’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 121: 17–44. Haarmann, H. (1980) Multilingualismus I, II. Narr: Tübingen. Mattheier, K. (1984) ‘Sprachkonflikte in einsprachigen Ortsgemeinschaften, Versuch einer Typologie’ [Language conflicts in monolingual villages, attempt at a typology]. In Oksaar, E. (ed.) Spracherwerb, Sprach-kontakt, Sprachkonflikt [Language Acquisition, Language Contact, Language Conflict]. de Gruyter: Berlin/New York, pp. 197–204. Nelde, P. (1979) Volkssprache und Kultursprache [Language of the People and Language of Culture]. Steiner: Wiesbaden.

Peter Hans Nelde

77

Nelde, P., Strubell, M. and Williams, G. (1995) Euromosaic (I) The Production and Reproduction of the Minority Language Groups in the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxemburg. Nelde, P., Strubell, M. and Williams, G. (1999) Euromosaic (II), unpublished manuscript. Nelde, P., Strubell, M. and Williams, G. (2004) Euromosaic (III), unpublished manuscript. Oksaar, E. (1980) ‘Mehrsprachigkeit, Sprachkontakt, Sprachkonflikt’ [Multilingualism, language contact, language conflict]. In Nelde, P. (ed.) Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt [Language Contact and Language Conflict]. Steiner: Wiesbaden, pp. 43–52.

5 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy: Europe and Australia Joseph Lo Bianco The University of Melbourne

Introduction Contrasting and comparing European and Australian practices in language maintenance is a problematic exercise. For a start, the constitutional parameters are different. Australia is a single sovereign national state, while ‘Europe’ is an aggregating entity, expanding from an economic treaty among six sovereign national states unsteadily towards pooled sovereignty at a supra-national level. Europe’s moves towards political union, albeit hesitant and contested, give the appearance of re-enacting the cultural policies of its member states (utilizing the state discourses of efficiency of communication, common citizenship, participation and democracy). However, at least rhetorically, and in some clear ways practically too, the emergent Europe differs considerably in its cultural policies from those enacted by its own member states. One of the points of difference is in the treatment of minority languages. Political and juridical characteristics account for a significant part of the contrast that can be identified today between Australia and Europe in how minority languages are treated. The very process of negotiating the formation of the European Union (EU) and the subsequent work of the European bureaucracies that have emerged as European engagement has widened and deepened, from 6 to 25 states, from trade regulation to a quasi-state that talks of continental citizenship, has itself forced change onto the policies of individual European countries in relation to minority language policy. Here there is little basis for comparison, but rather for contrast, because Australia is not enmeshed in similar processes. However, two broad factors, globalization and the shared Europeanist ideology of one nation–one language, constitute grounds for 78

Joseph Lo Bianco

79

comparison between Australian and individual European practices of language planning in relation to minority languages.

Defining terms To begin discussing these issues it will help to define some basic terms. The most important pair is the nation–state combination. States can be formed from many contributing elements, the most important one for present purposes is the linking of nationality with statehood, in what is called here a national state. Family dynasties, religion and other bases for state formation have been common in the past and are found today, but most states make some claim to nationality as the basis of their formation. Nation and state are terms whose common meanings almost totally contradict the technical meanings of these words. In popular understanding, at least in English, people use the term nation for what scholars of nationalism usually prefer to call a state. The term state is less often misrecognized between its technical and popular meanings, but suffers from multiple meanings. In this chapter (drawing on Enloe, 1981), the term nation refers to feelings of identity, interpersonal attachments and public sentiment, that is to the psychology of belonging and mutual loyalty. State by contrast refers to the activity of administration and formal authority. In Enloe (1981) these two realms, identity and authority, are represented as two axes aligned vertically and horizontally, at whose intersection the specific characteristics of an individual national state can be determined. According to Enloe (1981, p. 123), ‘The state is a vertical structure of public authority, in contrast with the nation, which is essentially a horizontal network of trust and identity’. Distinguishing between nation and state in this way allows us to discuss and better understand the relation between multilingual sociologies, in the horizontal domain, and the practices of public authorities in the vertical. The nation axis makes use of discourses and attachments of belonging together for groups of people who share the same geo-political space, but this is also a space of linguistic diversity, whereas the state typically insists on unity, efficiency and authority and has the means to enforce its choices. Using this definition it is clear that ‘Europe’, meaning here the EU, is far from being a national state, because its vertical axis is comprised of the ceding or pooling of state authority from existing national states whose own responses to linguistic pluralism are very different.

80 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

Effective comparison of minority language treatment requires attention to the context of policy making and this, in turn, requires attention to the motivating force of these policies, which is the clear association of languages with nationalism. The European experience of nationalism has been particularly attentive to the ideology of exclusive national languages, selected, codified and given juridical primacy and cultural prominence, an experience and an ideology transferred to Australia as a Europeanized state. Both economic globalization and the supra-national structure of the EU are impacting deeply and often in ambiguous ways on this residual nationalist structure and its view of languages, evident in the different policy settings for various categories of minority or nonofficial languages.

Nationalism National feeling, consciousness, loyalty and identity are items of meaning here contained under the overarching term nationalism. In the present analysis, nationalism is distinguished from patriotism and chauvinism, the former expressing a milder form of what the term nationalism conveys, the latter a more extreme form. Nationalism theory is usually seen to separate along a basic divide: some nationalities are seen to be primarily ethnic in origin and character, others to be primarily civic in origin and character. Many nationalism scholars see civic nationalisms as a classification analogous to a political or Western variant and identify a separate blood-ancestry variant as an Eastern, cultural and sometimes a ‘peripheral’ nationalism. An elaborate formulation along these lines is offered by Greenfeld (1992) who distinguishes the ethnic and civic variants according to their origins and their present characteristics. In this analysis, political sovereignty as a social compact of free and equal individuals is an original nationalism, an English innovation, individualistic and civic in character. Although it is historically the first nationalism, Greenfeld argues that individualistic and civic nationalism is the rarest kind and is today virtually synonymous with Western liberal democratic polities. In this construction, the individual is an autonomous entity capable of volition and agency. Contrasted with this individualistic and civic nationalism is a more common form of nationalism in which individuals form a ‘composite entity’ in nations imagined as a ‘collective individual’. In this second kind of nationalism, political will resides with the collective, and this collective individual has its own distinctive interest independent of the

Joseph Lo Bianco

81

human individuals that make it up. The interests of the collective individual take priority over separate human individuals. For Greenfeld, this second kind of nationalism is often tyrannical or at least it favours populist democracy and even socialism. However, some kinds of collectivist nations are also civic, France being the classic case; representing a collectivistic and civic type. This is historically the second type of nationalism to evolve. There is a tension at the heart of this kind of nationalism, according to Greenfeld, because its civic character defends individual freedom while its collectivistic dimension denies this freedom and as a result this kind of nation is plagued with problems and ambivalence, noted by Greenfeld (1992) as the ‘turbulent political history’ of the French nation. The third and last type of nation to appear developed in Russia and Germany and is anti-western in character and the most common type in the world today. This third type combines a collectivistic definition of the nation with ethnic criteria of nationality. Other nationalism theorizing, such as that of Hastings (1997), attributes historical primacy to the English nation seeing in its emergence the birth both of ‘the nations’ and indeed of nationalism. For Greenfeld, it was the upwardly mobile commoners of England in the sixteenth century who were critical in this process, as they were new Tudor aristocrats with an interest in re-defining the nation as one where upward mobility was permitted and possible and not constrained by aristocratic privilege. Hastings traces this further back, arguing that national feeling was ‘detectable’ in Saxon England, surviving the Norman Conquest of 1066, and growing in strength to emerge more powerfully with a vernacular literary creation and then be re-employed in through imperial expansion in America and elsewhere (Hastings, 1997, pp. 2–5). Without entering into the merits of these claims, these three types of nationalism evolve and emerge differently. Individualistic and civicoriented nationalism is seen to respond to appeals that nationalism should serve the interests of upwardly mobile sections of the population. Collectivist nationalisms emerge when the social or economic basis of nationalism is restricted. As such, collectivism is seen to serve the interests of narrow elites as they seek power or status within narrow social frameworks, and they then transmit this nationalism, usually by indoctrination, to the masses. The first nationalism is civic, but collectivism as a basis for national state formation can develop a civic character, over time as it opens up to new members. Staying within the European framework the geographic distribution of these kinds of nationalism is as follows (Table 5.1):

82 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy Table 5.1 Kinds of nationalism in Europe: A geographic distribution England France Russia and Germany

Individualistic and Civic Nationalism Collectivistic and Civic Nationalism Collectivistic and Ethnic Nationalism

Ethnic ideologies stress cultural similarity of particular groups, nationalism stresses the cultural similarity of its adherents. An implication of both terms is that boundaries are drawn vis-à-vis others, constituted by definition as outsiders. While ethnicity and nationalism share this quality, nationalism carries the specific additional element of implying a relationship with a state. The relation of ethnicity to nationalism depends on the intervening role of the state. In some kinds of nationalism, the state actually helps form and shape the nation drawing on the inheritance of ethnicity as ‘raw material’, but even this kind of nationalism can evolve into a civic-oriented state, where belonging depends more on citizenship and rights rather than blood and ancestry. Many people in western societies believe that nationalism is rare or marginal in their societies. A useful counter to this is Billig’s (1995) study which identifies ‘banal nationalism’, reminding us that nationalism has been naturalized in many Western settings operating at an almost subliminal level, like background noise, ever present and contradicting the claim that the nationalist age has passed. The ideological habitus that Billig’s notion captures enables the reproduction of established nations, within a persisting nationalist framework even as they deny its presence. In an unmarked and naturalized way, nationalism operates to ‘indicate’ the nation to its citizens, in continual and taken for granted ‘little ways’, practices and routines of life, governance and social ritual. For Billig, nationalism is ‘the endemic condition’ (Billig, 1995, p. 6) and that both ethnic and civic dimensions are encountered in all nations. Nations distribute and mobilize symbolic capital, sentimental attachments and value, as well as instrumental benefits. It is to these enduring, indeed in the latter part of the twentieth century resurgent, elements of human collective behaviours that must be allocated consideration along with economic and political rights and benefits of the kinds distributed by civic nationalism. For much of the twentieth century, modernist thinking has had the upper hand in theorizing about nations and nationalism. It seemed likely that cold war political alignments would bring about the obsolescence for nationalism-based politics; the latter having exhausted

Joseph Lo Bianco

83

itself during the wars of the twentieth century, replaced by the new ideological groupings of blocs, the communist–capitalist world alignments. However, the 1990s has witnessed a re-emergence of nationalist advocacy utilizing language, ethnicity and religious markers of identification. These are as vibrant and persisting as those encountered in any previous era. In the light of these reformulations, the modernization school can no longer claim to prevail in scholarly discourse, and such post-modern complexities as the simultaneous manifestation of rivalrous nationalisms alongside what can only be considered a steady erosion of nationalist sentiment in other settings. Globalization, regionalization and localization co-occur in complex interdependence and no overarching unidirectional pattern is evident (Giddens, 1999). In this respect, Benedict Anderson’s (1991) examination of nationalism concludes that its sustaining entity is ultimately an imagined community. Unlike traditional notions of community based around daily acts of interdependence the members of even small nations will never experience interpersonal intimacy as a sense of communion with their national co-habitants. Their populations are too large and dispersed and yet such large collectivities live precisely as a community in the imaginings of its members. This idea differs from the modernist approach exemplified in the work of Hobsbawm (1992) and Gellner (1983). For Anderson, the assertion of the realm of ideas, as imagination, in nationalist scholarship is a reaction against an assumption made by modernists that nationalism is somehow false, or primitive, and only a stage of ‘high literate culture’ in industrial democracies that with the advanced relations of post-industrial economy and technology would be superseded. Modernist constructions of national community are based instead on conditions of possibility rendered by industrial modernity but these in Anderson’s understanding cannot fully explain the question why individuals are willing to die and kill for nations, the answer to which Anderson locates in the ‘cultural roots of nationalism’ (Anderson, 1991, pp. 6–7). But Hobsbawm (1992) and Gellner (1983) offer important cautions against nationalism theory unhinged from conditions of economy, society and history. As modernists they stress that the nation is neither a primary nor an ‘unchanging’ entity, an entity they locate exclusively in a historically recent period. Indeed, for Hobsbawm the national question is situated at the intersection of politics, technology, and social and economic transformations associated with modernity, arguing that

84 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

standard national languages emerge only with printing, mass literacy and schooling. This modernism holds that nations are constructed, essentially ‘from above’ though the nation cannot be understood without reference to the view ‘from below’; which is found in the assumptions, hopes, needs and interests of ‘ordinary people’ (Hobsbawm, 1992).

Language as a component of nationalism Fishman (1972) argued that the function of language in nationalism could be understood under three headings: authenticity, unification and eff iciency. This means having a shared standard language that is distinctive to the specific national state, that is a ‘national’ language. The authenticity function provides the sense of genuine difference that nations seek from their neighbours and other outsiders. Unification involves the deployment of a distinctive language to make disparate parts of a national population cohere; whether these are regional or social in origin, differences can be minimized by common speech. Efficiency refers to the practices of the vertical structure of state, census taking, public education, delivery of services, military organization. The authenticity function often revolves around a vernacular literature, whose main role is to inculcate newcomers and the young into the community of culture and communication that is the horizontal axis of nationalism. In Anderson’s (1991) terms, this authenticity function provides continuity and frequency of reminders and associations and a collection of narratives for national belonging. A growing literature which presents and re-presents common experience is the main operational modality for language authenticity. In Fishman’s (1972) characterization, nationalism is based on and formed by the organized efforts of groups of self-conscious nationals to conserve and transmit to future generations their ethno-cultural distinctiveness. This distinctiveness is often symbolized and at times is actually synonymous with the language of the particular group. For Fishman, nationalism itself is the ‘organizationally heightened and elaborated beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of societies acting on behalf of their avowed ethnocultural self interest’ (1972, p. 5). This view, so different from that of Hobsbawm and Gellner, links nationalism to a continuation, not a construction, of the past and of a present link with the past, and its destiny into the future, and a link from elites who motivate the nationalism to the masses who in some ways best represent it. Fishman (1972) claims that

Joseph Lo Bianco

85

It is part of the specific nature of the nationalist    stress on authenticity to find it in the lower classes and the distant past. This stress on authenticity functions in a complex way as both ‘evidence’ of continuation from the past and a claim to persistence into the future, both ‘science’ and ‘political program’. (p. 8) However, there are many states in the world that are clearly based on different nationalisms but that use the same language, such as the 22 Spanish-speaking countries and a similar number that use Arabic. A common and distinctive national language might be a useful resource for nationalism, and often a defining quality of an ethnicity, but it is clearly not sufficient in all cases and in some cases it is not necessary. The role, therefore, of language in nationalism is located in situated and historical conditions of creation of the specific nation. Blommaert’s (1996) study of language in the nationalisms encountered in Flanders and Tanzania highlights how superficial similarities can conceal deep differences. In the complex conditions under which nationalist sentiment is mobilized for political action, language can range from a power to define and give cohesion to identities in search of statehood in which associations are claimed between a language and the ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ of a national group to any number of historically grounded and therefore unique ingredients of the way in which language articulates and sustains nationalist claims. In the nation-building of one experience (Flanders), the distinctive language constitutes the identity marker for its speakers, while in the other, Tanzania, the language (Swahili) is best understood as part of an ideology movement of political democratization and ‘socialist strategy’.

European and Australian similarities The language policy actions in the EU today reflect several of these strands. The modernist stress on the utility of languages for efficiency of state operations and consolidation of national unities is found in those programmes where literacy is emphasized as an economic necessity for competitive labour markets. The national unifying and authenticity functions are found in two ways, in the stress of the EU on the official national languages of the member states being allocated equal status, despite the cost of translation, and interpretation and the claims for a more efficiency based selection of a small number of languages, or of English alone (Phillipson, 2003).

86 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

The very contested pathway for the ratification of the 1992 Charter of Regional and Minority Languages shows that languages marginalized in the construction of national states were perceived to be potentially more problematical than fully foreign languages. The latter have been the big success story of EU language planning. Few states, in the context of economic globalization, fail to recognize the utility of expanded and improved foreign language study, and none see any challenge to national sovereignty or cohesion through extensive individual bilingualism. Minority languages, those with a claim to territory, however, do present either weak challenges to state cohesion, and in these cases attract tolerance or benign neglect, or offer stiffer challenges to national unity, in which case these attract either opposition, or compromise when they achieve state-seceding power. In all of the above ways, Australia has behaved similarly. Foreign languages with commercial promise, whether real or perceived, have attracted substantial policy support, whereas indigenous and immigrant languages have struggled for commensurate attention in policy and funding. English literacy initiatives and the teaching of English for newcomers have consistently rated the greatest attention in policy and funding (e.g., Moore, 2001; Nicholls, 2001; Ozolins, 2001). These points will now be elaborated in a contrastive discussion of Scotland and Australia.

Language policy texts in post-devolution Scotland In 1997, a large majority of Scots voted in favour of a devolution package proposed by the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair. The result was that the administrative control vested in Scotland, compared to Westminster, expanded in range and depth, and, most importantly, that a directly elected Parliament was established at Edinburgh, the first since the Union of the Parliaments in 1707. The new state, or semi-state, emerging (or re-emerging) from this process provides an important experience of language and nation connections for language planning analysis. The wider political devolution within the United Kingdom supplies evidence of how implied policy (i.e., policy as a collection of prevailing attitudes) is transformed into explicit and overt policy attention at moments when political jurisdiction more closely aligns with specific linguistic and territorial associations. Although by comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland had enjoyed a relatively high degree of administrative autonomy before 1997 since devolution,

Joseph Lo Bianco

87

the ‘question’ of Scottish Gaelic, and of language policy in general, has repeatedly surfaced for prominent attention. The context of devolution is evident in the number and range of policy investigations, reports and analyses commissioned by the new Parliament. Among the language issues that have been considered for policy treatment are English (child and adult literacy, English as a second language), British Sign Language, Scots and its regional varieties, Gaelic, immigrant origin community languages, and foreign languages (especially the official languages of the EU of which Scotland, through the United Kingdom, is a constituent part), and non-European foreign languages. Of these issues, concrete progress from discourse to text, and resources, has been easiest for adult literacy and hardest for Scots, most embellished for Gaelic and least productive for modern and community languages. In what follows, some key texts and debates in these areas are discussed before the Australian situation is considered.

A policy on culture At base, a ‘Cultural Strategy’ is a policy text for distributing public finance to the arts. Creating our Future    Minding our Past, Scotland’s National Cultural Strategy (Scottish Executive, 2000a) also devotes considerable attention to identity, language, ethnic pluralism and cultural production, and has made available and legitimated a way ‘to discourse’ on state, culture and nation in the post-devolution context. The language the Strategy deploys makes ‘difference’ a central organizing idea: ‘This strategy takes a broad view of Scotland’s culture’ (p. 4), ‘everyone contributes’ (p. 5), ‘Celebrating Scotland’s cultural heritage in its full diversity’ (p. 23) while making explicit connections between culture and economy via creative industries (Scottish Executive, 2000a). The Strategy lists among its key aims: ‘Promoting Scotland’s languages as cultural expressions and as means of accessing Scotland’s culture’ identifies English as ‘both asset and threat’ in its impact on Scotland’s ‘other languages and dialects’ and on the motivation of Scots to learn other languages (p. 23). The Strategy is very positively disposed towards Gaelic, identifying initiatives for its support, and also for the Scots language, about which it says, ‘The Scots language continues to be widely spoken today and has a long and important history’ (p. 24). Similarly supportive statements are made for ‘other languages’. Within this discourse of celebration of diversity the Strategy is also shaped by a required need for ‘practical benefits’ that can be seen to derive from the

88 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

continued active use and transmission of heritage languages, and so it explicitly argues an economic connection for languages. In effect, Creating our Future    Minding our Past (Scottish Executive, 2000a) constitutes an authorizing framework for conservation of the linguistic heritage and resources of Scotland and for measures to integrate language diversity into wider state and national objectives and policies. It also offers legitimation for public participation around issues of difference and diversity as unthreatening to the new state, or as constituting the nation that ‘surrounds’ that emerging new state. In advocacy and in persuasive debate, the Strategy appears to have contributed rhetorical tools and support for community advocates to engage in citizenship-based policy conversations.

Gaelic In 1901, 210,677 persons declared that they were regular users of Scottish Gaelic. This represented some 5.2 per cent of the population. One hundred years later, the 2001 census showed that about one-quarter of that figure can speak Gaelic. The 1981 census recorded that 79,307 people, 1.6 per cent of the population, spoke the language, a figure which declined dramatically further in the subsequent 10 years to 65,978 or 1.35 per cent of the national population of 1991 (MacKinnon, 1991; Lo Bianco, 2001a). The census figures reveal three levels of reduction and restriction: decline in absolute numbers of speakers; restriction in the age profile so that fewer younger people acquire Gaelic in their homes; and decline in the proportion of the overall population represented by Gaelic speakers. The Scottish Parliament has devoted most energy and has reserved its most powerful prose on Gaelic, although action on behalf of the language had occurred prior to devolution, with the major public examination, Cor na Gàidhlig, in 1982, leading to the formation of the organization Comunn na Gàidhlig to supervise initiatives to support the language. The new Parliament appointed a Minister, among whose other responsibilities resides Gaelic, and established the MacPherson Taskforce (Scottish Executive, 2000b) to enquire into the state of the language. The Taskforce report, Revitalising Gaelic: A National Asset, concluded that: ‘Gaelic is in a precarious, even critical, condition and    without significant Government support it will not survive beyond the midpoint of the 21st century’. This request for ‘significant Government support’ includes what is referred to as ‘secure status’ (McLeod, 1997), that is legislation that guarantees the juridical prominence of Gaelic as a

Joseph Lo Bianco

89

language of the state, and in the view of some advocates makes available domains of required usage. In commissioning the MacPherson examination, the then Minister, Alasdair Morrison, in debate in the Scottish Parliament, made the association between Scottish national identity and Gaelic paramount: Gaelic is a precious jewel in the heart and soul of Scotland. It is not constrained within strict boundaries or herded into tight corners. Gaelic is national, European and international. It is fundamental to Scotland; it is not on the periphery or on the fringes. It must be normalised and its rights must be secured.1 The language here is personified, a subject as well as an object for policy attention. Illness and fragility are the dominant metaphors deployed to characterize Gaelic in MacPherson described as ‘a critically ill patient on life support’ and ‘It is hanging on by a thread which is getting more frayed by the day. Despite occasional signs of remission, the prognosis is bleak’ and describing its historical treatment graphically: The history of the Gaelic language has been a chronicle of dereliction: official negligence; malicious intent; deliberate denial; and, perhaps most damaging of all, benign neglect. The language has suffered from stigmatisation and from attrition through outward migration, loss of population and decline of community. It also commented on public imagery that the Gaels do not have their act together, that resources are being duplicated, and that public money is not being prudently apportioned or spent. While much of the ‘Gaelic debate’ is candid, open and healthy it occasionally generates more heat than light and the rhetoric sometimes assumes greater importance than the language itself. In response to MacPherson, a further grouping was convened, the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic that in turn reported in May 2002 (Scottish Executive, 2002) the Meek Report. This report, A Fresh Start for Gaelic, proposes a series of measures in keeping with the broad approach of MacPherson, focused on immediate action on a Gaelic Language Act ‘to establish secure status for the language’ and the creation of a new

90 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

Gaelic Development Agency with national powers to require publicsector bodies to collaborate in supporting Gaelic, research and funding; the provision of a National Plan for Gaelic, combining strategic priorities, key actions, targeted research, and a call for a National Policy for Gaelic to be prepared by February 2003. The key areas of action contained in A Fresh Start for Gaelic are language planning, education and learning, culture and the arts, and economic and social development. The reports, MacPherson and Meek, are impressive in organizational and planning coherence, in consistency and sophistication of analysis and also in sober and serious assessment of the prospects of success. They are also impressive rhetorically, making available to the public, both the immediate interest groups, and others, even hostile others, ways to constitute Gaelic’s role in the emergent polity. The authorizing remit for this intensive period of heritage language planning is the Programme of Government that followed devolution and which commits Scotland to intervene to support the revitalization of Scottish Gaelic. Contained in Revitalising Gaelic: A National Asset is a discourse that seeks to express the vision driving these efforts: a foundation-stone in the building of the new Scotland, the Gaelic language will be an integral and dynamic component of a selfassured community with economic and social stability and pride in its linguistic and cultural identity. Work on behalf of Gaelic occurs in concrete community level regeneration activity, in schools, media, culture and industry (McLeod, 1998), as well as in the policy discourses. There has been considerable success in some areas of revitalization. Whereas in 1984, there were probably no students undertaking a Gaelic-medium education, by 1999 some 1850 pupils were enrolled in such programmes. This success in primary schooling has echoes in other education sectors. In 2000 the first-ever graduates in Gaelic-medium higher education took degrees from Sabhal Mór Ostaig, through the Open University. Also in 2000 the first full Gaelic-medium school (primary level) commenced operations in Glasgow, and Gaelic-medium secondary units are planned. Success has also been achieved in broadcasting, both radio and television (Lo Bianco, 2001a). Metaphoric characterization of Gaelic as ill, potentially moribund and its recuperation constituted as essential to national integrity reveals an energetic desire to attach state and nation making civic identity functions to Gaelic. But these functions are dominated by English, and claimed also

Joseph Lo Bianco

91

by Scots, and even by some immigrant minority activism. It is too early to see what response there will be to the Meek Report’s formulation of the way forward but it seems clear that many of the initiatives will proceed. The interconnection of rhetorical policy making (how it marshals strategically discourses of extreme urgency, of national integrity, of identity and connection with the past) with organizational routines of elaborating plans, organizing intervention and deploying resources demonstrate that to understand policy in language is to see the language of policy making as an essential component of the overall activity.

Scots For Scots, both the action and the prose are missing (Scott, 1998). Thus far the Scottish Executive has not produced any major policyrelated documentation for the Scots language of a sort that would compare with MacPherson and Meek for Gaelic, or with Mulgrew (see below) for modern languages, or with the activity on behalf of British Sign Language, or on adult literacy. Moreover, the amount of national funding directed to the Scots language, mainly through the Scottish Arts Council, is minute in comparison to what is provided nationally for Gaelic, for modern languages through schooling, indeed for any identifiable language category. There has been a refusal thus far to have Scots language signage in the Parliament to accompany existing English and Gaelic signs. Scots advocacy devotes considerable time at meetings, and conferences, responding to questions about whether Scots is a separate language, or ‘just a dialect’, that is ‘English without the Norman invasion’. Often the discursive effect is to erode seriousness of purpose and mobilization. Some advocates even position themselves this way, anticipating such questioning and answering it in advance. The effect, sometimes, is to divert attention into a definitional netherworld damaging to credibility and making social claims vulnerable to marginalization. However, the new Parliament may have instigated a move forwards, making possible a future policy conversation on Scots in the deliberations of a cross-party grouping of interested Parliamentarians that meets with representatives from the Scots language community. The transfer from community to Parliament, two talking orders differentiated by their capability of resource disbursement, of a mandate to commission formal investigative texts on Scots holds promise that devolution may yet produce language planning for Scots too. A new and different discourse would surely result, given that Scots is more readily associated

92 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

with separatist Scottish nationalism than Gaelic, much less restricted geographically, being mostly urban based, widely used, and prominent in many academic institutions. Although Scots encounters problems of representation that are unique to its status as a cognate of English, its discursive representations will not need to draw on ill health and medicalization, but will need to deploy state-attention commanding power as a mostly well and thriving a repertoire of spoken varieties, with a burgeoning literature, and a distinctive association with the new state.

Adult literacy Devolution resulted in overlapping responsibilities in adult education and so unlike other fields in which the new Parliament has had a clear remit for action, adult training, and economic and labour market planning is shared with Westminster, requiring UK-wide negotiation. Despite this, adult literacy is perhaps the single most effective language policy activity undertaken since devolution, in which the ‘flow-through’ between an initial policy investigation process, subsequent policy determination, and resource allocation and programme implementation has been very fast. The whole process has manifested a more transactional or propositional language, less persuasive and rhetorical, more reflective of the business-like approach of public administration, with most talk about economy, and social inequality, all tied closely to existing government meta-policy, or ideologies, which has been a key feature of the energetic policy moves in from 1999 to 2001. The problems that policy advocacy put forward for action used staple talk of economic transformation under globalization, the ‘knowledgebasis’ of production and the resultant labour market demands, the declining occupational prospects for older workers under these changes, and the serious social, economic and health consequences for the young with literacy difficulties. This is a potent mixture that aligned the mainstream and expected language of contemporary governance with professional advocacy for literacy provision. The result is a series of funded, publicly supported initiatives governed by an overall policy of provision and review. The importance of literacy, print and working in globalizing economies occupies education everywhere since most education and training systems operate within a framework that sees education as investment in human capital (OECD, 1998). Adult literacy, therefore, is a kind of mainstream language planning, in Scotland as elsewhere, working within parameters shaped by existing government priority,

Joseph Lo Bianco

93

even if challenged by some practitioners, researchers and minority language communities (Hamilton et al., 2001). Shared assumptions about human capital, the technical economy and literacy in Standard English provided space for prevailing ideologies and attitudes on languages to function as default language policy, but this reveals the officially sanctioned hierarchy among languages. While most literacy action utilizes English there are considerable consequences for Scots speakers (Addison, 2001), but these have been mostly ignored, and there has been virtually no attention to other minority language literacy.

Modern languages In school languages education, as in adult literacy (but without its conspicuous success), the new Parliament has also been active. First, a 1999 report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, Standards and Quality in Primary and Secondary Schools 1994–1998: Modern Languages, and then a full-scale Ministerial investigation, the Action Group for Languages (Scottish Executive, 2000c) – the Mulgrew Report indicate the effort devoted to the field. Although the proportion of students taking languages is greater than in England (Nuffield, 2000), the range of languages offered is narrower, mostly the official EU languages, predominantly French, some German, less Spanish and Italian, and some community languages, Urdu and Chinese mainly (Powney et al., 1998). The Mulgrew Report deploys a rationale for languages which seeks to go beyond ‘conventional reasons’ to associate the case for an enhanced place in Scottish education with ‘the major changes    sweeping across Scottish and international society’. These changes are noted as: European mobility, social inclusion, citizenship and democracy, the ‘age of information’, cultural diversity and the ‘evolving identity’ of Scotland. In a series of arguments, the Report addresses economic regeneration of Scotland and benefits for individual learners. The recommendations of Mulgrew centre on the proposal that all students should be entitled to an experience of learning a modern language that is continuous, serious and widely esteemed, and that heritage and community languages, including Scottish Gaelic, feature prominently. Since its release, the report has become mired in wider administrative changes, devolution to local areas, and its overall policy goals retarded in implementation. Its aim of diversification of offerings away from mostly French appears unlikely to succeed, and its attempt to recruit a discourse of economy, citizenship, European integration and Scotland’s global connections

94 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

to a reinvigorated interest for languages in general seems equally challenged. In launching the report, the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs drew attention to the need for continual improvements in the quality of teaching and learning of languages commenting that the EU constitutes a kind of inevitable internationalization for Scotland, and an internationalization in which effective multilingual proficiency will be prominent (McConnell, 2000). But the wider educational devolution to local authorities has depleted the case for modern and community languages at a national level, and deprived the review of a place in the national conversation about the future of Scotland and its identity. Worst affected are heritage languages without claims to place, to territory and to ancestral history and the languages of recent immigration. Thus far, the arguments mounted for these languages succeed best when connected to enhanced educational outcomes for specific groups of learners, and, though to a lesser extent, to a discourse of stemming the waste of potential linguistic proficiency, the skills of language competence that minority language speakers donate to their new community.

British Sign Language An important debate on issues concerned with deafness and the rights and opportunities of deaf Scots took place in the Scottish Parliament on 16 February 2000 (see Lo Bianco, 2001a). Some speakers suggested that British Sign Language (BSL) is an ancient heritage of the nation; others talked about the issue in terms of needed action to deliver public services more effectively; others spoke of social inclusion, or welfare, opportunity and rights. Users of BSL number some 1,00,000 though this is likely to be a considerable underestimate given the use of BSL by hearing members of the families of deaf people, friends and professional workers as well. According to calculations conducted by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, about one in seven persons in the United Kingdom have hearing loss. This is highly variable as to extent and time of onset. One in seven persons would result in well over 8 million people, over half probably being over the age of 60. Given the accelerated rate of ageing, it is likely that the number will grow proportionately over the coming decades; the profoundly deaf number about 7,00,000, of whom about three-quarters are unable to use a voice telephone. Sign language users everywhere, it seems, have had to endure a long struggle against misunderstanding, misrepresentation and repression.

Joseph Lo Bianco

95

The educational dimension of such misunderstanding and repression is longstanding and international. Often it takes the form of the oralmanual controversy, with oralists advocating the exclusive use of speech and the related suppression of Signing while manualists encourage Signing, sometimes combined with or accompanied by speech. Oralism reached its height of international prominence in 1880 at the Second International Congress of the Education of the Deaf with the adoption of a resolution that held the ‘incontestable superiority of speech over Signing’ (Lo Bianco, 2001a). This led to the adoption of oral methods across Europe that predominated for many decades afterwards. The survival of BSL in the face of such strong assimilative pressures recalls struggles of other language minority groups for recognition of linguistic legitimacy in societies of which they are an integral part. BSL users are a community with a history of struggle for recognition as a component group of society, a distinctive community culture, and therefore a heritage language community. As the Parliament’s speakers reflected, BSL advocacy contains a similar range of discursive representations as for other heritage languages: from positions that stress community and ethnicity, its distinctive modes of expression, and identity; to others that locate the issue within welfarist understanding, some which medicalize deafness, and some which are dismissive and rejecting of culture and community based representations. In addition, policy discussions about deafness and sign language are rarely constructed as language planning or as cultural and citizenship entitlements, for sign language users. The Parliament, as an expression of the post-devolution effort towards citizenship representation, has made Signing an issue of language rights, as well as social opportunity, but appears still to be seeking a principled way to integrate this perspective into the array of other representations that jostle for prominence. Europe European integration is found most concretely in its human mobility entitlements. It is a right of all citizens of the EU to seek employment, education or recreational and residential opportunities across the Union. In a 1995 policy, the European Commission set the objective of all EU citizens being proficient in three European languages. It stated: Proficiency in several Community Languages has become a precondition if citizens of the European Union are to benefit from the occupational and personal opportunities open to them in the border-free single market. This language proficiency must be backed up by the

96 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

ability to adapt to working and living environments characterized by different cultures. (European Commission, 1995a, p. 67) These provisions were strengthened in 2001 removing the specification that the languages should be official languages of member states. The Convention on Regional and Minority Languages has, by contrast with the learning of official state languages, or of any foreign language, encountered a slower, more contested, path. Despite being adopted in 1992 by the EU, it was only signed into law by the UK Government in March 2000 and ratified in July 2001. The convention makes specific mention of both Scottish Gaelic and Scots. The specific consequence is required provision of Gaelic in certain defined civil proceedings in geographic areas of Scotland where Gaelic speakers dominate. Regular assessments of the ‘state of Europe’ through a series of Euro-barometer studies between 1994 and 1996 reflect the social distribution of bilingual skills. While age and occupation are the best predictors of conversational proficiency in an additional language, the strongest predictor of low spread of bilingualism is having English as the official or national language of the country. In English-speaking countries, the distribution of bilingualism shows it to be the province of recent immigrants, indigenous communities with intergenerational language vitality, language professionals and enthusiasts (Table 5.2). The situation in Scotland was introduced as reflecting a new state within an old nation. Its purpose has been to highlight the modernism of new states, and this is clear from the fact that pragmatic and economic connections in some language issues, such as adult literacy, prevail in achieving policy success, but the state deploys strong rhetorical affirmation of its national (but weakening) language. Within the context of the EU’s actions, Scotland is an exemplary case – it is an old nation and therefore nationalist discourse prevails for its indigenous and distinctive language; it is a new state, and so the stress on efficiency and unification tends to favour literacy, adult literacy and discourses of economic competitiveness. Fishman’s principles of authenticity (directed towards Scottish Gaelic), efficiency (adult literacy, English, strategic foreign languages) and unification (concerns about Scots, about community languages) are all in evidence. However, these play out in a specific instance, a precise moment in history, and a point of intersection between state and nation. As the issues arise at these historicized junctures, the specific effects of policy are influenced by local and temporal contingencies; this means that what actually occurs in policy, its effects,

Joseph Lo Bianco

97

Table 5.2 Selected demographic variables and bilingualism (%) Socio-demographic category

Bilingual (%)

Students Educated up to 20+ Managers Aged 15–24 Employees Aged 25–39 Self-employed Men Average for EU 15 Educated to age 16–19 Aged 40–54 Women Manual workers Unemployed House persons Aged 55+ Retired Educated to age 15 or younger

77 72 69 65 57 55 50 47 45 44 43 43 41 40 31 28 26 19

Sources: European Commission 1995b, 1997.

can be ambiguous and only situated accounts of their emergence can account for precise policy effects. These can change the specific ways in which language pluralism is debated and what policies are enunciated. This sense of the local and the time bound is further reinforced in the next section, which discusses Australia.

Ambiguity and tension in Australian language planning Australia: Linguistic demography Australia is very often cited in the international literature as an excellent example of a country that has pursued language policy making energetically. Fishman (1991) and Tollefson (1991) are only two examples. Australia is indeed remarkable for the number and frequency of the language policy statements that its Federal and state governments have issued (Lo Bianco, 2001a,b). This section describes something of the number and range of languages in Australia and then considers the policy framework and sequence of Federal government statements against the above discussion of nationalism and statehood, with specific attention to the discourses surrounding minority languages.

98 Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy Table 5.3 Australia’s linguistic demography Community

Foreign

Indigenous

Asian

Regular teaching: possibly ∼10 Revival: potentially ∼50 Revitalization: potentially ∼100 Renewal: all

Principally Chinese, Indonesian, Korean and Japan

Immigrant

European

Potentially well over 100 languages

Principally French, German and Italian, but also Russian and Spanish

Australia’s linguistic demography can be divided into two very broad categories: community (heritage) and foreign languages (Table 5.3). Community languages further subdivide as indigenous and immigrant, and the foreign languages as Asian and European. National policies In 1984 the Senate of the Parliament of Australia concluded a 2-year investigation into whether it was in the national interest to develop a nationally coordinated approach to language policy. Its primary recommendation was in favour of national language planning, and especially the developing and promulgating of comprehensive (addressing all of Australia’s language and literacy needs) and collaborative (engaging all jurisdictions as well as community level non-government structures and agencies) policy. In response, a policy investigation was commissioned in late 1986 and, after extensive national consultations, was issued publicly and formally adopted by Cabinet as The National Policy on Languages (NPL) on 4 June 1987. State and Territory governments adopted the guiding principles and argumentation of the NPL and evolved state level policies, structures and programmes in keeping with the national framework. The result was a coherent national system of planning. Since that time there has been a massive expansion in language teaching and learning at all levels of education and training though there are regional variations acknowledging differences in demography, starting levels and subsequent modifications. Although variable across the country there are also now relatively coherent systems of collaboration between public and community providers of language education.

Joseph Lo Bianco

99

The overarching justifications of the NPL were expressed as four Es: 1. Enrichment: representing intellectual and cultural enrichment, for individuals and for the wider society. 2. Economics: facilitating trade and commercial relations, with a special emphasis on the Asian region, but not neglecting Europe and other parts of the world. 3. Equality: representing enhanced social and educational participation and opportunity for immigrant and indigenous communities and for speakers of non-standard varieties of English as well as for users of Australian Sign Language and for those students with language disabilities. 4. External: facilitating strategic responses to diplomatic, commercial and security interests. The principles of the NPL are summarized as follows and elaborated into very broad programme categories (Table 5.4). Table 5.4 Overview of the National Policy on Languages English

Standard Australian

ESL for adults and children ESD for adults and children Literacy for adults and children

Languages other than English

Immigrant, foreign and Australian Sign Language

Language maintenance and second- and foreign-language learning

Indigenous languages

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages; both spoken and lost Interpreting and translating Policy-related research Libraries, broadcasting National coordination and policy review

Language maintenance Renewal, revival and revitalization

Language services

Widespread, equitable and professional language services

The actual principles can be summarized as: • That all Australians gain high levels of literate standard Australian English. • That all Australians achieve bilingualism, either by maintaining languages other than English as they acquire English as a second language, or by adding second languages to their existing English. • That indigenous and islander languages will be acknowledged as a unique and irreplaceable heritage of Australia and energetic efforts will be made to preserve, restore and secure these languages.

100

Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

• That equitable and widespread professional language services will be encouraged. Based on these principles, elaborated into a large number of coordinated programmes, the policy involved a set of actions aimed at producing English-plus multilingualism, removing language-based social inequalities and discrimination, and enhancing public esteem for bilingual competence. In 1991, the policy reauthorization process brought about some modifications to the style, and priorities of the NPL, though the principles remained essentially unchanged. In 1994 a special acceleration of the educational efforts for four key Asian languages was initiated (Table 5.5). It is stressed that only the first policy report (NPL) in Table 5.5 is a comprehensive national language plan, extending across all of government and into civil society. The second (ALLP) focuses only on Federal education and training provisions. The third (NALSAS)4 accelerates action on behalf of four languages in education and training. These are listed, therefore, in descending order of comprehensiveness as policy statements on language and literacy. As far as education is concerned, the NPL was based on the formula of: Community Languages plus nine key languages (Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Greek, Indonesian-Malay, Italian, Japanese, Spanish) plus indigenous languages. The ALLP nominated 14 languages (one of which was all indigenous languages, the nine key languages and some others, but it stressed the priority of English literacy), the COAG

Table 5.5 National policy commitments to education in languages other than English National Policy on Languages (Lo Bianco, 1987)

Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP) (Dawkins, 1991)2

National Asian Languages and Literacy Policy (NALSAS) (COAG, 1994)3

Community Languages (Auslan)

Reduced Community Languages (Cls)

Chinese (Mandarin) Japanese

‘Key Languages’

Stressed Foreign Languages (Fls)

Indonesian

Indigenous Languages

English literacy Trade languages

Korean

Joseph Lo Bianco

101

addressed only four languages to accelerate the rate of their expansion in education. These many policy moves indicate an active sequence of nationalism and national identity debates in language policy (Lo Bianco, 2004). Those that relate to conceiving first-language maintenance for immigrants as something the state could envision, the community languages movement, and the Asian languages movement that brought forth new discourses of identity and participation that were pluralist and civic, made possible ‘heritage talk’ in relation to languages. In Australia, policy agitation for heritage languages has always been conducted under the term ‘community languages’. This term was used to distinguish immigrant and indigenous languages from foreign and classical languages and to suggest that locally used languages should have priority, or at least equality, of esteem. This was all part of an emerging, and ultimately successful, discursive politics that linked pluralism to the state, eventually becoming a shared political project of all mainstream political parties. Australian bilingual education, which had enjoyed a flourishing nineteenth-century history (Clyne, 1991) had fallen victim to a 1917 cultural policy that withdrew Australian identity within Empire and English. In 1973, for the first time since 1917, Australian primary schools started to teach languages. Until then, what had survived First World War language policy, save small exceptions, were elite foreign European languages, taught not for speaking and using, but for writing and reading, and, in fact, taught for the purposes of selection into higher education (see Chapter 1). But in 1968, institutional changes removed the requirement for language study as a criterion for university entry. The result was a collapse in numbers. By the mid-1970s, schools were expected to get close to their communities, many of the communities were multilingual and newly confident and citizens. Heritage language advocacy became prominent, but the term ‘community language’ was, and is, preferred, given the continuing vitality of many of the languages. Inserted into policy discourses was new imagery about national multilingualism. Through the active process of policy writing from the 1980s and 1990s, until the beginning in 1997 of concern for standards of English literacy and progressively less stress on languages other than English, Australia was beginning to evolve a sense of nationality that was compatible with multilingualism. This has now dissipated and it remains to be seen whether the new supra-national entity of Europe will open new

102

Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

possibilities for multilingual planning and its inherent new sense of nationality and post-nationality for Australia.

Concluding remarks Contrasting Australian and European discourses in relation to minority language policy provision reveals the complexity of policy action due to the radically different juridical and socio-political contexts that prevail. However, when we contrast and compare a new state for an old nation in the case of Scotland, and a new state in Australia built on the negation of ancient nationality of the indigenous dispossessed, it becomes clear that principles of statehood and nationality function in relatively consistent ways. Australian policy work reveals a deep Europeanization in its sense of the inefficiency and problematic status of multilingualism, but this is ameliorated by the pragmatic impact of multicultural electoral politics, Asian regional integration and the potential for political mobilization around pluralist notions of citizenship. The Scottish example reinforces this sense that the conditions of possibility for inscribing multilingualism within national policy exist in contemporary societies. Specific historical and situational factors attenuate or promote what kinds of accommodation occur at particular moments and how these can be reinforced or reversed. Language policy is always intimately connected with broader economic and socio-political arrangements, and nationalism theory can be a powerful informing discipline.

Notes 1. Page references were unavailable for quotes relating to the Macpherson, Meek and Mulgrew Reports. 2. J.S. Dawkins was Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training. 3. COAG is the Council of Australian Governments. It aggregates the Federal (Commonwealth) government through the Prime Minister and relevant Ministers, and the State and Territory governments through Premiers and relevant State Ministers. NALSAS funding is to terminate at the end of 2002. 4. NALSAS was based on the principle that there should be a 60/40 distribution of language study between Asian and European languages, with a specific acceleration of effort on behalf of the nominated four priority languages. Not all states endorsed the 60/40 formula.

References Addison, A.F.P. (2001) ‘Using Scots literacy in family literacy work’. In J. Crowther, M. Hamilton and L. Tett (eds), pp. 155–65.

Joseph Lo Bianco

103

Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities, Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso: London. Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. Sage: London. Blommaert, J. (1996) ‘Language and nationalism, comparing Flanders and Tanzania’, Nations and Nationalism, 2, 2: 235–56. Clyne, M.G. (1991) Community Languages: The Australian Experience. Cambridge University Press: Melbourne. COAG (1994) National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy. Government of Queensland Printer: Brisbane. Crowther, J., Hamilton, M. and Tett, L. (2001) (eds) Powerful Literacies. National Organisation for Adult Learning: Leicester. Dawkins, J. (1991) Australia’s Language: The Australian Language and Literacy Policy. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra. Enloe, C.H. (1981) ‘The growth of the state and ethnic mobilisation: The American experience’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4, 2: 123–36. European Commission (1995a) White Paper on Education and Training – Teaching and Learning – Towards the Learning Society. European Union: Brussels, COM (95) 590. European Commission (1995b) Education across the EU 1993/4. Eurostat, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. European Commission (1997) Key Data on Education in Europe 1997. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. Fishman, J.A. (1972) Language and Nationalism. Newbury House: Rowley, MA. Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell: Oxford. Giddens, A. (1999) Runaway World. Profile: London. Greenfeld, L. (1992) Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Hamilton, M., MaCrae, C. and Tett, L. (2001) ‘The policy context’. In J. Crowther et al. (eds), pp. 23–42. Hastings, A. (1997) The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Hobsbawm, E.J. (1992) Nations and Nationalism since 1780, Programme, Myth, Reality (2nd revised edn). Canto: Cambridge. Lo Bianco, J. (1987) National Policy on Languages. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra. Lo Bianco, J. (2001a) Language and Literacy Planning in Scotland. Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching: University of Stirling. Lo Bianco, J. (2001b) ‘From policy to anti-policy, how fear of language rights took policymaking out of community hands’. In J. Lo Bianco and R. Wickert (eds), pp. 11–45. Lo Bianco, J. (2004) ‘A site for debate, negotiation and contest of national identity: Language policy in Australia’. In Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe, From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Council of Europe: Strasbourg. Lo Bianco, J. and Wickert, R. (eds) (2001) Australian Policy Activism in Language and Literacy. Language Australia Publications: Melbourne. Mackinnon, K. (1991) ‘Language-retreat and regeneration in the present-day Scottish Gaidhealtachd’. In C.H. Williams (ed.) Linguistic Minorities, Society and Territory. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, pp. 121–49.

104

Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy

McConnell, J. (2000) McConnell outlines support for languages, 12 December 2000, Scottish Executive Press Releases: Edinburgh. McLeod, W. (1997) ‘Official status for Gaelic. Prospects and problems’. Scottish Affairs, 21: 95–118. McLeod, W. (1998) ‘Scotland’s languages in Scotland’s parliament’. Scottish Affairs, 24: 68–82. Moore, H. (2001) ‘Although it wasn’t broken, it certainly was fixed’. In J. Lo Bianco and R. Wickert (eds) Interventions in the Australian Adult Migrant English Program 1991–1996, pp. 93–121. Nicholls, C. (2001) ‘Reconciled to what?’ In J. Lo Bianco and R. Wickert (eds) Reconciliation and the Northern Territory’s Bilingual Education Program,1973–1998, pp. 325–43. Nuffield (2000) Languages: The Next Generation, The Final Report and Recommendations of the Nuff ield Languages Inquiry. The Nuffield Foundation: London. OECD (1998) Human Capital Investment, an International Comparison. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris. Ozolins, U. (2001) ‘Inventiveness and regression’. In J. Lo Bianco and R. Wickert (eds) Interpreting / Translating and the Vicissitudes of Australian Language Policy, pp. 255–79. Phillipson, R. (2003) English-only Europe? Routledge: London. Powney, J., McPake, J., Hall, S. and Lyall, L. (1998) Education of Minority Ethnic Groups in Scotland, a Review of Research. The Scottish Council for Research in Education: Edinburgh. Scott, P.H. (1998) ‘Review essay: The future of the Scots language’. Scottish Affairs, 24: 83–97. Scottish Executive (2000a) Creating our Future    Minding our Past, Scotland’s National Cultural Strategy. Scottish Executive: Edinburgh. Scottish Executive (2000b) Revitalising Gaelic: A National Asset (Macpherson Report of the Taskforce on Public Funding of Gaelic). Scottish Executive: Edinburgh. Scottish Executive (2000c) Citizens of a Multilingual World, Ministerial Action Group on Languages (Mulgrew Report). Tacita Solutions: Edinburgh. Scottish Executive (2002) A Fresh Start for Gaelic, Report by the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic (Chaired by Donald E. Meek). Scottish Executive: Edinburgh. Tollefson, J.W. (1991) Planning Language Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community. Longman: London and New York.

Part III Policy and Practice in Specific Settings

This page intentionally left blank

6 Maintaining a Language Other than English Through Higher Education in Australia Anne Pauwels The University of Western Australia

Australia’s multilingual and multicultural profile The multilingual profile and the culturally diverse nature of Australia’s population are continuously reaffirmed through Census data which provide details on birthplace and ancestry as well as on languages used in the home and English language skills. Despite its shortcomings such as a change in the wording of the language question in 1986 (for more details, see Chapters 2 and 3), the Australian Census has provided invaluable information on community languages since the mid-1970s. This has facilitated the construction of a linguistic ecology of Australia including language maintenance and shift patterns in ethnolinguistic groups and macro-factors affecting the vitality of languages in Australia. For example, the most recent Census (2001) included 206 listings of languages other than English (LOTEs) with 142 of these being ‘community languages’ and the rest Australian indigenous languages. In 2001, 16 per cent of the population used a LOTE at home. Kipp’s analysis of the 2001 Census data on language (see Chapter 2) showed that Italian remains the most widely used community language in Australia with more than 3,50,000 users; Greek, Cantonese and Arabic follow Italian with more than 2,00,000 users; Vietnamese and Mandarin record around 1,75,000 and 1,40,000 users respectively. Other languages in the top 20 group include Spanish, Tagalog/Filipino, German, Macedonian, Croatian, Polish and Turkish all recording more than 50,000 speakers. Serbian, Hindi, Maltese, Netherlandic (Dutch), French, Korean and Indonesian make up the rest of this group recording speaker numbers between 38,000 and 50,000. Comparisons with data from earlier Censuses show that Australia’s linguistic profile has not only become 107

108

Maintaining a Language

more diverse, but has also shifted away from being Europe-dominant to include more Asian languages. For example, in 1976 the top 10 community languages were Italian (4,44,672 users), Greek (2,62,177), German (1,70,644), Serbo-Croatian (1,42,407), French (64,851), Dutch (64,768), Polish (62,945), Arabic (51,284), Spanish (48,343) and Maltese (45,922) (Clyne, 1991: 38). This is a very different profile from that based on the 2001 Census. Until 1996, it was also possible to construct a more detailed profile of the community language users by cross-tabulating data relating to language(s) used and birthplace. This cross-tabulation allowed for an insight into generational differences in community language use, that is it distinguished community language use by people born overseas (first generation) from community language use by people born in Australia whose parents were born overseas (second generation). This information assisted in identifying language maintenance patterns and establishing the ‘vitality’ of the language in its Australian environment. Clyne and Kipp’s (1997) analysis of the 1996 Census data revealed that language maintenance among the Australian-born generation (second generation) continues to be strong in some ethnolinguistic groups with a long-term presence in Australia: they include Greek, Arabic, Macedonian and Turkish. In 1996, the language shift rate of the second generation with both parents born in Greece was 16.1 per cent, in Macedonia 7.4 per cent, in Lebanon 11.4 per cent and in Turkey 5 per cent. This is very low compared to the language shift rate among children of migrants born in the Netherlands (91.1 per cent), Austria (80 per cent) and Germany (77.6 per cent). If only one parent was born overseas, then the rate of language shift increases for all groups. In the case of Greek, the rate increases to nearly 52 per cent, for Macedonian to 38.6 per cent, for Arabic to 43.6 per cent and for Turkish to 46.6 per cent (Clyne and Kipp, 1997: 463). Of specific value to this chapter and other studies on language maintenance and education are the agerelated analyses of the Census data on LOTE (see also Chapter 2; Clyne, 2005). They provide an insight into the future linguistic landscape of Australia: ethnolinguistic groups with many of their speakers in younger age groups are more likely to be around in the future than those with speakers predominantly in the older age categories. Clyne (2005) identifies the seven most widely used community languages in the age groups of 0–14 years and 55 years and older based on 2001 Census data. They include Arabic with almost 26 per cent of its users aged between 0 and 14 years, followed by Vietnamese with 23.6 per cent, Cantonese and Mandarin with 17.3 and 17.1 per cent respectively, Spanish with 14.3 per cent, Greek with 12.2 per cent and finally Italian with 6.6 per cent. On

Anne Pauwels

109

the other end of the age spectrum (55 years and over), we find languages like Latvian with nearly 67 per cent of its users in this age group, followed by Lithuanian with 64.4 per cent, Dutch with 56.5 per cent, Ukrainian with nearly 53 per cent, German 49.5 per cent, Hungarian 49.1 per cent and Maltese 43.3 per cent. When it comes to university students – the focus group for this chapter – the 2004 data collected by the (federal) Department of Education, Science and Training show that almost 18 per cent of Australian domestic students use a language other than English at home. The 10 most widely used LOTEs by university students are Cantonese (15,063), Mandarin (10,166), Vietnamese (8180), Arabic (6367), other Chinese languages/dialects (5693), Greek (4244), Spanish (3559), Hindi (3283), Indonesian (2960) and Korean (2765). Although not identical, there is nevertheless significant overlap between the languages used by the youngest age cohort and by university students, the majority of whom would be between 18 and 25 years of age.

Education and community language maintenance International research on language maintenance has identified the family as the most crucial domain in the process of intergenerational transmission of a minority language (e.g., Clyne, 1991; Extra and Verhoeven, 1993a,b; Fishman, 1991; Hornberger, 1988; NygrenJunkin and Extra, 2003; Pauwels, 1988, 2004). For example, in Fishman’s (1991) model for the reversal of language shift the ‘home– family–neighbourhood’ nexus is regarded as the basis for the transmission of the minority (community) language. However, the educational domain is seen as a close second in this process. This domain encompasses a myriad of possibilities ranging from basic language and literacy classes sponsored by the relevant community, community language instruction for migrant pupils provided by the state to bilingual education. Whilst studies discussing the role of education in the maintenance of minority/community languages are expansive (e.g., Clyne, 1991; Clyne et al., 1995; Fishman, 1985, 1991; Jaspaert and Kroon, 1991), the main focus of these studies has been on the basic and intermediate levels of the educative process, that is pre-school, primary and secondary education. This also applies to the formulation of language policies and initiatives as illustrated by chapters in this book (see Chapters 3–5 and 8). Indeed, to my knowledge, language policies and policy studies in this field seldom treat or discuss the relevance or role of tertiary language study in pursuit of language maintenance. For example, the

110

Maintaining a Language

key objectives of the EU’s various university mobility programmes (e.g., Erasmus, Erasmus Mundus, Socrates, see http://europa.eu.int/ comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/erasmus_en.html) do not include reference to students having the opportunity to maintain a community language. Whilst the pre-occupation with the primary and secondary educational sectors is not only understandable but also justified given the importance of ensuring an early start to the language maintenance process, it is worthwhile to explore the role that tertiary language study can have in furthering language maintenance. In this chapter, I provide some insights based on the Australian university sector and propose some initiatives for strengthening the role of this sector in the language maintenance process.

Languages in higher education in Australia Language study is not a newcomer to Australian universities. In fact, the study of certain languages such as French and German has been part of university curricula since the early days of university education in the 19th century: French and German were available at the Universities of Sydney and Melbourne from the 1920s and from the 1950s at the Universities of Adelaide, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia. The first courses in an Asian language (Japanese) started in 1917 at the University of Sydney (Aveling, 1998). With the Australian university system having been modelled on the British system, it is not surprising that the place and role of language study (including both the study of classical languages and of modern, so-called ‘foreign’ languages) in higher education were similarly guided by that found in the British system. The study of language(s) was primarily seen as an intellectual enterprise providing cultural and scholastic enrichment for the students rather than equipping them with linguistic and cultural skills to be used in interaction with members of the relevant specific speech community. Stoljar (1998: 107) points out that ‘the emphasis in language departments in the immediate postwar period was squarely on literary scholarship’. In Australia, the study of foreign languages was also valued as a key indicator of intellectual capabilities and thus served as a prerequisite to university entry. Further, as access to university study was limited to a small sector of the population, university language study was available only to an intellectual elite. The abolition of university fees by the Whitlam government in the late 1960s increased access to a university education. This ‘democratization’ process of university education throughout the 1960s and early 1970s had

Anne Pauwels

111

many positive effects on university participation, yet its initial impact on (foreign) language study was negative. The removal of a language prerequisite for university entry which had acted as a major incentive for language study in the secondary school system caused a drop in the number of students matriculating in a language, leading to a smaller group of students qualifying for language study at university level. Prior to the removal of the requirement, approximately 40 per cent of secondary students matriculated in a foreign language. By the early 1980s, this figure had dropped to 16 per cent (Muller, 1996). This development came at a time when post-war migration from non-Englishspeaking Europe was high, lifting substantially the multilingual make-up of Australia’s population. It was not until the 1970s that the lobbying by migrant action groups, language professionals and their sympathisers had an impact on the language education scene: the languages of some migrant groups were added to the (secondary) school curriculum (e.g., Modern Greek, Dutch) and languages such as German and Italian were recognized as having a local community. In addition, their status as school subjects was boosted by their recognition as valid matriculation subjects. Although Australian educational authorities did not limit access to the study of these languages to members of the respective language groups, some languages were and continue to be studied mainly by members of that language group. This applies especially to the languages taught in community-funded and state-funded ‘Saturday’ or ‘After hours’ schools (e.g., the School of Languages in the state of Victoria offers more than 40 languages). These classes and programmes can be said to benefit language maintenance. Furthermore, the introduction of language insertion and bilingual immersion programmes in primary and secondary education has enhanced language maintenance opportunities for a number of ethnolinguistic minorities in Australia (e.g., Clyne et al., 1995). University language study remained largely unaffected by these developments during the 1970s and 1980s. When the number of students with a background in the language increased in language departments such as Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, there was little effort to accommodate these students or their needs systematically. In fact, such students were more often seen as problems rather than as resources for lecturing staff and fellow students. Their language skills were seen as unbalanced: their oral and receptive skills were often very advanced as a result of home use and/or use prior to migration. This meant that lecturers found it difficult to organize appropriate language-learning activities which would extend these students’ verbal skills. Sometimes

112

Maintaining a Language

lecturers also felt threatened by the presence of such students in the class as their own training in the language had focused on text exegesis and translation rather than on the acquisition of oral skills leaving them with limited verbal fluency. On the other hand, the students’ literacy skills were often underdeveloped especially if they had not been exposed to formal education in the community language (either in the home country or Australia). In some cases, the language variety spoken by these students was a local or regional dialect – this was especially the case for German and Italian background students – which was considered inappropriate for university study. Clyne’s (2005) observations about the discriminatory practices affecting community language teaching in secondary schools during the 1950s and 1960s also apply to the attitudes displayed by university language departments until the 1980s. the University of Melbourne Schools Board, which was responsible for the Year 12 examination in Victoria, developed unofficial ways of discriminatory assessment in languages against students who or whose parents spoke the language at home. Their identities were ‘detected’ by introducing ad hoc questions, some devious, on students’ home background in oral examinations and this information was used to mark them down in the written examination. In addition, the English in translations into English was overrated to reduce the scores of students whose first language was not English, and particular orthographical or punctuation errors were penalized very seriously because they were considered typical of second generation bilinguals. (Clyne, 2005, pp. 118–19) With the exception of a few departments, the majority of language departments at Australian universities did not only fail to recognize the powerful role they could play in language maintenance for these background students, but they also ignored the potential of these students in enriching the language programmes for non-background speakers. The introduction of the National Policy on Languages (NPL), Australia’s first comprehensive language policy in 1987 (Lo Bianco, 1987) made some impact on tertiary language study in relation to community languages (a more elaborate discussion of the NPL is undertaken in Chapter 8). The NPL promoted both the maintenance and/or learning of ‘community’ languages as a valuable asset to all Australians which would not only enrich the cultural and intellectual life in the community, but would also serve external needs in business, trade and foreign relations. The

Anne Pauwels

113

impact at university level was mainly in terms of recognizing the value of studying a greater range of languages including those with substantial local communities. This impact was reinforced through a series of further reports dealing specifically with language study in higher education: the 1989 Ingleson report on Asian studies and languages in higher education (Ingleson and Nairn, 1989), the 1991 Leal report on the teaching of modern (mainly European) languages in higher education (Leal et al., 1991), the 1993 Nicholas Report on the employment and supply of LOTE teachers (Nicholas et al., 1993), the 1994 Rudd report on Asian Languages (COAG, 1994), the 1995 Baldauf report on less widely taught languages (Baldauf, 1995), the 2000 Report on Subjects of Small Enrolment in the Humanities by the Australian Academy of the Humanities (AAH, 2000) and the 2002 Report on Asian Languages and Studies by the Asian Studies Association of Australia. All these reports stress the importance of university language study and highlight linguistic, social, economic and cultural benefits accruing to the individual as well as the society. The reports and enquiries usually included strong recommendations for the expansion of university language study in terms of offering an increased number of languages at more institutions as well as introducing a greater variety of approaches to language learning. This period saw the introduction or expansion of language exchange and study abroad programmes, specialist language programmes (e.g., German for business, Vietnamese for legal professionals) and some forms of language immersion. Though dealing with a range of community languages, the reports seldom paid explicit attention to the role university language study could have in the process of community language maintenance. This is quite remarkable given that at that time the university participation of the so-called ‘second generation’ students (students whose parents had migrated from a non-English-speaking country) started to become quite noticeable. Yet it should be recognized that this era did more than any other in supporting the study of community languages at university level. This is especially true for languages such as Vietnamese, Cantonese and Arabic. In the early 1990s, the Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP, 1991) succeeded the National Policy on Languages: although the ALLP continued to be supportive of the teaching of community languages, it started to shift responsibility for the maintenance of community languages (excluding Australian indigenous languages) more fully to the ethnolinguistic communities themselves albeit with some financial support in some cases. The ALLP also facilitated the public (re)emergence of a discourse of ‘functionalism’ or ‘instrumentalism’ in relation to (foreign)

114

Maintaining a Language

language study. The value of language study was seen particularly in terms of facilitating and enhancing trade, business and international relations. The focus on the economic benefits of language study, admittedly not to the exclusion of other foci nevertheless fuelled public discussions and community perceptions about the differential value to the nation of some languages vis-à-vis others. There is no doubt that this discourse had an impact on the selection of languages to be taught in schools and universities, and it also influenced the types of language programmes available at university level. In the 1990s, courses in Asian languages, especially Japanese and Indonesian, continued to increase across the Australian university sector. Other Asian languages such as Chinese, Thai and Korean also benefited from this discourse as they were perceived as strategically important to Australia. However, by the late 1990s the viability of some Asian languages, especially the so-called ‘community languages’ started to be questioned. For example, the availability of Vietnamese, a language with a large community base in Australia but less likely to be rated as a priority language or a language with major strategic importance for Australia, reduced rather rapidly: approximately 12 institutions offered Vietnamese during the early and mid-1990s, this number was cut to 6 by the late 1990s (AAH, 2000) and continues to fall. A similar fate affected Cantonese which was offered at 2 institutions. The 2000 Australian Academy of Humanities report notes that Cantonese is no longer available at any Australian university as a full programme. With regard to the European language offerings, only Spanish can be said to have expanded at university level in the recent past. Languages like Lithuanian, Maltese and Turkish have completely disappeared from the university language scene. Many Slavic languages including Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian are only taught at one Australian institution. At the beginning of the 21st century there is no indication that this trend will be reversed despite a much higher rate of university participation by students who have a home language other than English. As stated earlier in this chapter, around 18 per cent of domestic students (i.e., this excludes overseas students studying in Australia) had a language other than English as their home language. This covers more than 100 languages. There are 23 languages which record more than 1000 student users: the largest of these is Cantonese with 15,063 student speakers and the smallest (above 1000) is French with 1331 student users. Table 6.1 provides an overview of the top 20 community languages (Column 1) used by domestic students participating in university education (Column 3). The second column indicates the position, or ranking,

Anne Pauwels

115

which the community language takes up in the category of most widely used community languages in Australia based on the 2001 Australian Census. The table also shows the availability of the respective languages at institutions across the country based on the 2000 Australian Academy of Humanities report (Column 4). Included in this table are also crossinstitutional arrangements: this involves one institution making the language in question available to students at another institution through a collaborative scheme usually involving sharing lecturing staff. The final column lists the states in which these language programmes are available: ACT = Australian National Territory, NSW = New South Wales, NT = Northern Territory, QLD = Queensland, SA = South Australia, Tas = Tasmania, VIC = Victoria and WA = Western Australia.

Table 6.1 Top 20 community languages in universities in Australia Language

Cantonese Mandarin Vietnamese Arabic Chinese (nec*) Greek Spanish Hindi Indonesian Korean Italian Tagalog Polish Tamil Russian Persian Serbian Croatian Sinhalese German

Ranking

Students

3 6 5 4 2 7

15,063 10,166 8180 6367 5693 4244 3559

0 29 6 5 N/A 12 15

15 20 19

3283 2960 2765

3 28 8

1

2680

21

8 12

2568 2453 1962 1853 1824 1627 1573 1454 1357

0 2 0 6 1 1 1 0 19

14 11 9

Universities

∗ nec – ‘not elsewhere classified’. Source: DEST, 2004; AAH, 2000; 2001 Australian Census.

States with language programmes

All states except NT ACT, NSW, QLD, VIC ACT, NSW, VIC NSW, VIC, SA ACT, NSW, QLD, SA, VIC, WA ACT, NSW, VIC All states ACT, NSW, QLD, VIC, WA All states except NT and Tas NSW, VIC NSW, QLD, VIC ACT NSW NSW All states except NT

116

Maintaining a Language

This table confirms my comments made earlier in the chapter: to date universities do not seem to play a significant role in strengthening Australia’s linguistic resources through supporting language maintenance. This is most obvious in relation to Cantonese: Cantonese is not only the third largest community language in Australia, but it also has a large and growing student base. In 2003 (based on DEST 2003 figures) there were 13,177 students with Cantonese as home language, by 2004 this had grown to 15,063 representing an increase of almost 2000 students. Although the Australian National University and a few other universities have a unit on Cantonese on their books (available only if there are enough enrolments and there is a lecturer) there is no full language programme (i.e., at least three consecutive years of study) available for Cantonese in Australia. Similar discrepancies exist for Vietnamese which is available at six institutions although it is only offered at three universities as a full language programme. The situation for Arabic, a fast growing community language in Australia, is somewhat better than Vietnamese with five institutions offering the full programme. Four community languages which are positioned in the top 10 community languages in Australia are well served by the higher education sector: they are Mandarin Chinese taught in 29 institutions (in 27 as full programme), Modern Greek in 12 universities (in 9 as full programme), Spanish in 15 institutions (in 10 as full programmes) and Italian in 21 institutions (in 18 as full programme). The prominent status of Mandarin Chinese and the growing presence of Spanish are largely the result of their perceived status as world languages which are of strategic importance to Australia rather than as a consequence of their growing presence in Australia. On the other hand, the availability of Italian and especially Modern Greek in universities is in part due to strong community support (e.g., the funding of lectureships or a chair) and financial investment by the home nations, either through private foundations (e.g., Cassamarca Foundation for Italian) or through government support (e.g., from the Italian, Greek and Spanish governments). Although Greek and Italian are still strong community languages in Australia, their maintenance, especially that of Italian in the Australian-born generation, is declining rapidly – the language shift rate is 42.6 per cent for those with both parents born in Italy and it is 79.1 per cent for those with only one parent born in Italy (Clyne and Kipp, 1997). Other widely used community languages (i.e., in the top 10 in 2001) including Tagalog (ranked 8th), German (ranked 9th) and Macedonian (10th) fare very differently in the tertiary languages scene. Tagalog with more than 78,000 users in Australia and with more

Anne Pauwels

117

than 2500 students in tertiary education is not available in an Australian university. Given the young age structure of the population (85 per cent is under 44 years of age), it is likely that we will see an increase in university participation by Tagalog/Filipino speakers and their offspring who (will) have no access to the study of their language at university. The strength of German in Australian universities is largely due to its position as priority language based on its status as a language of international importance. Whilst German still boasts more than 76,000 speakers in Australia, it suffered a 22.8 per cent loss since the previous census in 1996. Language shift amongst the Australian-born sector of German speakers is also high: approximately 90 per cent. This is reflected in the rather low number of tertiary students with German as their home language (1357). Macedonian recorded nearly 72,000 speakers in the 2001 Census and ranks 21st among community languages used by university students – it records 1355 students. Macedonian also boasts a young population with approximately 68 per cent between 5 and 44 years of age. Their participation in university education is also increasing (from 1202 in 2003 to 1355 in 2004). Yet Macedonian is only available at one institution in NSW. Most other community languages have little or no place as an area of academic study in Australian universities. Although it can be argued that the role and functions of university language study should not be dictated or monopolized by sectoral interests (e.g., for community group language maintenance), there are nevertheless strong arguments for inclusion of a language maintenance component in university language study. One argument picks up the current dominant discourse surrounding language study which is popular with large sectors of government and business – the discourse of instrumentalism.Within this discourse the study of languages other than English is promoted in particular for its value in facilitating and enhancing trade, business, international relations and national security. From this angle, Chinese (especially Mandarin but also Cantonese) and Arabic are highly desirable languages. However, achieving advanced skills in these two languages within the current language-learning provision at university is extremely difficult, given the limited number of language hours a student can access throughout their course of study. If a better system could be developed to properly accommodate students with a home background in the language within university-level language courses, then this would assist substantially in raising the national skills base in these desirable languages. The second argument is closely linked to the first one: with more than 140 community languages (excluding

118

Maintaining a Language

Australian indigenous languages) being used, Australia has enormous potential for expanding its linguistic ‘resource base’ or ‘arsenal’ for a variety of purposes, not in the least for economic and national security purposes. Building upon and expanding the existing linguistic resources in the community rather than starting ab initio not only makes economic sense but also allows for achieving more advanced levels of linguistic and cultural skills which are unlikely to be acquired within the current language-learning provisions. Other arguments stress the social, cultural and scholarly benefits: the study of a community language at tertiary level elevates its status in the community as a subject of scholarly interest which may enhance language maintenance among the younger generations. There are of course several socially and culturally motivated arguments for expanding the teaching of community languages at university level which were explicitly stated in the NPL (see Lo Bianco, 1987; Chapters 5 and 8).

Enhancing the language maintenance capacity of tertiary language programmes Although the language maintenance aspect of tertiary language programmes has not been addressed explicitly by those involved and/or concerned with language study at tertiary level, the suggestions and recommendations regarding strengthening language learning in higher education per se could also enhance the language maintenance capacity. This is especially the case for recommendations found in the Australian Academy of the Humanities reports (White et al., 1997; AAH, 2000), the Asian Studies Association of Australia report (2002) as well as recent submissions to the Review of Higher Education in 2003 (known as the ‘Nelson’ Review) on behalf of the Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, the Group of Eight Deans of Arts and individual universities (see www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/sub.htm#cross-subs). The main strategy to enhance the language maintenance capacity of university language programmes is through extensive collaboration, both at national and international level. Through the introduction and/or expansion of national collaborative arrangements, the university-level teaching of community languages such as Vietnamese, Arabic, Hindi, Polish, Serbian, Croatian and Macedonian all with very sizeable Australia-based communities could reach a much wider group of students including those with a home background in the language. Currently no collaborative arrangements exist for Arabic, Croatian, Macedonian, Polish, Serbian or Vietnamese. In the case of community

Anne Pauwels

119

languages such as Cantonese, Tagalog/Filipino and Tamil, which are not available in an Australian University, collaborative arrangements would have to be at international level with students being able to undertake overseas-based language courses credited to their Australian degree (see section on Alternative modes of university language study). Alternatively, it could be argued that these languages as well as other less widely taught languages could benefit from the establishment at different universities of special national centres dedicated to each of the languages. Each centre would have a concentration of teaching and research expertise in a language or languages and would have the responsibility for sharing that expertise across the Australian university sector through teaching and research outreach. The number of these centres could be expanded to include at least one centre for the top 20 community languages in Australia. The crucial importance of collaboration among universities to secure the future of language study (including community language study) has been recognized by both universities and the federal Education Department – DEST. In 2005, the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities was successful in a grant application to explore Innovative Approaches to the Provision of Languages Other than English in Australian Higher Education (http://www.dassh.edu.au/collaborative_research.html). Although this project is not limited to community languages, it will nevertheless benefit specifically many less widely taught languages which often have a large local ethnolinguistic community in Australia. Besides the expansion of national and international collaborative arrangements to enhance the language maintenance capacity of university language programmes, there are some additional ways for strengthening the language maintenance role of such programmes. They include the introduction of (a) greater flexibility in university degree programmes, (b) more incentives for university language study and (c) alternative modes of university language study.

Greater flexibility in degree structure Understandably many university students who use a community language at home do not select to major in language study at university. Like so many of their monolingual English-speaking fellow-students, they opt for the study of professional areas including engineering, business, education, information technology, social work, medicine and law. Many of these profession-oriented courses have a prescribed curriculum which leaves the students with little room for electives that are not

120

Maintaining a Language

related to their main field of study. In fact, in many cases students who wish to continue the study of their (or a) community language at university find it impossible to do so because of degree regulations and restrictions. Some universities have recognized this and have moved to overcome these barriers by introducing a Diploma of Languages which students can study concurrently with their other degree programme (Pauwels, 2002). Another option is the combined degree structure in which students undertake a five-year (instead of a three-year) study programme which combines two degrees (e.g., Engineering and Arts). Such combined courses again facilitate the study of a language. However, both options add substantially to the student’s workload – they are undertaking two programmes of study. Furthermore students also incur extra tuition costs as their university fees are charged on a study unit basis. There is, therefore, a need for language study to become an optional, yet integral part of degree programmes. This can only be done if they can be seen as (a) a compulsory part of a degree programme or, (b) as a genuinely attractive elective within a degree programme. Some steps in this direction are being made with degrees in, for example, International Relations and International Business requiring the study of a language as an integral part. In most cases, however, only the widely available community languages like Mandarin Chinese, Indonesian or Spanish are offered in these programmes.

Incentives for language study The study of languages (any language, not just community languages) is not amongst the most popular choices with university students. Languages continue to be seen as difficult by those with limited background in another language and/or irrelevant to one’s field of study or career. The rise of English as the global lingua franca further contributes to many students’ perceptions of the peripheral status of other languages. I believe that the creation of incentive schemes which are regarded as offering the student a genuine benefit within their university course and their chosen career could lead to more students with a home background in a community language to persevere with language learning at university. Currently universities in the state of Victoria offer a 10 per cent bonus on a student’s entry score if he/she has successfully completed the study of a language other than English at Year 12 (matriculation level). This has had some positive impact of language enrolments at university level. Another incentive not yet in place is a waiving of or reduction in the tuition cost for language study to the

Anne Pauwels

121

student. For example, students undertaking advanced level courses in their community language could have their fee reduced or waived upon successful completion. Of course this could be extended to all students (irrespective of language background) undertaking sustained advanced language study at university.

Alternative modes of promoting community language study Although the establishment of collaborative schemes and national nodes/centres of excellence in a diverse range of languages would enhance greatly access to a much wider range of languages across Australia, it is unrealistic to believe this could be achieved for the more than 200 languages (including indigenous languages) in use in Australia. Universities could, however, exploit their international links in relation to widening their language offerings for students with a background in a language other than English. International credit transfer arrangements already exist between many universities around the world. Particularly advanced are the arrangements between universities in Australia and in EU countries involving the adaptation of the European Credit and Accumulation System (ECTS). Both these procedures could be used for the specific benefit of language study: for example, student A with a home background in language A not offered for study in Australia can study the language through university B located in country B. This study could be undertaken on-line or through a study period in country B as part of a student exchange programme. Although these schemes already exist, they are not used to promote the study of a community language (see Pauwels, 2002): in my opinion they would prove especially useful for the less widely taught languages such as Serbian, Croatian, Polish, Hindi, Tamil, Tagalog, Cantonese and Russian. Another initiative could involve the community of scholars concerned with language maintenance. For example, the existence of long-standing and strong links between university-based researchers focusing on language maintenance in Australia and Europe provides a unique opportunity to develop cooperative links and programmes to strengthen community language initiatives at university level. To date such researchers have contributed in significant ways to the introduction of community language programmes in primary and secondary education. Surely they could also play a role for the promotion of community language programmes at university level. Furthermore, the recently launched national project Innovative Approaches to the Provision of Languages Other than English in Australian Higher Education will provide

122

Maintaining a Language

further opportunities to create university level language programmes which could benefit the language maintenance efforts of university students. As Chair of the Project Steering Committee, I will pay particular attention to examining the language maintenance potential of programmes such as summer or winter schools involving intensive language immersion, of on-line and other distance modes of delivery of language programmes. No doubt there are other ways of enhancing the language maintenance potential of university language programmes. The suggestions above should be seen as a trigger to further exploration, not only in Australia but worldwide.

References Asian Association of Australia (2002) Maximizing Australia’s Asian knowledge, Repositioning and renewal of a National Asset. Asian Association of Australia: Australia. Australian Academy of the Humanities (AAH) (2000) Subjects of Small Enrolment in the Humanities. Enhancing their Future. Australian Academy of the Humanities: Canberra. Aveling, H. (1998) ‘Asian languages and literatures’. In Australian Academy of the Humanities, Knowing Ourselves and Others, The Humanities into the 21st Century. Volume 2 Discipline Surveys. ARC/NBEET, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, 29–39. Baldauf, R. (1995) Viability of Low Candidature LOTE Courses in Universities. DETYA, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra. Clyne, M. (1991) Community Languages, the Australian Experience. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Clyne, M. (2005) Australia’s Language Potential. University of New South Wales Press: Sydney. Clyne, M. and Kipp, S. (1997) ‘Trends and changes in home language use and shift in Australia, 1986–1996’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18, 6: 451–73. Clyne, M., Jenkins, C., Chen, I., Tsokalidou, R. and Wallner, T. (1995) Developing Second Language from Primary School, Models and Outcomes. The National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia: Canberra. Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (1994) Asian Languages and Australia’s Economic Future (Rudd report). Queensland Government Printer: Brisbane. Dest. (2004) Higher Education Student statistics, http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/ highereducation/ [accessed October 2004]. Extra, G. and Verhoeven, L. (eds) (1993a) Community Languages in the Netherlands. Swets & Zeitlinger: Amsterdam. Extra, G. and Verhoeven, L. (eds) (1993b) Immigrant Languages in Europe. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Fishman, J. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Fishman, J. (ed.) (1985) Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival. Mouton-De Gruyter: Berlin.

Anne Pauwels

123

Hornberger, N. (1988) Bilingual Education and Language Maintenance: A Southern Peruvian Quechua Case. Mouton-De Gruyter: New York/Berlin. Ingleson, J. and Nairn, M. (1989) Asia in Higher Education: Report of the Inquiry into the Teaching of Asian Languages in Higher Education (Ingleson Report). Asian Studies Council: Canberra. Jaspaert, K. and Kroon, S. (eds) (1991) Ethnic Minority Languages and Education. Swets & Zeitlinger: Amsterdam/Lisse. Leal, R.B., Malcolm, I. and Bettoni, C. (1991) Widening our Horizons: Report of the Review of the Teaching of Modern Languages in Higher Education (Leal Report). Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra. Lo Bianco, J. (1987) National Policy on Languages. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra. Muller, W. (1996) ‘Asian studies in Australian school curriculum: An ongoing challenge’, Unicorn, 22, 4: 49–59. Nicholas, H., Moore, H., Clyne, M. and Pauwels, A. (1993) Languages at the Crossroads (Nicholas Report). National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia: Melbourne. Nygren-Junkin, L. and Extra, G. (2003) Multilingualism in Göteborg: The Status of Immigrant Minority Languages at Home and at School. European Cultural Foundation: Amsterdam. Pauwels, A. (ed.) (1988) The Future of Ethnic Languages in Australia (International Journal of the Sociology of Language 72) Mouton-De Gruyter: Berlin. Pauwels, A. (2002) ‘Languages in the university sector at the start of the third millennium’, Babel, 37, 2: 16–20, 38. Pauwels, A. (2004) ‘Language maintenance’. In A. Davies and C. Elder (eds) Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell: Oxford, pp. 719–37. Stoljar, M. (1998) ‘European languages and literature’. In Australian Academy of the Humanities, Knowing Ourselves and Others, The Humanities into the 21st Century, Volume 2 Discipline Surveys. ARC/NBEET, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, pp. 107–15. White, P., Baldauf, R. and Diller, A. (1997) Languages and Universities, under Siege: Report to the Australian Academy of Humanities. National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia: Canberra.

7 Inconsistencies and Discrepancies in Official Approaches to Linguistic Diversity: The Case of Norway Tove Bull The University of Tromsø

Introduction In the international literature on sociolinguistics and language planning, Norway has often been referred to as an interesting and fascinating example of linguistic pluralism and politically controlled more or less successful language planning (e.g., Haugen, 1966, 1972; Trudgill, 1974). Many linguists have characterized Norway by the metaphor laboratory of language planning, and the country has on several occasions been praised for its tolerance of language diversity. For example, in a Norwegian television programme some years ago, the sociolinguist Peter Trudgill described the language situation in Norway as one of linguistic democracy, extolling Norway as an example to other European nations. Consequently, on several occasions, expressions like ‘linguistic democracy’ and ‘linguistic tolerance’ have become key words in the sociolinguistic description and analysis of the language situation of Norway. Admittedly, to a certain extent this description is justifiable, at least as far as language diversity within the Norwegian language is concerned. However, as I will demonstrate in this chapter, some languages are more equal than others in Norway as is the case in most societies. For a century or so, Norwegian language planning policies and practices have represented an alternative to what we could call mainstream views on language planning and language diversity. For this reason, the ‘normal’ dichotomies found in many parts of the Western world, such as the dichotomy between dialect and standard language, between vernacular and official language, are not as strong and clear-cut in Norway as elsewhere. In fact, within the Norwegian context, they could 124

Tove Bull

125

and should be considered false dichotomies. In the following sections, I will argue that the official approach to Norwegian multilingualism is structured as a hierarchy consisting of four layers. My discussion will be structured around these four layers. First, I will discuss attitudes and approaches to linguistic diversity within the Norwegian language representing the first layer. The second layer concerns the indigenous Sámi language and here I will discuss the implications of its recently achieved official status. A third layer and lower down the hierarchy are the so-called ‘national minority languages’. The bottom or fourth layer is made up of a range of immigrant languages.

Attitudes and approaches to linguistic diversity within the Norwegian language If Norwegian is your first language, your mother tongue, you are born with certain linguistic rights. Norwegian is the state language, the official language, and it enjoys legal protection. Moreover, this applies not only to the standard language. Any Norwegian, vernacular or dialect, also enjoys some legal or semi-legal protection, a fact that probably places Norway in a rather unique position. Thus, the vernaculars are supposed to be respected in schools and by all official institutions. The point of departure of literacy teaching and learning is the vernaculars of the school children. Moreover, students are taught two different written varieties of Norwegian in school, one as the main variety, the other as a subsidiary one. In addition by the age of 10, or even earlier, they will start learning English. Later on in their schooling they have the option of learning a second and even a third foreign language (e.g., Grankvist, 2000; Bull, 2004). We could present this brief description from a very different and perhaps unusual angle to the speakers of the national language. We could comment that if Norwegian is your only first language, this probably means that both your parents are Norwegian and that you have little chance of becoming genuinely bilingual or multilingual. Certainly, you will develop full proficiency in Norwegian, but hardly in any other language, though you probably will be able to speak and understand English as a foreign language at a fairly high level. Here I would like to focus, however, on the uniqueness of Norway in terms of its acceptance of dialects and vernaculars through some historical background. Norway was in union with Denmark and ruled from Copenhagen from the beginning of the 15th century until 1814, that is for a period of more than 400 years. Early in this period the written language descended from Old Norse fell into disuse and was superseded

126

The Case of Norway

by written Danish, this being facilitated by the close linguistic relationship of the two languages. During this long period of political subjugation, the Norwegian vernacular continued to survive in a multitude of dialects. When the union with Denmark was dissolved in 1814, most people in Norway spoke a Norwegian dialect, whilst Danish was the written medium in schools. Following separation from Denmark there was an increasing feeling in favour of establishing a separate, national Norwegian written language. Nationalistic feelings, a growing feeling of self-respect and a sentiment of national, social and personal integrity, were motivating factors behind this language movement (e.g., Jahr, 1989; Almenningen, 1992). From a sociolinguistic perspective two different strategies based on two different ideologies were developed in order to develop a national Norwegian language. One strategy involved changing the existing Danish language step by step by revising and ‘Norwegianizing’ it, basing the changes on the language spoken by the upper classes in the towns in the south-eastern parts of the country, mainly the capital Kristiania (now called Oslo). The result of this strategy of ‘gradualism’ was to be the forerunner of the present written variety named Bokmål, literally ‘Book Language’. The other strategy, representing a more revolutionary approach, was launched by the linguist and language planner Ivar Aasen (1813–96). Applying a reconstructional and comparative method, he set up the written norm of Nynorsk, literally ‘New Norwegian’, around 1850. Aasen’s general idea was to construct a common denominator of Norwegian dialects. Hence, the linguistic basis of Nynorsk is the Norwegian dialects, though originally mostly rural western dialects. In 1885 the two written norms were given equal status in schools and in official use by a majority vote in Stortinget, the Norwegian Parliament. Thus, today’s situation of official literary bilingualism is more than 100 years old. Because of the unstable linguistic situation after the separation from Denmark, political authorities – both in government and Parliament – started to occupy themselves with different issues of language planning. From the 1860s and till the present time, government (i.e., the Ministry of Education) and/or Parliament have issued several edicts on what kind of spelling should be used in schools (e.g., Haugen, 1966; Almenningen, 1992). The conviction that language planning is both possible and desirable has been strong in Norway ever since that time, the role of government becoming even more prominent during the first half of the 20th century when new official spelling reforms succeeded one another like beads on a string. The term ‘spelling reform’ is translated from the Norwegian term rettskrivingsreform with rettskriving literally meaning

Tove Bull

127

‘correct-writing’. One must bear in mind that these reforms and the Norwegian word rettskriving involve more than spelling in the narrow orthographic sense of the word. The reforms also regulated morphology and even lexical and syntactic questions are sometimes part of these reforms. In the mandate for one of the most controversial reforms, that of 1938, it was openly declared that the reform was to be based on the vernacular (the ‘folk language’, as it was called). By way of implication, the committee was thus instructed not to base the standard languages on the speech of the social elite, a rather unusual move in the history of language standardization. In addition, there were strong attempts to unite the two standards by selecting or establishing forms that were common to both. This led to considerable variation within both of them. In both standards there were – and still are – variants or alternatives (i.e., alternative spellings, inflections and word forms) from which one can choose. In such cases, some alternatives are designated as equal, either one being permissible in textbooks in school; others are unequal, the secondary one being permissible only in students’ (and teachers’) written work. Nowadays, there has been a discussion going on whether to abolish or at least restrict this system of freedom of choice within the standards. In fact, it has recently been decided that the choice between two sets of spellings will be abolished in Bokmål, while the Language Council is more reluctant to do so for Nynorsk. However, the final decisions on how and when to go through with this reform have not been taken as yet (Norsk språkråd, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). Official Norwegian language planning policy resulted in great controversy and turmoil, culminating in the 1950s, and subsequently was less clear and explicit in the second half of the 20th century. In fact, a Bokmål reform in 1981 and all the regulations passed by the Language Council after that period, could be regarded as a step backwards in comparison to the radical steps taken in the first half of the century. Be that as it may, this history of language planning in Norway certainly provides a justification for characterizing Norway as a laboratory of language planning. Another issue in relation to the planning of the Norwegian language is to what extent it can be seen to be a success. This aspect of language planning of modern Norway may be looked upon as a sociolinguistic experiment, a serious effort to raise the vernacular to a position of prestige. At least until the 1960s, official Norwegian language planning was a more or less consistent endeavour to alter the status of linguistic forms formerly considered colloquialisms to forms considered socially

128

The Case of Norway

acceptable. This was done through giving them official status in the written language. To replace older prestigious linguistic forms by colloquial forms is a way of trying to reduce the power of groups who by heritage and tradition are the possessors of political and social power in society. However, the linguistic experiment depicted here has been successful only to a certain extent. Norway’s language planning efforts illustrate very convincingly that it is not sufficient to have a colloquial form proclaimed to be the standard by an official language planning agency, in fact not even by Parliament. Linguistic forms do not automatically gain prestige by the process of standardization or by acquiring a place in the standardized norm. The linguistic conflicts in Norway in the 20th century have in part consisted of a competition between a standard language on the one hand and a prestigious language on the other, or between standard and prestigious language forms. For instance, the most influential and prestigious newspaper never fully adapted the standard linguistic forms in its writing; neither did the glossy weekly papers and magazines. All the same, the recent history of language development and language planning in Norway explains why vernaculars and dialects are more widely accepted here than in other European countries. Even if the experiment has not been completely successful, the language planning efforts in relation to the Norwegian language do show a willingness to accept and even promote diversity and variation within the standard language(s). It is this willingness which has led to Norway being described as a linguistic democracy exuding linguistic tolerance. However, the sociolinguistic context surrounding other languages (still) in frequent use in Norway is indeed very different from the situation enjoyed by the Norwegian language(s). In fact the official treatment of these languages in Norway is not characterized by ‘linguistic tolerance’, ‘linguistic democracy’ or ‘linguistic equality’ but resembles that of many other countries. It is best characterized by the phrase used in the introduction ‘some languages are definitely more equal than others’. As in almost all other nation states there exists in Norway more linguistic variation than that is formally recognized by the authorities. Needless to say, Norwegian is not the mother tongue or first language of all Norwegians or of all who reside permanently in the country. Linguistic variation and diversity is a factor that plays a decisive role in the lives of a lot of persons living in Norway, and thus for Norwegian society as a whole. As will be shown below, the position and status of your language or languages depend on what kind of Norwegian you are.

Tove Bull

129

Sámi Long before the borders between Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia were established, an indigenous people used vast areas in the northern part of Europe as their habitat. These people call themselves Sámi and their habitat Sápmi. Traditionally they used to be called Finns or Lapps by their neighbours. The Sámi are an ethnic group with a language and a culture quite distinctive from that of their neighbours in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. The Sámi constitute one of the indigenous peoples of Europe, actually one of very few, according to the ILO convention of 1989. The language(s) spoken by the Sámi belong to the FinnoUgric branch of the Uralic family of languages. The different varieties form a continuum from the Kola Peninsula in Russia to Dalarna in Sweden and Hedmark in Norway. These varieties are not necessarily mutually intelligible: the continuum can be divided into up to 11 different languages or dialects. In Norway, three different Sámi languages are in active use (Greller, 1996; Sammallahti, 1998; Sara, 2002). The majority of Norwegian Sámi mother-tongue speakers live in the interior part of Finnmark, the northernmost county of Norway. In this part of Sápmi, the Sámi language is in widespread use within most private and public domains. In the coastal and fjord-areas, however, the situation is very different: here the original Sámi population has undergone severe linguistic and cultural assimilation. A very active policy of ‘Norwegianization’ was pursued by the state for more than a century between the mid-1800s and mid-1900s. As a consequence only a few elderly people in these areas still have Sámi as their first language. The use of Sámi is mostly restricted to private domains. One might perhaps have expected that the favourable attitudes towards dialects and vernaculars of the Norwegian language would be transmitted to other languages being used in the country. The arguments used to promote Norwegian dialects were based upon respect for the individual child and consideration for his or her well-being. It was also argued that a favourable linguistic situation would make children adapt to school more easily and guarantee a better learning environment. Logically we would expect this reasoning to apply also to the situation of the Sámi children. Yet the authorities defied such logic in relation to Sámi and opted for a completely opposite approach. A severe suppression of Sámi and other minority languages took place at the same time as Norwegian was given its privileged position. In 1885, when the two Norwegian standards gained official status by Parliament, the very same Parliament launched a strategy for ‘Norwegianization’ or

130

The Case of Norway

assimilation of the Sámi population through allocating funds to schools in the Sámi districts. Many other initiatives were taken over the years to eradicate the Sámi language and assimilate the Sámi people (Otnes, 1970; Eriksen and Niemi, 1981; Hætta, 2002; Bull, 2003). This policy of assimilation lasted for more than a century causing significant harm to Sámi people, their culture and schools. The policy of ‘Norwegianization’ was, however, not successful. The Sámi population is still among us and so are the Sámi languages: they were never fully eradicated. In recent years, the endeavours to ‘Norwegianize’ the Sámi population have been replaced by a policy representing a totally different philosophy. Officially a policy of integration on more or less equal terms has prevailed in the post-war period with the first positive results emerging in the late 1960s. From the late 1980s and early 1990s, a reversal of the language shift from Sámi to Norwegian has become apparent. In 1967, it was possible to study Sámi as a first language in primary schools for the first time and from 1972 onwards students were given the opportunity to study Sámi as a second language. This, of course, means that literacy in Sámi is much more widespread among young people than among the older generations. On 12 April 1988, Norway constitutionally recognized the Sámi people as an integral part of the Norwegian nation state (Greller, 1996). The Sámediggi – the Sámi Parliament – was officially opened by the Norwegian king in 1989. It is the Sámeláhka (Sámi act/law) of 1987 which gives the necessary regulations for the Sámediggi. In 1990 an important amendment to the Sámeláhka was approved, which declared Sámi and Norwegian to be equal languages by law (Greller, 1996). Thus, Sámi has become an official language of Norway, besides Bokmål and Nynorsk. The basic Sámi language rights are stated in Chapter 3 of the amendment. These rights apply generally to the so-called ‘administrative Sámi language area’, that is six municipalities in Finnmark and Troms, the northernmost counties of Norway. Everybody within the Sámi language area has the right to use and to be replied to in Sámi in all official contexts. To some degree these rights also apply in the country as a whole. In practice, this means that Sámispeaking individuals are entitled to use their own language in their contact with public agencies at state, regional and municipal levels. Still the majority of public documents are in Norwegian, but it is stated by the Sámi act that laws, regulations, announcements and other kinds of documents of particular interest to all or parts of the Sámi population are to be translated into Sámi. Within the legal system and when dealing with the health and social sector, Sámi-speaking individuals have the right to use Sámi. The school

Tove Bull

131

system has also changed in various ways. First, children in Sámi districts have the right to be taught Sámi and to be instructed through the medium of Sámi. Secondly, on advice from the local school board, the municipality board may decide that Sámi-speaking children are to be instructed in Sámi throughout their school years and that Norwegianspeaking children will be taught Sámi as a subject. At present, the latter is the case in only three of the municipalities within the Sámi district. Thirdly, instruction in or through the medium of Sámi may also be given to children of Sámi background outside the Sámi districts. This means that if there are at least three Sámi-speaking children at a school, they may demand instruction in Sámi. These regulations apply to all the three Sámi languages that are taught: North, Lule and South Sámi, even though the six Sámi municipalities are all situated within the North Sámi language area. As a result, the teaching of Sámi has expanded immensely since the early 1980s. In 1999–2000, 2347 pupils were taught Sámi, and Sámi was the medium of instruction in 19 schools altogether (Ravena, 2000). This means that the number of children who are taught Sámi almost doubled between 1990 and 2000. It seems clear that the Sámi education system is stronger in the early years of schooling than in secondary and tertiary education. Since the early 1980s, however, provisions to offer Sámi at all levels of education have gone ahead rapidly. Since the 1970s the Sámi language is being used more and more, not only in schools, but also in other social and cultural domains, such as literature, newspapers, periodicals and other media including radio and television, and in administration. Education in Sámi is of course a sine qua non in relation to all these domains. Since the late 1980s we have witnessed a definite change in governmental policy towards schooling in Sámi as well as a change in legal status for the Sámi language resulting in a consolidation of the language never seen before and in an unprecedented increase in educational level. In principle and de iure, the Sámi people enjoy the same language rights as the Norwegian-speaking population: their language is protected by law, education in Sámi is more widespread than ever, and the Sámi language is also gaining ground within other societal domains. In reality, however, Sámi people who want to avoid using Norwegian to the benefit of Sámi still meet with many practical and attitudinal obstacles. Moreover, the Lule Sámi and the South Sámi populations are so small, that to them and their varieties of Sámi, even North Sámi might represent a threat creating a hierarchy among the varieties with North Sámi at the top, followed by Lule Sámi and South Sámi at the bottom.

132

The Case of Norway

The case of Lule Sámi Lule Sámi may be described linguistically and geographically as being situated between North Sámi and South Sámi. North Sámi is spoken by approximately 75–80 per cent of the Sámi-speaking population, which implies that both the Lule and the South Sámi-speaking population are often looked upon as minorities within the minority. In Norway, Lule Sámi is spoken around the Tysfjord area in the county of Nordland. For various reasons no reliable figures regarding the number of Sámi speakers exist. It is estimated that there are between 1000 and 2000 speakers of Lule Sámi in Norway and Sweden. My estimate would be that of those only a few hundred speakers (perhaps 500) are in Norway. Yet during recent years we have witnessed a radical change in the usage of Lule Sámi. A process of (re)vitalization has taken place since the 1980s. This process provides a unique example, or rather a counter-example, to the many cases of language death and loss being observed in modern times. A brief overview of what has happened to Lule Sámi in Norway will show that official recognition of a minority language is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for it to gain new ground. In the small originally Lule-Sámi-speaking community, a group of parents came together in the late 1980s to try to do something to reverse the language shift that they had observed over a long period of time. Not all of them were fluent Lule-Sámi speakers. These parents agreed to start using Lule-Sámi instead of Norwegian in everyday communication with one another and with their children. They committed themselves to persist with this change in linguistic behaviour. They saw to it that a Sámi nursery school was established, and the village school started teaching Lule-Sámi, both as first and second language. Later on, in 1994, a Sámi language and culture centre was established in the village. The whole experiment has proved a success, turning a rather disillusioned community on the edge of the country into an optimistic, lively and thriving community (Huss, 1996). I have chosen to recall this ‘story’ to show that official language policy is not always sufficient to cater for the maintenance of a language. Private initiatives and personal commitments by groups of people who know the language, or at least have some basic knowledge of it, seem to be a necessary, albeit not a sufficient, condition for a small minority language to survive. When a process of language shift is being reversed, many different factors and forces are involved. In addition to a favourable political and legal situation, a conscious intergenerational transmission of the language to the benefit of new generations is an

Tove Bull

133

absolute necessity. This implies conscious endeavours and often hard and stubborn work by individuals to choose the minority language – and not the majority language – within different societal spheres, often facing criticism and annoyance from neighbours and relatives who do not see the need for this change of attitudes and linguistic practices.

National minority groups No other linguistic minority groups in Norway have had their linguistic rights attended to in the same way or to the same extent as have the Sámi people. They are, after all, the only indigenous people in Norway. However, in addition to this indigenous group, there are also some other groups labelled national minorities whose languages include Finnish, Norwegian Romani, Yiddish and modern Hebrew. Norwegian authorities accept as ‘national minorities’ the Kvens, who are descendants from Finnish immigrants to Norway during the 18th and 19th centuries, Finns living in Southern Norway, the Rom or Gypsies and Jews. The immigration of Finns to Northern Norway goes back a long time before the northern borders were drawn officially between Norway, Sweden and Finland. This has the effect that some of the Kvens claim indigenous status in the country. Only estimates of the number of speakers of these languages exist as there are no official statistics. Kulbrandstad (2002) estimates that there are probably between 1000 and 2000 users of Finnish and possibly a couple of hundred or thousand speakers of Norwegian Romani, 3000–4000 speakers of the original Romani language. As to speakers of Yiddish, it is estimated that very few of the 1100 members of the Mosaic religious society in Norway know Yiddish, and only a few hundred speak modern Hebrew. The notion ‘national minority’ is a rather new one. It was established as an official category in 2000, when Norway ratified the convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of national minorities. There are in fact two different European conventions that are relevant for the respective national minority groups; the other one is called ‘The European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages’. It dates back to 1992 and was put in force in 1998. According to the convention on the protection of national minorities, the ratifying states are obliged to protect any such minority group against discrimination. Moreover, the national minorities should be given the opportunity to maintain and develop their distinctiveness, their languages and cultures. However, the ratifying members do not have financial obligations in this respect. This,

134

The Case of Norway

besides the fact that the convention is rather new, makes it difficult to conclude anything relating to language use or change in language use practices within these minority groups. Within this category of national minorities, the Kvens, however, have received special treatment. They have obtained certain rights to mothertongue instruction: in the two northernmost counties of the country a primary school is obliged to offer instruction in Finnish if more than three students of Kven–Finnish background at a primary school demand to be taught Finnish. Secondary schools are given extra grants by the state to teach Finnish as a second language, and the state has also been involved in developing schoolbooks and other materials for the teaching of Finnish. As there is no agreement whether ‘Kven’ is a separate language or a Finnish dialect, this has complicated the issue of mother-tongue teaching for the Kven minority. This question of the status of the language has led to a continuous discussion between the Council of Europe and the Norwegian government. One year after a convention has been ratified it is customary for the governments of the member states to report on the situation of the relevant languages within the respective states. In the Norwegian report from 1999, responding to the convention of 1998, Kven/Finnish was considered one language. The Council of Europe found that confusing and stated:

The main difficulty concerning the Kven language is the confusion as to its official status. The Norwegian authorities seem, on the one hand, to acknowledge the Kven as a national minority, but on the other hand, not to take a stand as to whether the Kven language is a separate language from Finnish. The Committee is of the opinion that this uncertainty has to be clarified. An acknowledgement of Kven as a separate language would probably facilitate the formulation of structural proposals for concrete measures. (Huss, 2002, p. 147)

The Committee put forward these recommendations for future initiatives to be taken by the Norwegian government: 1. Clarify the status of the Kven language with a view to improving the situation of the language in conformity with Part II of the Charter. 2. Take action to improve the dialogue and co-operation between representatives of the various regional or minority languages.

Tove Bull

135

The response from the Norwegian government may be considered a rejection of these recommendations: The term ‘Kven’ is used by Norwegian authorities to refer to the spoken language of the Kvens, i.e. Kven dialects traditionally spoken in North Norway. There is no agreement among the Kvens as to whether this language should be referred to as ‘Kven’ or ‘Finnish’, and the Norwegian government has chosen the more neutral term ‘Kven/Finnish’.    Further, there is no agreement, neither among the Kvens nor among linguists, as to [sic] whether Kven is a separate language or a variety of Finnish. The number of Kvens who regard Kven as a separate language seems to be growing, but this development is quite recent, and the Kvens are clearly divided over the issue. Until 1997 the language spoken by Kvens was referred to as Finnish even by Ruijan Kveeniliitto – Norske kveners forbund (The association of Kvens in Norway).    The position of the Norwegian government is that, in principle, the users of the language themselves are entitled to clarify whether their language is to be regarded as a separate language or a dialect. As the Kvens are still discussing these matters, it would not be proper if the Government were to take a clear stand for the time being. Still the Government has chosen to support activities and practices that could reinforce and develop Kven as a separate language, but on the other hand, it has been premature to introduce a separate written standard for Kven in the public schools. Therefore, the Norwegian government regards it premature for the committee of Ministers to recommend to the Norwegian authorities to clarify the status of the Kven language at the present stage. (Huss, 2002, p. 148) Following the demands of the Council of Europe, the Norwegian government asked Professor Kenneth Hyltenstam, University of Stockholm, to write a report on the question as to whether Kven should be considered a dialect of Finnish or a separate language. He was also asked to give a statement on similarities and differences between Kven and Meänkieli, the language of the Finns in the Tornedal area in Sweden. Meänkieli is considered an official minority language in Sweden, and no longer a dialect of Finnish. His conclusions are strongly in favour of regarding Kven as a separate language (Hyltenstam and Milani, 2003). However, the last word in this matter has not been heard from the Norwegian government as yet.

136

The Case of Norway

Immigrant languages This final section deals with the languages at the bottom of the hierarchy, that is immigrant languages. Their presence in Norway since the 1960s is largely a result of global mobility, voluntary or forced. According to 2002 official figures (Kulbrandstad, 2002), around 2,98,000 persons were living in Norway who were born outside the country or who had both parents born outside the country. These are labelled immigrants according to Norway’s statisticians. They make up 6.6 per cent of Norway’s population. Many of these people use a language other than Norwegian as their everyday language. In addition to these ‘immigrants’ there are around 1,50,000 persons who were born in Norway and who have one Norwegian and one foreign-born parent. Some of these are also users of minority languages. Consequently there may be between 3,00,000 and 3,50,000 people speaking an immigrant language in Norway. Many of them, but not all, also speak Norwegian to varying levels of proficiency depending on their background. Table 7.1 profiles the birthplaces of groups with more than 10,000 immigrants in Norway. Taking this as a point of departure we could estimate that there are about 20,000 speakers of Punjabi/Urdu in Norway today with similar numbers of Swedish, Danish and English speakers. There are approximately 15,000 speakers of Vietnamese. The groups speaking Bosnian–Serbian–Croatian and Albanian would be of the same size. However, the statistics are not always reliable. For example, they do

Table 7.1 Birthplaces of immigrants in Norway Birthplace Pakistan Sweden Denmark Vietnam Yugoslavia Bosnia-Herzegovina Iraq Iran Great Britain Turkey Sri Lanka Somalia Source: Based on Kulbrandstad, 2002.

Number 23,591 23,010 19,049 15,880 15,469 12,944 12,357 11,016 10,925 10,990 10,335 10,107

Tove Bull

137

not distinguish between the speakers of Albanian from Kosovo and the speakers of Serbian from Serbia or between Arabic-speaking persons and Kurd-speaking persons from Iraq. Immigrant children in Norway have no legally protected right to be taught their home language. The relevant law just states that it is the Ministry of Education that gives provisions to the municipalities (which are responsible for the public schools), for special teaching of minority school children. In the regulations, it states that the municipalities are obliged to supply students speaking languages other than Norwegian and Sámi with the necessary mother-tongue (home language), teaching, bilingual instruction and special teaching of Norwegian until they have sufficient knowledge of Norwegian to manage the normal curriculum in Norwegian schools. This provision covers a specialist curriculum which allows students to undertake their initial reading and writing in their home language. It covers the first 7 years of schooling. In addition, some of these languages are taught in secondary school, but not as compulsory subjects. According to official figures, 45 per cent (18,000) of students registered as having a linguistic minority background undertook some mother-tongue teaching during 2001–2002. Table 7.2 presents the languages that registered more than 1000 students. In the 1980s, the social climate in Norway underwent some major changes in relation to immigrants and their languages resulting in a decline for home-language support. This is in contrast to the substantial home-language support provided to immigrant children during the 1970s, either through special home-language classes or as an integrated

Table 7.2 Languages with more than 1000 registered students Language Urdu Vietnamese Arabic Albanian Somali Kurdish Spanish Turkish Bosnian Tamil Persian

Registered students 4788 2779 2471 2468 2220 2050 1981 1940 1811 1510 1057

138

The Case of Norway

part of the ordinary teaching in mixed classes. While many minority groups continue to be active in relation to language maintenance and functional bilingualism, the groups who oppose multilingualism and pluralism have also become more vocal. Since the mid-1980s, homelanguage teaching and bilingualism have once again been questioned in the mass media, by politicians and in other public forums. Homelanguage classes and instruction have been cut down dramatically, and the home-language lessons have been moved outside the curriculum. This shows again that the formal rights of different groups of school children vary significantly with regard to mother-tongue or home-language teaching ranging from strong legal protection in the case of Norwegian and Sámi to no protection at all in the case of immigrant languages. In recent years, stressing the importance of Norwegian has become more prominent. Whilst it is not necessary yet to demonstrate proficiency in Norwegian to obtain Norwegian citizenship, this matter is again being debated when some politicians have openly criticized, and have even shown hostility, to existing immigration policies.

Concluding remarks In this chapter, I have demonstrated that Norway operates with a relatively clear-cut hierarchy in relation to its treatment of languages and language groups. At the top of the hierarchy is Norwegian followed by Sámi (with an internal hierarchy between North Sámi, Lule Sámi, South Sámi). This is followed by the rights and treatment given to national minority languages. At the bottom of the hierarchy we find the immigrant languages. In practice, all public domains such as the school system, the legal system, and the media reflect this hierarchy in different ways. In fact, this hierarchical ranking has become more unequivocal during recent years, as the gap between the immigrant languages and the other languages has widened and continues to widen. On the other hand, there are trends that the top three groups of languages are being treated more equally than in the past. However, there remains a hierarchical ranking. In official Norwegian rhetoric, all human beings are equal. By implication, this should mean that all languages are equal. In reality, some languages are definitely more equal than others, as we have shown in this chapter. This fact, of course, generates certain consequences for the different language groups, consequences that in the long run bear witness to structural inequalities and structural injustices being acted

Tove Bull

139

out in relation to large groups of people. Any linguistic order operating in a society necessarily reflects a social and a political order. The linguistic hierarchy within the Norwegian society is a reflection of much graver societal conditions than what is manifested through the superficial linguistic pyramid that can be drawn up on the basis of this analysis. The hierarchical conditions operating at societal level underneath the linguistic surface seriously calls into question the very positive image of Norway’s alleged linguistic democracy. My final comments on this hierarchy of languages in Norway are rather pessimistic. We say that we live in an age of knowledge, or rather the age of the knowledge industry. Why then do we not take into consideration the knowledge we already have? My country should have learned from the very bad experiences during the time of Norwegianization of the Sámi that this policy was not at all successful, as Australia should have learned in the case of Aboriginal people. Perhaps also telling is the fact that results of research on bi- and multilingualism are no longer taken into consideration when decisions are made about the education of immigrant children. Why is it so difficult for a ‘majority’ to live together in a civilized and egalitarian manner with different ‘minority’ groups?

References Almenningen, O. (ed.) (1992) Språk og samfunn gjennom tusen år. Ei nosk språkhistorie [Language and Society Through a Thousand Years], Fifth edn. Universitetsforlaget: Oslo. Bull, T. (2003) Reversing language shift and de-ethnolectifisation of the majority language: The case of Northern Sámi. Applied Language and Literacy Research, 1–23, www.ecu.edu.au/ses/research/CALLR/onlinejournal/fronti.htm. Bull, T. (2004) Utdanning og forsking: Kunnskap skal styre rike og land [Education and research, knowledge shall rule the country and the nation]. In T. Bull and H. Norvik (eds) Norge. Portrett av en nasjon [Norway, a Portrait of a Nation]. Dinamo: Oslo, pp. 389–416. Eriksen, K. E. and Niemi, E. (1981) Den finske fare [The Finnish Danger]. Universitetsforlaget: Oslo/Bergen/Tromsø. Grankvist, R. (2000) Utsyn over norsk skole [A Review of Norwegian Schooling]. Tapir: Trondheim. Greller, W. (1996) Provision and Regulation of the Sámi Languages. Caerfyrddin: Coleg y Drindod. Haugen, E. (1966) Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of Modern Norwegian. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass. Haugen, E. (1972) Language planning in modern Norway. In E. Haugen (ed.) The Ecology of Language. Stanford University Press: Stanford, pp. 133–47. Huss, L. (1996) Erste Hilfe für eine bedrohte Sprache – Wiederbelebungsmaßnahmen bei den norwegischen Lulesamen [First aid for a threatened

140

The Case of Norway

language – Revival initiatives from Norwegian Lule Sámi Speakers]. In L. Lars-Gunnar (ed.) Lapponica et Uralica. 100 Jahre finnisch-ugrischer Unterricht an der Universität Uppsala [A Hundred Years’ Teaching of Finnish-Uralic at the University of Uppsala]. Vorträge am Jubiläumssymposium, 20–23 April 1994. Acta Uralica Upsaliensia 26: Uppsala, pp. 71–78. Huss, L. (2002) Europarådets konvention om regionala eller minoritetsspråk – visjoner och verklighet [The European Council’s Convention on Regional or Minority Languages – Visions or Reality?]. In R. Mellem (ed.) Rapport från Kvänkonferensen vid Universitetet i Tromsø 15–16 mars 2000 [Report from the Kven conference at the University of Tromsø 15–16th March 2000]. Norske kveners forbund: Hansnes, pp. 141–48. Hyltenstam, K. and Milani, T. (2003) Kvenskans status. Rapport för Kommunal – og regionaldepartementet og Kultur- og kirkedepartementet i Norge [The Status of the Kven Language. A Report to the Norwegian Ministry of Regional Affairs and the Ministry of Culture]. Oslo. Hætta, O. M. (2002) Samene. Nordkalottens urfolk [The Indigenous People of the North Calotte]. Høyskoleforlaget: Kristiansand. Jahr, E. H. (1989) Utsyn over norsk språkhistorie etter 1814 [A Review of Norwegian Language History after 1814]. Novus: Oslo. Kulbrandstad, L. A. (2002) Minoritetsspråk og minoritetsspråksbrukere i Norge [Minority Languages and Speakers of Minority Languages in Norway]. Unpublished, memo written on behalf of The Norwegian Language Council, 8 pp. Norsk språkråd (2000) Årsmelding [Annual Report]. Norwegian Language Council: Oslo. Norsk språkråd (2001) Årsmelding [Annual Report]. Norwegian Language Council: Oslo. Norsk språkråd (2002) Årsmelding [Annual Report]. Norwegian Language Council: Oslo. Norsk språkråd (2003) Årsmelding [Annual Report]. Norwegian Language Council: Oslo. Otnes, P. (1970) Den samiske nasjon [The Sámi Nation]. Pax: Oslo. Ravena, E. (2000) Iskkadeapmi sámegiela geavaheami birra [An Investigation of the use of the Sámi Language]. Bargoaddi, Sámi giellaráddi: Deatnu. Sammallahti, P. (1998) The Saami Languages. An Introduction. Davvi Girji: Karasjok. Sara, Á. (Anders) (2002) Regional characteristics of Sápmi and the Sámi people. Paper presented at The Regional Identity of Ethnic Groups in Europe conference. Sámi Instituhtta: Kautokeino. Trudgill, P. (1974) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

8 Communication and Community: Perspectives on Language Policy in Sweden and Australia since the Mid-1970s Sally Boyd Göteborg University

Introduction In the interval from the mid-1970s and through the 1980s, Australia and Sweden developed quite progressive multicultural and multilingual policies.1 The purpose of this chapter is to outline some of the background for these progressive policies and to see how language policy in both countries has been formulated, carried out and subsequently changed since these policies were initiated. These developments will be viewed with several global changes as a backdrop. One is economic globalization, which has accelerated since the break-up of the Soviet Union and the East bloc beginning in 1989. Another important development is regionalization, such as (for Sweden) the expansion and strengthening of the European Union (EU), and (for Australia) greater economic interests in trade with regional partners in Asia. A third development which has some bearing on my discussion is the apparent weakening of the nation state and of nationalism as a viable political ideology (Billig, 1995; May, 2001; Oakes, 2001; Hegelund, 2002). My purpose is to see how these sweeping changes in global economics, politics and ideas have impacted the progressive language policy developed in Sweden and in Australia prior to the acceleration of these changes during the 1990s and after. My aim is to look not only at official, explicit policy, but also to take a critical look at how different groups in each society think and write about language and language diversity as well. My analysis will include a close examination of some of the text of a recent language policy document from Sweden: the Action Plan for the Swedish language2 (SOU, 141

142

Communication and Community

2002:273 ), published and circulated for comment in 2002 and a comparison of this document with the text of various Australian language policy documents and some more informal information gathered during my stay in Australia in May–June 2003. I think it is important, when one discusses language policy to make one’s own background and position explicit. I am a linguist, who has done most of her research on language maintenance and contact, with particular attention to the languages of immigrants and their children to Sweden and Scandinavia. I was born and raised in the United States, but have lived in Sweden for over 25 years, so Swedish is my second language, American English my first. I am a strong supporter of linguistic diversity, and of linguistic human rights. The field of language policy analysis is vast and growing rapidly. I am not the first to be asking some of the questions suggested above and I am approaching them as a relative outsider, who has mainly done empirical sociolinguistic work on immigrant language contact. Hence, the focus of this chapter is also on how language policy affects immigrant groups and their languages, while the impact on historical minorities and their languages will be treated only marginally. Except in a few cases, perspectives from the study of language socialization and language contact have only had a minor impact on work on language policy. Below, I briefly outline a couple of relevant points, which I sum up with the terms: communication and community. These terms figure regularly in discussions of the relationship between language and national identity. It is often said that languages not only provide a means of communication, but also create a sense of identity or membership in a community of speakers. What is sometimes missing from the discussion, however, is the connection between these statements. In my view, the connection concerns primary socialization and the role of language in it. Socialization in the family is an activity that is ‘saturated’ by language. Language is both the major means and an important part of the goal of socialization. Parents ‘teach’ children to become fully-fledged members of the family, the kin group and the community; however, they conceive these groups at the time (Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1983). If children are raised in more than one language, they are given the opportunity to belong to multiple communities: the monolingual communities of each language and the bilingual community which uses both languages. Adding further languages implies multiple options. Parents usually have a strong desire to socialize their children into the community or communities (into which they themselves were socialized). Occasionally in situations of rapid language shift, this is not

Sally Boyd

143

an aim, but in the majority of cases it is. So the interest of parents, generally speaking, is a perpetuation of linguistic identity as a member of one or more speech communities, monolingual or multilingual. In the process of primary socialization, language is communication, the means by which cultural knowledge is transmitted between generations; and community, the inclusion and exclusion of individuals in relevant linguistic and cultural groups. How is this discussion about language socialization relevant to my questions concerning language policy? In my view, there are important connections. They are revealed through the question: what are the interests of the state in the rather private process of language socialization? Generally, the state wishes for children growing up within its borders to develop a proficiency in the dominant majority language of the country, its national or official language (or at least one of these languages, if the state is officially multilingual). The language(s) promoted by the state tend(s) to be the preferred language(s) of the dominant group, and this is clearly the case in states such as Australia and Sweden. In this way, the state tries to create a community of its own, where it can communicate with everyone in the preferred language(s) of its most powerful group(s) and monitor the communication, at least in the public domains, among its citizens. So the interest of the state, played out in education and other forms of secondary socialization, is to create and maintain a citizenry which is proficient in the language(s) of the state. In multilingual states such as Belgium, Finland and Switzerland, the decision as to which language is relevant for this communication depends primarily on geography. The state’s interests have, at least during most of the 20th century, generally led to an assimilation policy towards linguistic minorities in most nation states. Assimilation policy, or at times segregation, has affected not only minorities with a long history of settlement within the bounds of the nation state, but also newer, immigrant minorities. It is hard to see that a nation state would rationally have any instrumental interest in maintaining minority languages, unless they are useful for the state’s contacts abroad. Even if minority languages spoken in communities within the state happen to be languages which are valued for external purposes, it is often the case that their speakers are not really trusted to conduct this international communication. As Clyne (1991b, p. 14) succinctly describes this situation: Inherent in attitudes to ‘community languages’ over most of this century has been the fear that people who are themselves in an otherwise powerless position can say things about the powerful in languages which the latter cannot understand.

144

Communication and Community

Thus, another important question is raised: Why have a few countries actually formulated a more progressive multilingual policy towards languages spoken within their borders? During the last decades of the 20th century, coalitions of interest groups in various states have succeeded in convincing governments and parliaments to promote linguistic diversity. Here I will examine the cases of Sweden and Australia particularly in the context of globalization affecting language policy decisions. Globalization might for several reasons be assumed to increase linguistic diversity in nation states such as Sweden and Australia in at least two ways. First, the increased movement of people over national borders leads to an increase in the number of persons with divergent linguistic backgrounds living in states, thus, increasing the needs and opportunities for multilingual communication in previously more monolingual settings. Secondly, since economic activity is taking place to an increasing extent over rather than within national borders, there should be an interest, both on the part of the states and among those with minority and immigrant language backgrounds to learn new languages and to develop those they may already have some proficiency in, so that they can participate in this global economy. However, since much of the global economic and political activity takes place predominantly in English (or at least is perceived to do so), the importance of English has been emphasized in both countries while the role of other languages has also changed. While the crisis of diminishing linguistic diversity has attained a high profile in the scientific community, this crisis has yet to be felt by language policy makers in most countries. This chapter outlines how these changes have affected language policy in the case of Sweden and Australia. First, I give some background to the history of Sweden relating to migration and multilingualism. I then discuss important measures of language policy from the mid-1970s to the most recent language policy document dealing with an official investigation of the situation of Swedish in Sweden, in 1997. Next, I provide a similar background to Australian language policy decisions and examine some of the important texts of this policy. I conclude with a section comparing the policies of the two countries.

Swedish policy towards immigrants, minorities and their languages Sweden has a long history of nationhood. Its self-conception, at least until the 1960s, was of an exceptionally good example of an ethnically

Sally Boyd

145

or culturally based nation state. One language, one nation, one church and one state have been generally perceived to prevail and this has been accentuated by assimilation policies towards various categories of ‘other groups’. The two regional minorities, which were at all visible in the North, the Sámi and the Finnish-speaking Tornedalians, were subjected to policies of segregation, in the case of the Sámi, and rather harsh assimilation, in the case of the Tornedalians (Huss, 1999; Oakes, 2001). Other minority groups were either ignored or pressured to assimilate. Sweden’s reluctance to ‘see’ its minorities was in line with the country’s general reluctance to formulate special policies for any groups in society, economic, social or ethnic. When immigration to Sweden expanded dramatically after the Second World War, no special policies were directed towards immigrants either: they were expected to assimilate to the dominant culture. An early provision made for them, however, was in 1965, when they were offered free instruction in Swedish, an instructional programme which has since then had different organisational structures, but has continually been closely tied to the labour market. The thinking then and now has been that immigrants should learn Swedish in order to obtain employment and to understand their rights and obligations as part of the workforce. In the mid-1970s, Sweden developed a multicultural policy which was quite unusual at the time and which attracted international attention. In response to growing numbers of migrants living (and remaining) in the country, a policy towards them seemed desirable. Today, the estimated proportion of persons born abroad or persons with one or both parents born abroad constitutes close to 20 per cent of the total population of the country. Ten per cent of the population are themselves born abroad and about 6 per cent are foreign citizens. A large number of different national origin groups are represented. Table 8.1 lists the 10 largest foreign-born groups living in Sweden in 2002 with the total number being 10,53,463. (The total population of Sweden in 2003 is estimated to be close to 9 million.) The policy formulated in 1974 (SOU, 1974: 69) was summarized in the three slogans: equality, freedom of choice and co-operation. It openly declared the State’s view that immigrants who were granted residence permits to live in Sweden were here to stay. Therefore, they were to be given almost all the rights of Swedish citizens. They were not ‘guest’ workers, as in Germany, but should be treated as if they were intending to stay. And many did (and still do) stay in Sweden. The first and last slogan can be seen to be a continuation of the assimilation policy, albeit a rather more generous formulation suggesting that immigrants should

146

Communication and Community Table 8.1 Ten largest foreign-born groups in Sweden in 2002 Country of origin

Inhabitants living in Sweden in 2002 (in thousands)

Bosnia-Herzegovina Denmark Finland Germany Iraq Iran Norway Poland Turkey Yugoslavia (former)

53 40 191 39 62 52 44 41 33 74

be granted almost the same rights and obligations as citizens. It is a policy of civic inclusion. The second goal – ‘freedom of choice’ – on the other hand, was more innovative. It was formulated in terms of culture and language: immigrants were given the right to decide to what extent they wished to retain the culture and language of their country of origin and to what extent they wished to adapt to Swedish culture. It provided support for immigrant newspapers, arts, radio broadcasts, cultural organizations, religious congregations. It also led to the Home Language Reform, which went into effect in 1978 and whose goal was active bilingualism for children with immigrant or minority background. It is unclear from the 1974 committee report what the broader motivations for this policy were. I have been unable to find any passages in the text where the reasons for this admittedly very progressive multicultural policy are given. There seems to be a general tone of justice and solidarity between the majority and the immigrants, which makes it ‘natural’ to accord rights and benefits to the latter. For example, in the discussion of cultural support to immigrants the policy is motivated as follows: As society takes upon itself important tasks for citizens in general, over and above the task of solving elementary social welfare concerns, it can be said to be a general demand, from the point of view of justice and equality, that society do this even for immigrants and the indigenous minorities. (SOU, 1974: 69, p. 184 – my translation)

Sally Boyd

147

Nowhere in the document can any text be found which explains the benefits – not only for the immigrants themselves, but also for all the residents in the country – of large-scale migration and the presence of a more diverse population in Sweden. This text was written during a period of expansion of the public sector, when taking on new responsibilities, now for new groups arriving in the country, seemed natural and perhaps did not need explanation. However, I believe that in retrospect, the lack of discussion about the benefits of multiculturalism laid the groundwork for divisive debates about the costs of integration programs for immigrants from the 1980s onwards. By that time, there was a demand for a general downsizing of the public sector, so the criticism of programs aimed primarily at immigrants was part of that larger discourse, but had, at least at times, a nationalistic undertone (e.g., RRV, 1990). One of the most important measures that resulted from this investigation was the Home Language Reform (Reg. prop. 1975/76, p. 118; 1976/77, p. 22). This reform required municipalities to organize language instruction for young people in the languages of their parents, their so-called ‘home languages’ and provided earmarked funds for this purpose. The term ‘home language’ is interesting, especially in comparison with Australia’s ‘community languages’. Implicit in the term is that the language is a means of communication only or primarily in the home, not even in any wider community of other people in Sweden who share this language background. Unlike ‘community languages in Australia’, ‘home languages’ were assumed to be of no use or interest for persons with monolingual Swedish background. Later this already limited view of ‘home language’ was restricted further (see below). In line with this view, the children eligible for instruction were immigrant or minority children in whose homes another language was a ‘living part’. Among the forms of education suggested, and the one advocated in the policy, was what can be considered true bilingual education, if only on the primary level. The education of children with minority backgrounds would involve about half of each day in their mother tongue and the other half in Swedish (Municio, 1987, pp. 49–50). Those advocating this radically new policy presented two main arguments, one negative and one positive. The positive argument was that teaching a child in their mother tongue facilitated the learning of the majority language. The related negative argument was if children were not provided with instruction in their mother tongue, they could become ‘semilingual’, with inadequate skills both in their ‘home language’ and in the majority language. Although there was a

148

Communication and Community

lively debate about these views (Bratt Paulston, 1983; Hansegård, 1968; Martin-Jones and Romaine, 1987; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981; Stroud, 1977), there was no talk at this time (unlike in Australia) of multilingualism ‘enriching’ or being a ‘resource’ in Swedish society until the 1990s. The text of the official investigation mentions that ‘all children have a right to their mother tongue’ (SOU, 1974, p. 257), but there is no detailed explanation of what this ‘right’ entails for responsibilities for local and national governments. The idea of language rights is a discourse which has developed in strength since that time, and should clearly include education in one’s mother tongue and in the majority language(s) of the state or region in which one lives. The discussion of views regarding semilingualism and of various models of instruction in schools was heated among linguists and educationalists during the late 1970s and unfortunately helped to damage the cause of bilingual education. The conclusion that policy makers drew was that researchers and experts never agree anyway, so any solution is as good (or bad) as any other. Unfortunately, the reform led to far less true bilingual education than one might expect, reading the document (Municio, 1987). The most common form of instruction involved mother-tongue instruction in small groups for approximately 2 hr/week. The mother tongue was taught as a subject and only seldom featured as medium of instruction. The most frequently stated reason for this was that pupil numbers for a particular language were too small to form classes in which it could be the medium of instruction. A lack of trained teachers, especially initially, was another reason. There was also widespread scepticism among school administrators about setting up a system they would have difficulty in monitoring (as noted by Clyne, 1991b quoted above). In the early 1980s, when true bilingual education was at its peak, no more than about 12–15 per cent of children eligible for home-language instruction received it as a medium of instruction. The remainder either did not receive it at all or in the limited form of a few hours per week as a subject. By the mid-1980s, the eligibility requirements were stricter and the minimum number of pupils with a particular language was set at five. This instruction was increasingly moved to times outside the usual school day when it had to ‘compete’ with other after-school activities. Instruction in Swedish as a second language was also provided during this period to children. In contrast with home-language instruction, this instruction was compulsory, if the school deemed it necessary. But like home-language instruction, it was often ‘pull out’ instruction, so pupils missed other lessons in order to attend it. They were singled out for instruction which in form if not in content was reminiscent of remedial

Sally Boyd

149

instruction. This was an image both forms of instruction had difficulty in combating. Teachers in both subjects tended to be inadequately trained. In 1992, it became easier for community groups and parents to start independent schools. This and the marginalization of home-language instruction in municipal schools led to a number of language or ‘cultural’ schools being started, mainly in the major cities. Currently, there are about 30 such schools in Sweden. The most common languages of instruction are English and Finnish (eight schools each), but there are also about five schools offering instruction in Arabic, three in French and two in German. One school each offers instruction in Russian, Estonian and Swedish Sign language (Skolverket, 2003). All these schools, except a few of the international schools, provide instruction according to the Swedish national curriculum and are required to participate in national testing in the three core subjects: Swedish, English and mathematics. The state itself also has direct responsibility for the six Sámi schools, which have a long tradition, but since the 1990s try to carry out part of their instruction in Sámi. Previously, these schools did not have the goal of promoting the language, but have worked more towards this in recent years (Huss, personal communication). In 1997, the name of the school subject ‘home language’ was officially changed to ‘mother tongue’. This reflected the restrictions in eligibility which had been introduced in 1985 and which had continued during this period of economic recession for the country. By the late 1990s, parents of each child were to declare one mother tongue for the child upon entering school. This had to be a language used by parents in communicating with the child. If the child’s mother tongue was declared to be Swedish, then the child followed the mainstream educational program. If it was another language, the child was eligible for voluntary mother-tongue instruction, usually after school. The child was also monitored to see whether he or she needed to attend lessons in Swedish as a second language. Needless to say, the enrolment in mother-tongue instruction dropped. Children with two mother tongues (Swedish and another language, or two languages other than Swedish) would at most be eligible for instruction in only one language (except children with minority languages as mother tongues). Many chose the alternative of declaring Swedish to be their mother tongue. Today, mother-tongue instruction is still offered in over 100 languages nationwide and the number of eligible children is still quite large. The most commonly studied mother tongues are presented in Table 8.2.

150

Communication and Community

Table 8.2 The 10 most commonly studied mother tongues in Sweden in 2000 Mother tongue

Enrolled pupils Eligible (%) Instruction outside school hours (%)

Albanian Arabic Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian English Farsi Finnish Polish Spanish Turkish

4189 10,031 6935 2525 4543 6101 2347 5385 2652

64.8 64.2 50.2 50.7 63.3 42.5 51.8 55.1 53.2

65.5 59.5 67.1 55.6 69.8 33.3 65.7 61.3 62.2

All others (113 languages)

15,730

47.1

61.1

From the mid-1970s until the late 1990s, national minorities had been treated more or less the same as the immigrant minorities. Since there was no comprehensive policy for them prior to 1974, they were also part of the target group for the reforms that ensued from the report discussed above. They were provided with homelanguage/mother-tongue instruction as did the immigrant minorities. But when the restrictions regarding eligibility were made, children with Sámi, Rom or Tornedalian language background were not subject to these restrictions. When Sweden entered the EU in 1995, the State felt it necessary to look more closely at the question of its national minorities and to consider ratification of the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (SOU, 1997: 192) and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (SOU, 1997: 193). It conducted an investigation during the late 1990s and in 2000 ratified the Charter and the Framework Convention. The Charter ratification implied the recognition of five national minority languages: Finnish, Sámi, Meänkieli, Romani and Yiddish while ratification of the Framework Convention recognized five national minorities, the Finns, the Sámi, the Tornedalians, the Roma and the Jews. Table 8.3 gives some estimates of the size of these groups and the number of speakers of their respective languages. These are only estimates, as Sweden (in accordance with its reluctance to recognize sub-groups within society), does not collect statistics on language or ethnicity. The three territorial minorities in the North were granted the right to use their languages in contact with municipal authorities. Special arrangements were also promised

Sally Boyd

151

Table 8.3 Minorities and minority language in Sweden National minority 1groups

Sweden Finns Tornedalians Sámi Roma Jews

4,00,000–4,50,000 75,000–80,000 15,000–20,000 15,000–20,000 20,000

Speakers of minority languages Finnish Meänkieli Sámi Romani Yiddish

2,50,000 50,000–60,000 10,000 10,000 5000–6000

Source: Huss (2001: 144).

for childcare and care of the elderly in Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi. Romani and Yiddish were accorded more limited rights, as they were not territorial minorities. In summary we can say that, despite Sweden’s preference for national policy which does not single out any particular groups, special language policies have been directed towards both immigrants (starting in mid1970s) and national minorities (only seriously since 2000). Sign language was also officially recognized as the mother tongue of the deaf in the early 1980s. The objectives of the Home Language Reform were lofty, but carried out only to a limited degree. They have been further cut back during the 1980s and 1990s, while instruction in Swedish as a second language has become more stabilized during the same period. The policies aimed at managing Sweden’s multilingualism seem to have as their strategy to maintain a basically monolingual Swedish discourse in the public sector (communication), while multilingualism is relegated to the private sector (the concept of ‘home language’) and limited, marginalized parts of the public and independent school offerings. The community thus envisaged is monolingual in the public sphere and multilingual primarily in the private sphere. Bilingualism is promoted, but mainly to promote learning Swedish as a second language or to avoid the ‘problems’ of inadequate knowledge of both languages. The main motivations are those of equality, justice and solidarity between majority and minorities, rather than enrichment, economic or political benefits for the society as a whole.

Recent language policy proposals in Sweden The group and language which has not received any attention until recently is the majority and its language. This began to change around

152

Communication and Community

1997, when the Swedish Language Council, Sweden’s official institution responsible for corpus planning, decided it might be time to consider status planning also. The question is what sort of communication it intends to further and what sort of community or communities the policy wishes to strengthen. The first published document directing attention to the status of Swedish in Sweden was a short action plan initiated and published by the Swedish Language Council in 1997. It coincided with the investigation of the minority languages and Sweden’s early years as a member of the EU. (Interestingly, language was not an issue in the referendum for membership in 1995.) The first Language Council document convinced the government to appoint a committee to conduct a more comprehensive official parliamentary investigation into the status of the country’s majority language. Its official committee report (SOU, 2002: 27), a document comprising almost 600 pages, was published and circulated for comment in 2002. Here I will look more closely at a few key passages of text in this document in order to examine how the committee sees its role in facilitating certain types of communication and the creation of certain types of community. Background for the investigation into Swedish in Sweden Three major reasons are stated for the official investigation. They can be considered as problems in the eyes of the committee, which the action plan intends to rectify or remedy. 1. English has won an increasingly strong position internationally and thereby also becoming a more and more important language in our country. 2. Sweden has become an increasingly multilingual country, primarily because of immigration, and also as a result of the elevation some years ago of five languages to the status of national minority languages. 3. There is a greater demand in society at large for an ability to use language well both orally and in writing. Reasons 1 and 2 might lead a naive reader to imagine that the goal of the commission is to improve instruction in English, and to recognize Sweden’s linguistic diversity. However, Swedish is the focus of the investigation, not multilingualism, and English only indirectly. The first reason is actually a statement of a problem in the eyes of many: that the majority language, Swedish, is being increasingly hard

Sally Boyd

153

pressed by the spread of global English. Especially in regard to the perceived problem of English, the committee, following the lead of the Language Council and several prominent Nordic language experts, is beginning to think of Swedish as one of the many languages around the globe seriously threatened or at least encroached upon by English (e.g., Hoffman, 2000; Phillipson, 2003; Løland et al., 1992). The committee, following the initial document of the Council, does not consider English loan words to be a problem. Rather, the problem is primarily domain loss to English. English is now being used in an increasing number of domains, sometimes as the sole language, sometimes alongside Swedish, that were previously the domain of Swedish alone. These domains include education (mainly tertiary, but also secondary), politics (due primarily to EU membership), the economy, culture, media and information technology. If English continues to expand in these domains, they argue, Swedish may lose its capacity for being used in them. It runs the risk of being reduced to a home language, inadequate for use in all these high-status and high-profile domains. The status of Swedish as the undisputed national majority language, which can be used virtually everywhere by virtually everyone, has until recently been taken for granted (Oakes, 2001, p. 4). The committee is perhaps also worried about the community created by its previously largely implicit, laissez-faire language policy as regards the relationship between Swedish and English. If English becomes the main language in high-status domains of public political life, this opens up possibilities for increasing communication with English-speaking countries (and other countries which use English as an international lingua franca) that may not always be beneficial to Sweden’s interests. Personally, I agree fully that the spread of global English has very negative consequences for speakers of many languages around the world. However, several of the provisions suggested in the action plan to halt the spread of English, or to guarantee the maintenance of Swedish in some currently shared domains, can have unfortunate consequences for speakers with other language backgrounds in the country. I will argue that one of the reasons for the defence of Swedish which will lead to further threats to other languages is that the benefits of multilingual and multicultural society have never been adequately rooted in Swedish society. This second motivation, stated above, is clearly a more worrying one, at least for those in favour of a more multilingual Sweden. This is the case if we interpret this text as suggesting that Sweden’s multilingualism is itself a reason for strengthening Swedish. The rights accorded the national minority languages after ratification of the Council of Europe

154

Communication and Community

documents are quite few, and the most significant changes apply only to a small number of municipalities in the far north of the country. Furthermore, this multilingualism is nothing new. It is a historical reality that some years ago finally became recognized by the State. An opinion, expressed by many, however, is the ‘oddness’ of the present situation, that is that Sweden has five official minority languages, but no official majority language. This action plan seeks to rectify this (see below). Why is multilingualism among Sweden’s immigrant minorities a problem, which needs addressing in an action plan for Swedish? The reason given in the explanatory text is that ‘more and more people speak Swedish as a second or foreign language’ (p. 21). The committee consider it ‘essential that everyone has equally good opportunities to acquire the Swedish language’ (pp. 21–22). This is certainly a lofty goal, but one that is obviously difficult if not impossible to attain, not only for immigrants coming to the country as adults, but probably also for many children growing up with other mother tongues or dialects of Swedish at home. A safe conclusion is that it is not really the multilingualism of immigrants that might create a problem, rather monolingualism in another language or, more often, a multilingualism that does not include an adequate proficiency in Swedish, which are problematic. Monolingualism in other languages can be seen to threaten the direct lines of communication between State and citizen and increase the risk for other lines of communication, for example communication with other states and the creation of other community allegiances. The third reason for the action program is an expression of current thinking within labour market studies that the labour market of today includes fewer and fewer jobs which do not require relatively advanced linguistic skills. Fewer people are working in manual jobs. All levels of the labour force increasingly require more advanced communication and literacy skills. It is interesting that this goal is expressed in terms of language, and not in terms of Swedish. In fact, as the directives of the committee were specifically to formulate an action plan for Swedish (SOU, 2002: 27, p. 21; Melander, 2003), not for language in general, it is interesting that none of these problem areas has Swedish as its focus, rather the problems involve English, multilingualism and language respectively.

Goals of the commission The commission sees its work as aiming at achieving three outcomes (SOU, 2002: 27, p. 22):

Sally Boyd

155

1. Swedish shall be a complete language, serving and uniting our society. 2. Swedish in official and public use shall be correct and shall function well. 3. Everyone shall have the right to language: Swedish, their mother tongue and foreign languages. The first aim is a bit difficult to interpret. What exactly is meant by a ‘complete language’? The committee explains this expression as meaning (p. 419) that Swedish should continue to be the ‘common language in Sweden and therefore the language which, in a multicultural society, makes it possible for persons with different language backgrounds to communicate and cooperate’. However, as is pointed out in debates about a reduction in the number of official languages within the EU (e.g., Phillipson, 2003), what it in fact implies is that persons who have this common language as a mother tongue will be at an advantage in such communications and cooperation, compared with persons with other mother tongues. The phrase ‘serving and uniting our society’ is surprisingly nationalistic in its formulation (Billig, 1995). It implies the view that it is natural and normal for nation states to be ‘united’ and ‘served’ by a common language. The fact that this language is not the mother tongue of all citizens and thus preserves a hierarchy with majority language speakers in superior positions is not seen as a problem. (Of course, if this goal is viewed as presenting the committee’s preference of Swedish over English as Sweden’s common language, it is more understandable, but that it should be viewed that way is not at all clear.) The second outcome is also problematic, as it is unclear what exactly is meant by correct or ‘well-functioning’. The issues discussed in the corresponding part of the report include mass media language, the language of public administration and information technology. In the area of public administration, the commission wishes to guarantee that Sweden continue its work towards clarity and simplicity. In the other two arenas (mass media and information technology), the aim is that these not be further encroached upon by English. The question arises as to what extent the new Language Council, that the document proposes to form, can exert a significant influence on media and information technology originating in other countries or prevent it from being used extensively in Sweden. Various government agencies have, however, been instrumental in supporting efforts to diversify mass media and information technology, not only by using Swedish but also by using other languages besides English, including the national minority languages.

156

Communication and Community

It is furthermore of concern that the stipulation that the Swedish used in public administration should be correct could be misused to exclude persons with Swedish as a second language from participation and employment in the public sector in capacities such as journalists, teachers, doctors, lawyers, judges, social workers, and so on. Furthermore, it could limit even more the already extremely limited use of languages other than Swedish and English in public discourse. It has already proven difficult for persons with foreign background, including persons with higher education, to gain access to many types of highly qualified employment. This goal, as its stated here, could provide further hinders to their efforts, rather than facilitating their integration (Boyd, 2003). Oakes (2001, p. 114), in reviewing the language debate in Sweden from the mid-1960s until the present, emphasizes also the way in which the Swedish language has functioned as an element of exclusion. Looking at the question historically, he points out that first a distinction was made between speakers and non-speakers of Swedish. During this period, instruction in Swedish for immigrants was started. Then, during the 1980s, Swedish speakers were distinguished from speakers of various contact varieties of Swedish. During this period, and also periodically afterwards, the threat of these varieties has been emphasized by some debaters. Currently, there is a debate about ‘good Swedish’ or ‘perfect Swedish’ and other Swedish. The goal for second-language learners is raised repeatedly making their linguistic integration still onåbar ‘unreachable’. The various contact and learner varieties continue to be stigmatized and used as perhaps the most important symbol of ethnic identity. He concludes (p. 115) ‘language offers a convenient means of discrimination against immigrant out-groups, when race, skin colour etc are not politically correct’ and (p. 116) that ‘language will become increasingly important for the construction of Swedish identity’. The third outcome can be seen as a single multilingual goal for everyone, perhaps echoing the EU goal of ‘trilingualism for all’. But the three terms create some problems, as will be discussed below, where this text is compared with similar Australian texts.

New constitutional amendment Among its measures, the action plan proposes (SOU, 2002: 27, p. 470) a new amendment to the constitution as follows: 1. The Swedish language is the principal language of Sweden and the official language in international contexts.

Sally Boyd

157

2. Those who conduct affairs within public administration must use clear and understandable Swedish. 3. In (other parts of) the constitution there are other regulations about how the Swedish language should be used. There are also regulations about the use of the national minority languages, sign language and other languages. The use of the term ‘principal language’ in the first paragraph is discussed briefly in the report. It is mentioned that principal was used instead of official because there are three minority languages which are also to be regarded as official languages. It is also stated that the term ‘principal language’ emphasizes the importance of the Swedish language and at the same time implies that Swedish is the language spoken by a great majority of the inhabitants of the country. The term principal is also said to imply that Swedish is not the only language in the country; there are other languages as well to be taken into consideration. (SOU, 2002: 27, p. 69) However, there is also an implicit evaluation in the term ‘principal’ which is unfortunate. Clearly, there is only one principal language in the country, together with many other languages. If it is called principal because it is spoken by the vast majority of inhabitants, it seems odd that we should need a constitutional amendment to confirm this. If it is called principal because it is important, then the implication is that it is more important than all the others. The second part of the first paragraph in the amendment concerns Swedish as the official language of the country in international contexts. The use of the word official is in this case motivated by stating that ‘official language’ is the term generally used internationally. In fact, it is difficult to see many international contexts Swedish can be used in, besides Nordic co-operation and the EU. Furthermore, both these examples also contain problems (see Boyd and Huss, 2003). The second paragraph of the amendment is probably intended to encourage a continuation of the work with simplicity, clarity and openness in official communications. This effort is laudable, and to the advantage of persons who do not have Swedish as a mother tongue in their role as receptive participants in communication between State and citizen. As indicated above, the law could however be used to exclude them from participation as speakers and writers, as their abilities to produce ‘clear and understandable’ Swedish could be questioned. It is furthermore unclear why it must be specified that the language used in public administration should be Swedish, when in fact, as mentioned earlier, speakers of the three minority languages Finnish,

158

Communication and Community

Tornedal Finnish and Sámi already have a legal right to use these languages in public affairs in certain municipalities in Sweden. And, as the committee themselves point out, English has an important role in certain domains, where it is used in parallel with Swedish. In the document as a whole 80 measures are suggested. Most of these are focused on Swedish, but some of them on other languages and categories of language used in Sweden. I will only examine two proposed measures here, from the section Multilingual Sweden, which I feel exemplify some of the problems inherent in formulating a policy to strengthen only one language, the majority language, in a multilingual society. 20. Measures shall be taken to bring about a positive change in attitudes towards the Swedish language and different language varieties    22. Minority and immigrant languages in Sweden should receive support. Clearly, the measure regarding Swedish is more strongly worded, as shall rather than should, as well as being more specific as to its goal. It is also interesting that in the document, the committee report on a study which indicated that 96 per cent of the respondents in a national survey considered the Swedish language to be ‘very important’ to them. It is difficult to imagine what measures could be taken to improve this figure significantly. Another study, also reported on in the document, found that 40 per cent of the respondents in a survey agreed with the statement: ‘it would be best for Sweden if everybody in Sweden spoke Swedish as their mother tongue’. This result seems to indicate a more problematic attitude in the population as a whole towards other mother tongues than Swedish and one that should merit rectifying. In other parts of the document similar inconsistencies and hidden attitudes sometimes surface. For example, in the discussion of multilingualism in Sweden, the Committee voice the opinion that democracy and an open debate are facilitated if a common language is used by all. This is part of ‘everyone’s right to language’. However, in the European arena, the Committee express their support for language diversity very strongly. It is important, if the EU wishes to stand out as being democratic, that the official languages of all member states be official working languages of the Union. This facilitates equality of communication between the EU institutions and the citizens of the member states. However, this type of reasoning does not seem to extend to the citizens within Sweden. One might argue that it would be extremely unrealistic

Sally Boyd

159

to expect Sweden to communicate with its citizens in 150 different languages. The chair of the committee, commenting on an earlier critique published in Sweden (Boyd and Huss, 2003), wrote that ‘to view all languages in Sweden as equal    would lead to marginalization and inequality’ (Melander, 2003, p. 39, my translation) A complete equality among languages, especially when the languages used in Sweden today are many and most are not territorially based, is clearly unrealistic. But it would not have been unrealistic for the Committee to acknowledge that choice of any one or a small number of languages in important or highly valued official domains naturally results in some level of inequality. Nor would it have been unrealistic to suggest measures to compensate for this inequality and to support measures to maintain or increase the use of multiple languages in some high status, visible domains. Whether the chosen language is English in an international context, Swedish in Sweden or another language in some other context, inequality is experienced by those with limited proficiency in the chosen language. The main thrust of the committee’s work was clearly to stabilize the position of Swedish from the encroachment of English. The treatment of Sweden’s multilingualism appears to be more a politically correct lipservice than a serious attempt to support language diversity or to work to correct other inequality. Perhaps unintentionally, this resulted in a risk that some of the measures suggested would lead to a strengthening of Swedish also at the expense of minority and immigrant languages and their speakers, not only as a brake block for the encroachment of English. It is also interesting to note that the committee is clearly aware of the positive attitudes among most Swedes towards English. They report on an attitude survey conducted in 1998 (SOU, 2002: 27, p. 210) which found that a majority does not feel English is used too much in Sweden today. There was a clear age factor to this result: older people tended to be more negative to English than younger persons. It may also be interesting to note that many English speakers moving to Sweden consider it to be extremely important to learn and use Swedish. In a study comparing migrants with American English, Turkish, Finnish and Vietnamese in (or within) the Nordic region, the English speakers were shown to be the most frequent users of the respective majority languages in the country (Boyd, 1998). Thus, it does not seem to be the case that English is encroaching on Swedish at a rate which would make monolingualism in English a viable option, even for English-speaking migrants.

160

Communication and Community

Australia’s language policy In Australia, as in Sweden, early language policy was handled indirectly, through other policies. The goal of this early policy was English monolingualism, despite the presence of many non-English speaking (in contrast to Sweden) of immigrants. At the same time, there was a strong stigmatization of local varieties of English while Aboriginal languages were repressed through policies such as family separation and movement and aggregations of speakers of different languages. For speakers of Aboriginal and immigrant languages, there was at first a laissez-faire policy, but later the use of other languages in schools was banned or at least severely marginalized. Learning of foreign languages was largely trivialized during this period (Lo Bianco, 2000; Smolicz and Secombe, 2003). One of the first migrant groups to claim recognition for language skills (other than ‘the traditional’ foreign languages of French and German) was the Italian group. This claim was made in the face of declining skills in the two important school languages, at the same time as this group hoped to create incentives for language maintenance in their own group (Ozolins, 1993, p. 85). The mid-1970s was an interesting period for the development of Australia’s multicultural and multilingual policy, although its innovative National Policy on Languages did not emerge until 1987. These years saw important changes that increased the pace of change of Australia’s self-image as a nation, with important implications for languages and language policy. The year 1972 was a milestone, with the election of the first Labour government in 25 years. This government introduced sweeping changes, including reforms in the area of immigration and multicultural policy. Increasingly, Australia’s self-image changed from that of a commonwealth country with strong ties to its British heritage of English monolingualism and assimilation of new migrants, to a particularly Australian image of multiculturalism and multilingualism. These changes coincided with the ethnic revival movement, which in Australia was accompanied by the entry of a number of ‘second generation’ Australians with non-British background into the professions. Another important factor which changed Australia’s self-image was the country’s involvement in the Vietnam war, which led to widespread disillusionment, protest (Clyne, 1991b, p. 20) and a critical examination of international alliances. In the mid-1970s, a policy of ‘rights oriented multiculturalism’ gained ascendency. Diversity was still seen as a something of a problem, but the solution was the introduction of tuition in English as a Second Language (ESL) and culture retention, rather than

Sally Boyd

161

assimilation. Minority languages and cultures were already seen at this time as a right for minorities (Lo Bianco, 2000, p. 50). Especially when Britain joined the EU in the mid-1970s, Australia could no longer rely on British markets for its goods. The ‘Australia as a part of Asia discourse’ commenced as Australia needed to look elsewhere for its migrants and for its markets (Lo Bianco, 2001). It was also during this period that the view that Australian English can function well as a symbol of Australian identity gained ground. British English no longer needed to be the norm against which English usage in Australia was measured. Further other languages, in addition to English, and traditional foreign languages attained a higher profile. Language professionals (including language teachers, researchers and linguists) joined forces with community activists in migrant and indigenous communities during this period, realizing that they had many common interests in promoting linguistic diversity and language learning. One forum for this coalition was the Migrant Education Action Committee, a group which met on a regular basis to discuss these issues. In 1976, the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools proposed many innovative changes involving the teaching of community languages, retraining of overseas teachers, co-operation between day and ethnic schools and curriculum development (Clyne, 1991a, 1997a, p. 65). Petitions were circulated by this coalition, and by the early 1980s, it had grown to include deaf community activists and promoters of Auslan, the Australian Sign Language. In 1982, a Senate committee was commissioned to look into the needs for a comprehensive language policy. This committee formulated the four guiding principles, which continue to form the basis for Australian language(s) policy. Since the boundaries between first languages, second languages and foreign languages, between historical languages and dialects and community languages had become blurred, it was seen to be beneficial to all that the learning of languages in general was promoted.

The National Policy on Languages In the National Policy on Languages (NPL) (Lo Bianco, 1987), the policy document resulting from the Senate investigation, a number of objectives were articulated (Lo Bianco, 1987, p. 189): • the overcoming of injustices, disadvantages and discrimination related to language; • the enrichment of cultural and intellectual life in Australia;

162

Communication and Community

• the integration of language teaching/learning with Australia’s external (economic and political) needs and priorities; • the provision of clear expectations to the community about language in general and about language in education in particular; • support for the component groups of Australian society (ethnic communities, the deaf and Aboriginal people), for whom language issues are very important, with recognition and encouragement, and guidance in attempts to link technology and language use and learning. In another part of the document, these objectives are reformulated as four goals, summarized by the slogan terms: enrichment, economic, equality and external. (The external goal has to do with the importance of language in strategic and diplomatic contexts, particularly in the Asian region.) These goals are lofty, and were not all achievable, but it is clear that they were more comprehensive, and more far-reaching than the goals of the two Swedish policies discussed above. Of course, some of the limitations of the Swedish action plan are the result of its mandate to develop a policy for Swedish, not for all the languages of Sweden (Melander, 2003, p. 36). But the first NPL goal, that of overcoming injustice, is not mentioned in the Swedish policy document of 1974 (SOU, 1974: 69) or in recent policy as discussed above (SOU, 2002: 27), except insofar as it suggests the provision of high-quality instruction in Swedish as a second language in order to overcome injustice arising from an inadequate proficiency in the language among those with other language backgrounds. Nor is the concept of ‘enrichment’, that is the benefits of multilingualism, both for the individual and society, especially prominent in the Action plan. This is probably also due to its focus on the majority language. The fact that Sweden is a multicultural society is mentioned frequently in the document, but it is mainly seen as a difficulty to be overcome because persons who have other language backgrounds need to be given better opportunities to develop a proficiency in Swedish. Or it is called a resource, but few if any measures are proposed to utilize this resource. One of the most innovative aspects of the NPL was its view of the ‘problem’ of languages other than English (known as LOTE) (Lo Bianco, 1987, p. 190). Topping the list of components of this problem is the comment that ‘very few English-speaking Australians acquire a second language’ while language shift (LS) among the second generation in immigrant families and in Aboriginal communities was also seen as part

Sally Boyd

163

of the problem, not, at least at this stage, the inadequate opportunities for these groups to learn the majority language. The wording of the Australian goals also shows a different orientation from the Swedish action plan, as the various groups with diverse language backgrounds are referred to as the component groups of Australian society. Such inclusive language is rarely found in the Swedish document. In the NPL and in many scholarly commentaries (e.g., Clyne, 1991a, 1997a,b; Ozolins, 1993), the roles of English and other languages are called complementary. Some writers in Sweden and Scandinavia tend to use similar terminology (e.g., Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981). Language development and education should be a case of ‘both-and’, that is the goal to aim for is the learning of a first and a second language. Both the Australian complementarity and the Swedish ‘both-and’ perspectives indicate that learning one language does not necessarily imply a weakening of the other. Often just the opposite is the case. Another formulation of goals, appearing in the NPL and re-appearing in subsequent writings, is the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.

English for all. Support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages. A language other than English for all. Equitable and widespread language services.

The measures suggested in the NPL are listed under these four headings. The four goals can be compared with the goals of the Swedish action plan, particularly the goal of language rights for all: Swedish, mother tongue and foreign languages. As the Council of Europe Charter already requires Sweden to support its regional and minority languages, the NPL goals 1, 3 and 4 are perhaps comparable to the formulation of ‘everyone’s right to language’. The Australian formulation distinguishes three categories of language: English, indigenous languages and LOTEs. It is interesting that at least two of these categories are specified to be ‘for all’. Within LOTE, no distinction is made between community languages and foreign languages, the thinking being that both community languages and foreign languages can be studied by all. At first glance, the Swedish goal of ‘everyone’s right to language: Swedish, the mother tongue and foreign languages’ is quite similar, perhaps even broader, as it includes three categories of language, while the Australian policy includes only two, for those who are not affected by

164

Communication and Community

the support for indigenous languages. Everyone is explicitly mentioned, but by using the terms ‘Swedish’ and ‘mother tongue’ separately, the Swedish statement is implicitly distinguishing between persons with Swedish language background and those with other mother tongues (see above). Once the right to Swedish has already been established, the right to a mother tongue becomes superfluous for the majority, who have Swedish as first language. The Swedish action plan also distinguishes between ‘mother tongues’ and ‘foreign languages’, rather than considering them as something parallel to LOTE in Australia. This might perhaps be interpreted to give immigrant minority languages a more important role in society than the foreign languages. However, nowhere in the document is it suggested that these mother tongues might be studied by persons other than those who have them as first languages. Thus, it denies the connections and overlap that exist in reality between mother tongues (including the official minority languages) and foreign languages. Spanish is a good example of a language that is prominent in both categories, but many other languages such as Finnish, Arabic and various Slavic languages could also play this role. It also leaves some languages, such as the other Nordic languages in an uncertain position, as they seem neither to fill the role of mother tongues nor foreign languages. The statement also plays down the special role that English has played since the Second World War as the most prominent foreign language, being a required subject from upper primary education onwards, as well as a requirement for virtually all tertiary education. In this formulation, it is simply one of a number of unspecified foreign languages.

Implementation and later formulations of Australian language policy in the early 1990s In 1990, the Australian Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education published a report on the early years of implementation of the NPL (AACLAME, 1990). It outlines among other things how funds were distributed during the period of December 1987 to March 1990. In this report, we see that the lofty goals led to a somewhat ‘uneven’ reality. At the end of the first phase of policy implementation, the major federal program expenditures4 within the NPL were (1) ESL provision for new arrivals (A$74.7 million), (2) the second language learning programs (ASLLP) ($23.2 million). The ESL for new arrivals was an existing program whose funding was basically doubled as a result of the NPL, so not all of the allocations there represent ‘new money’

Sally Boyd

165

(AACLAME, 1990, p. 3). Other programs, such as the National Aboriginal Languages Program and the Adult Literacy Action Program, received about $2 million per year. One reason that literacy was given greater prominence in this document was Australia’s active participation in the International year of literacy in 1990 (Brock, 2001). The allocations for second-language learning support include support for language maintenance among people of non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) as well as second-language learning for ‘native’ speakers of English (AACLAME, 1990, p. 8). The intention was that these initiatives would partially coincide, as persons of Englishspeaking backgrounds would be encouraged to learn languages ‘actively spoken in the community’. Auslan was also included among the languages receiving support. This is the thinking which has led the Australian policy to be praised in North America, New Zealand and Europe. The NPL provided funds for increasing the number of languages taught in schools, improving the quality of secondlanguage programs, and raising the number of students finishing school with an examination in a LOTE. It also aimed at developing bilingual education programs, as both mother tongue maintenance and immersion programs, although I have found little evidence that many such programs were started, at least in government schools. One year later in 1991, a White Paper ominously entitled Australia’s Language: The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP) was published by the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET, 1991). This document put language policy developments on a different track. According to Lo Bianco (2000, p. 53), the ‘essential ethos and objectives of the ALLP contradicted and sought to undermine the core multicultural and multilingual basis of the NPL and especially to disenfranchise the coalition of community-based interests that brought it about’. English and literacy (in English) were given priority as preconditions for success in virtually all fields. At the same time, facility in languages other than English was considered an important ‘asset’ both to individuals and to society (ALLP, 1991, p. 1). Seven reasons for action are listed, of which four concern English as a first or second language, one concerns indigenous languages, and two concern other languages. The four goals of the NPL are reiterated here, but worded somewhat differently from the original document: 1. All Australians should develop and maintain effective literacy in English to enable them to participate in Australian society.

166

Communication and Community

2. The learning of languages other than English must be substantially expanded and improved. 3. Those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages which are still transmitted should be maintained and developed, and those that are not should be recorded where appropriate. 4. Language services provided by interpreters and translators, the print and electronic media and libraries should be expanded and improved. In relation to the first goal, concerning English, specific programs are suggested within the realm of children’s literacy, adult literacy, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander literacy and ESL, as well as ESL for children and adults from various immigrant groups. It is interesting that the first goal is the only policy goal formulated in terms of Australians and Australian society. Clearly, this is a national priority and it is couched in (at least ‘banal’) nationalistic terms. That English is also an important international language is not mentioned, for instance. The wording of the third goal clearly shows a feeling of resignation to language shift among speakers of indigenous languages, and a lack of interest in even recording some of the immense diversity of languages that have recently become extinct. The wording of this goal shows most clearly of all that the government attitude became far more economic and pragmatic towards Australia’s language diversity in the short space of time between the NPL in 1987 and this report in 1991. It is interesting to note that the phrase ‘for all’, which was used in the corresponding set of goals of the NPL, is absent here. Moreover, the quantitative, economic orientation of this document is also apparent when one looks more closely at how the second goal is approached. Measures are taken rewarding States and Territories for each student who studies a language (other than English) at Year 12 (final year). The proportion of students studying language at Year 12 is reported in the document to be fewer than 12 per cent at the time of writing, and the number of languages which can be included as matriculation subjects in 1997 was 38 (Clyne, 1997b). A goal is set that by 2000, 25 per cent of all Year 12 students should be studying a LOTE. In 1960, it is claimed, 40 per cent of final year students studied a language. A recent figure (Clyne, personal commommunication) is that slightly more than 13 per cent of Year 12 students studied a language in 2000. One reason why it has proven difficult to raise this figure, according to the Department of Education, is that the proportion of students continuing to Year 12 has risen dramatically, so that today about 80 per cent of students study at this level. So although the percentage of students studying a

Sally Boyd

167

language at Year 12 has stayed the same, the number of students has risen steadily. Additional measures addressing this goal, which actually make up the larger part of the funding for it (DEST, 2003), include measures to further integrate the Ethnic Schools Program into mainstream language programs. Although this development leads to heterogeneous pupil groups, it raises the status of the schools and their programs. Many problems remain until today, however, especially relating to the uneven quality of the language instruction provided, teacher training and teaching materials. Fourteen languages were given priority, of which each State was to choose eight for its own priority languages. States would then receive AUD$300 for each student passing Year 12 in one of the eight languages. This money was not intended to be sufficient to fund the programs, but rather constitute an incentive to the states to reorient programs towards the priority languages. The 14 languages were Aboriginal languages (counted as one language), Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Modern Greek, Russian, Spanish, Thai and Vietnamese. (This number was later reduced to 10 during the period when the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy (NALSAS) (see below) was in effect, as that included four of these languages.) The funding for the Commonwealth language programmes for the period 1990–94 are shown in (Table 8.4): At least from an outsider’s perspective, the funding allocations identify Literacy and ESL as the main priority although at this stage, the allocation for Goal 2 is still quite generous. Today, according to officials at the Department of Education, Science and Training, about 25 per cent of all the Commonwealth funding for languages (other than English) go to the priority languages, and

Table 8.4 Funding for Commonwealth language programmes, 1990–94 Goal Literacy and ESL (Goal 1) Child and adult LOTE (Goal 2) Aboriginal literacy and language (Goals 1 and 3) Other measures

Funding ($AUD) 1038.94m 89.45m 16.63m 20.63m

168

Communication and Community

75 per cent to instruction in community languages, primarily at ethnic schools which are not yet integrated into the day-school system. According to Clyne (1997a, p. 68), in 1992 a more comprehensive view of the economic benefits of multilingualism emerged in the notion of productive diversity, which benefited languages not only of trading partners, but also of communities in Australia and thus in the workforce. In the discussion of this concept, the potential for multilingualism is said to include such non-economic benefits as ‘self-esteem’ as well as economic security to bilinguals. Other reports, such as Stanley et al. (1990), indicate that the Australian business community are largely unaware of potential benefits of multilingual and multicultural workforce (Lo Bianco, 2000). In subsequent years, the scales continued to tip in favour of measures promoting literacy, ESL and what are seen to be economically important Asian languages. The Asian languages particularly promoted were languages with some speakers in the Australian community, although the motivation for the programme was clearly economic, rather than the social justice or intellectual and cultural enrichment goals of the 1987 policy. The most important of the commonwealth initiatives to promote the study of these languages was the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy (NALSAS) strategy.

The NALSAS strategy: 1994–2001 In 1994, a new strategy in Australian language policy was introduced: the NALSAS. It focused on the one hand on four priority Asian languages: Japanese, Indonesian, Chinese and Korean and on the other on Asian studies. Compared to the scope and goals of the NPL, the NALSAS can be considered to be a narrowing or focus of goals. The motivation for NALSAS was also clearly economic. In the early 1990s, Australia’s economy experienced a downturn, while several Asian economies expanded. An explicit goal of NALSAS was to enhance Australia’s economic interests in the (Asian) region. Strategic interests were also mentioned as well as migration from Asia to Australia as a further factor in the program’s background, but the economic arguments are most prominent. According to the first interim progress report (NALSAS, 1999), the number of students studying one of the four languages rose from about 3,25,000 to over 5,00,000 in the first 4 years of the strategy’s implementation. The number of schools offering the target Asian languages had also risen from about 2500 to over 3600 in 1997. Japanese was now the

Sally Boyd

169

most widely taught language in Australian schools, while Australia was claimed to be a ‘front-runner’ in the teaching of Chinese and Indonesian. The taskforce also point to advances in teacher education (both pre- and in-service) and curriculum development. The focus of this policy seems definitely to be that of Australians learning languages in order to communicate with Asians, outside Australia. These four languages are not learned primarily in order to facilitate communication with communities in Australia. (For example, the Chinese that is taught is mainly Mandarin, while the Chinese communities in Australia tend to speak other varieties.) The 1999 interim report (NALSAS, 1999) stresses that it is important to facilitate Australia’s engagement with Asia by teaching Asian languages and Asian studies. At the end of its final year (2001) the programme was evaluated by an external consultant (Erebus, 2002) who reported new gains in enrolment in language courses in the four languages. The number of schools and teachers participating in the programme also continued to increase dramatically. The pride in these results was evident, particularly in view of the downturn in Asian economies during the second 4 years of its implementation. Again, the main thrust of the policy, and the yardstick by which its success should be measured, was quantitative. The goals were conceived in terms of Australians learning Asian languages to ‘engage with Asia’. A secondary goal of national cohesion in Australia which is proudly multicultural and multilingual was, however, also mentioned. This would be achieved, the thinking was, by ‘equipping young Australians with the skills and attitudes necessary to fully participate in the life (of) an harmonious, tolerant and outward looking multicultural Australia’ (Erebus, 2002, p. ix). A clear commodification of language skills is evident here, even in the secondary, Australia-based goal, as the life should be outward looking, presumably towards economic activities in the region. The strategic interests of Australia in the Asian region are also mentioned in the report, ‘in spite of, or perhaps because of, the present instability of the region’ (p. ix). The evaluators consider the 1994 targets, that is by 2006, 60 per cent of Year 10 and 15 per cent of Year 12 students should be studying one of the four target languages, ought to be revised to more ‘realistic’ levels (Erebus, 2002, p. xiii). Although the consultant suggested continued funding for the strategy, it was discontinued. According to officials at the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST, 2003), NALSAS was never conceived to be more than ‘seed money’ to begin a process to increase

170

Communication and Community

teaching in selected Asian languages, mainly in the late primary and early secondary years of school. Many have been critical of NALSAS, from the perspective of community languages and bilingualism because it focuses on languages which are not particularly prominent in the Australian community, while it leaves important Asian-origin community languages such as Vietnamese, Hindi, Thai and Cambodian without any special support. When economic and quantitative measures are used to define success, it is also easy to lose the previous notion of complementarity. For example, the NALSAS evaluation proudly declares that Japanese is the most frequently studied language in Australian schools, surpassing French. This is also seen in the allocation of funds: the four NALSAS languages received $67.7 million and the remaining ten other ‘priority’ languages, AUD$4 million per annum (Clyne, 1997a, p. 68). Some states, notably Victoria, have, however, maintained a balance between Asian and European languages and included Vietnamese under the heading of Asian languages (Clyne, 1997a, p. 69). I should point out that this picture of Australian language policy is incomplete, because it describes mainly Commonwealth policy. In some states, notably Victoria and South Australia, the state governments (which have primary responsibility for primary and secondary education) have been firmly committed to education in languages (Smolicz and Secombe, 2003). In other states, notably Queensland, the Commonwealth money has driven more or less the entire program, according to information received from the Department of Education, Science and Training. In two different papers, Clyne (1997a,b) expresses his belief that a comparatively progressive language policy for Australia is an ‘irreversible’ reality. The policies, according to Clyne, enjoy support, ‘not just from ethnic groups but also from mainstream Australians’ (p. 70). Officials at the Department of Education, Science and Training also emphasize the number of languages taught today, compared to the period before 1987, when French and German were about all that was available. Other linguists, such as Joe Lo Bianco, Anthony Liddicoat, former President of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers, and Karis Muller (personal communication), are more pessimistic. The difference is perhaps one of whether Australia’s language glass is ‘half full or half empty’. Another difference, as already mentioned, is that between different states and territories within Australia.

Sally Boyd

171

Conclusions From a comprehensive policy, both in terms of languages and potential speakers, with several coalescing goals, Australia’s policy has gradually changed to a policy mainly emphasizing a few languages which are believed to provide economic benefits for individuals and for the country as a whole. The shift from multilingualism to a narrower focus can also be seen in the increasing importance, since 1991 of ESL and (English) literacy, rather than the complementarity of English and LOTEs evident in the NPL of 1987. The development is from common goals of language learning for all bilingual and monolingual Australians to narrower goals of the learning of a few economically important languages for use primarily in ‘their’ countries, overseas, and increasing basic skills in English, for use at home in Australia (Lo Bianco, 2001). The community thus envisaged by Australian Commonwealth policy, despite continuing immigration, is monolingual English speaking. Bilingualism of new migrant groups is only given limited priority or support. Communication in other languages is important if it takes place with ‘priority’ partners, primarily outside Australia. A similar narrowing can be observed in Swedish language policy: from a relatively broad multilingual educational policy, the Home Language Reform, through successive narrowing of eligible groups and the increasing marginalization of instruction, to the Council of Europe ratification and the action plan for Swedish, which leave many languages, particularly the immigrant languages, at risk to become weakened. Multilingualism is tolerated, and even given support, if it takes place in the private sphere. One obvious difference in the points of departure between Sweden and Australia has to do with the role of English. In Australia, it is the takenfor-granted majority language. In Sweden, it is the encroaching superposed foreign or even second language (Hyltenstam, 1999, pp. 205ff; Oakes, 2001, p. 166). The fact that English is an international lingua franca is never mentioned in Australian policy documents. It is an obvious fact of life which makes it difficult, at times, to motivate monolingual Australians to learn other languages. In Sweden, the role of English is the main force driving the most recent policy, the action plan. As Swedish is seen to be encroached upon by English, a language threatening many other languages around the world, it becomes politically acceptable to suggest a policy to combat this. The fact that Swedish, in many respects, plays the same role in regard to minority and immigrant languages is not addressed, even though these languages are discussed

172

Communication and Community

at some length in the action plan. The action plan describes Swedish society as multilingual and multicultural and in that way provides a broad background for its recommendations, but the recommendations are mainly aimed at the narrower goal of strengthening Swedish in relation to English, rather than taking on the much more comprehensive task of status planning for language, in general, in Sweden. This inconsistency between the situation described in the report, which is broad, and the narrower goal of the report, which is narrow, risks increasing the threat towards some of the other languages in contact in the country, particularly the immigrant and minority languages. A similarity that can be seen in the development in both countries is a narrowing of interests, and, particularly in Australia, in the number of languages which are given priority. In 1987 all LOTEs are part of the policy, while in the 1990s a smaller group is given priority. It is, however, still possible to be examined at Year 12 in a large number of languages in Australia. In Sweden, if we compare the Home Language Reform with the situation as it is today, we can see that the broad base of languages and pupils has been divided or diminished. ‘Home languages’ have been divided into, on the one hand, the minority languages (which can, in turn, be divided into those with official status in the north and those without) and, on the other, the immigrant languages.5 The former have official status, the latter do not. The categories of pupil who are eligible for instruction in a mother tongue have been narrowed over the years, as described above. The idea of including important immigrant languages in the category of foreign languages at school is never mentioned, except insofar as pupils with other mother tongues than Swedish can take their mother tongue instead of a second foreign language. Nor has the idea of monolingual Swedish children learning typical immigrant languages been suggested officially. This is the case even though some languages are in fact prominent in both categories, such as Spanish. A major difference between the countries is the role that the ethnic schools have played in Australia. For a number of reasons, similar schools have not been a major feature of language education in Sweden, at least until it has become possible to start independent schools. Many of these schools are, however, started for other reasons, rather than language teaching. In both countries, we can see at least a partial abandonment of social justice goals, except in learning and improving basic skills in the majority language. It is no longer deemed just or fair that children be given the right to study their mother tongue, even if this is not the

Sally Boyd

173

majority language, or important that all children study about immigrants and minorities in school. Rather language learning is primarily a means to an end, either learning the majority language for communication within the country or another language for communication with people outside the country. It is still the responsibility for speakers of other languages to learn the majority language and not for the majority to learn minority languages. The vast majority of immigrants and minority group members accept this (e.g., Weltens and de Bot, 1995). In both countries, there is lip-service paid to the discourse of seeing multilingualism as a resource, as a fixed feature of society, but particularly in the Swedish action plan, little is suggested to utilize this resource more fully. In both countries, certain types of multilingualism are given greater importance than others. The multilingualism of immigrants and minorities is in both countries not considered to be of greater importance than the more limited multilingualism of the majority learning foreign languages. Policies in both countries seem to be aiming at guaranteeing that most important high-profile, high-status communication within the nation state take place in the first language of the dominant majority. The community, thus, created is multilingual, but the use of other languages is either confined to the home (in Sweden) or to a small community of other speakers of the same language (in Australia). The role of foreign or other languages becomes increasingly communication with others in economic or political domains outside the country’s borders. Economic, political and cultural globalization seems to have brought with it a globalization in the thinking about language and language education in many parts of Europe, North America and Australia today. We can see conflicting interests on the national level and on the level of individual citizens, which are leading the states examined in this paper to make or reformulate national language policy in a more restrictive manner than was previously the case. The state has an overarching interest to maintain control over communication, both between itself and its citizens and also to monitor important communication among its citizens. It is also less expensive for states if communication takes place in one or a small number of languages, rather than many. The use of one language creates a feeling of community among the citizens, which the state can benefit from. If international communication between the state and other states can take place in the same language as the one used in domestic

174

Communication and Community

communication, this is also to the further advantage of the state. For Sweden, use of Swedish outside Sweden (and Finland) is unrealistic, except for certain other Nordic contacts and to a limited extent within the EU. For Australia, most international contacts can take place in English. For the average Australian, one would guess that there are more opportunities and greater need to use languages other than English in Australia than outside it. At the same time, both the state and various segments of the society it represents can have interests in linguistic and cultural diversity. These interests, I think can be summed up in the four ‘E’s’ of the Australian language policy: equality, economic, enrichment and external. Thus, it is not only in the interest of the linguistic minorities that linguistic and cultural diversity is maintained and developed, but it is in the interest of all groups. On the individual or family level, when looking at communication and community, there are also conflicting interests. For persons with minority linguistic backgrounds, bi- or multilingualism is generally seen to be in one’s own interest. The arguments in favour of multilingualism on the individual level are familiar to most of us. They include cognitive, social, economic and cultural benefits. The vast majority of persons with minority linguistic background wish both to be linguistically integrated in the host society and to maintain their linguistic heritage, for example, by socializing their children in the language they themselves were brought up in. The children may not be as highly motivated as their parents to maintain both languages (Boyd, 1985; Clyne, 1991b), especially when the society in general is not seen to set any great value on multilingualism. For persons with a majority language background, the benefits of their own or others’ multilingualism are not as obvious. For many, it may seem beneficial to preserve the advantage that the majority enjoys over the minorities by the language of the majority dominating communication in the major institutions of society. Despite effects of globalization such as increasingly multilingual populations, improved communication and ease of travel over long distances, large segments of the majority population in many industrialized countries apparently have little interest in investing time and effort in obtaining a deeper knowledge of other languages and cultures. Oakes (2001, p. 149) claims that globalization affects mainly an elite, and therefore the sporadic contacts, which the grassroots experience, perhaps increasingly frequently, can actually heighten ethnic awareness. This feeling goes hand in hand with ‘nationalism as a sentiment’ (Oakes, 2001, p. 16), which is the popular

Sally Boyd

175

expression of (banal) national identity in everyday life. At times, this ‘banal’ nationalism can become linguistic and cultural isolationism or even extremist chauvinistic or xenophobic political movements, when coupled with racism and fascism, particularly when the majority feels threatened by other linguistic or cultural groups within or outside the country. For some segments of the majority population, often seen as a globalized elite (Oakes, 2001), learning other languages and about other cultures has an inherent interest. This group is also aware of the benefits of multilingualism and multiculturalism, both for the individual and the society as a whole. When this group is large and vocal enough, and succeeds in joining forces with minority groups, a progressive language or minority policy can be formulated, as was the case in the late 1970s in Sweden and in the 1970s and 1980s in Australia. However, it seems to be the case, in both Australia and Sweden, that these progressive forces may not have had broad-based support for their ideas among the grassroots of their respective populations. Since then that support has hardly grown. Rather, both in Europe and in Australia, political movements and parties openly hostile to ethnic and linguistic diversity have attained a higher profile in recent years. As outlined above, there are also strong pragmatic interests for states and their linguistic majorities to be monolingual. Despite some minor steps to support linguistic diversity in both Sweden and Australia during the 1970s and 1980s, it is difficult to draw any other conclusion than that those who make up the coalition supporting linguistic diversity in both countries have yet to convince both ordinary citizens and politicians of the benefits of multilingualism and linguistic diversity. Unless these ideas spread to a larger contingent of ordinary citizens and the politicians that represent them, we can probably expect to see these once progressive multilingual language policies be further weakened or even reversed. Globalization, rather than opening up possibilities for new lines of communication and new international communities, has instead led to a retreat in both countries from previously progressive multilingual and multicultural policies.

Notes 1. My stay in Australia was made possible by support from a research grant from the National Europe Centre, Australian National University, Canberra and the Institute of Advanced Studies at the University of Western Australia for which I am very grateful. I would also like to thank seminar participants at

176

2.

3.

4.

5.

Communication and Community

the National Europe Centre, the University of Melbourne and the University of Western Australia for comments on versions of this chapter. Much of my analysis of the recent Swedish policy document, SOU 2002: 27, has been carried out in collaboration with Leena Huss from the Center for Multiethnic Research, Uppsala University. I am grateful to Leena for her collaboration on that part of this chapter and for comments on the chapter as a whole. This number is the official designation of this document in Sweden. Since there is no author, I will use this number – 27 – in this chapter to refer to the commission report. It is important to note that in Australia, education is primarily a responsibility of the states, not the federal government. This chapter will mainly look at federal initiatives. The results of these initiatives, and state initiatives, can vary widely. Separate policies have also been directed at Swedish sign language. Although there was some rather confused discussion about sign language during the debate about which languages should be considered as potential minority languages, it never was seriously considered, although it seems clearly to fulfil the criteria for consideration specified by the Council of Europe (SOU, 1997: 193, pp. 85, 110–112)

References Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. Sage: London. Boyd, S. (1985) Language Survival: A Study of Language Contact, Language Shift and Language Choice in Sweden. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 6, Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University: Göteborg. Boyd, S. (1998) ‘North Americans in the Nordic region, Elite bilinguals?’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 133: 31–50. Boyd, S. (2003) ‘Foreign-born teachers in the multilingual classroom in Sweden: The role of attitudes to foreign accent’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol. 6, 3 and 4: 283–95. Boyd, S. and Huss, L. (2003) Mål i mun och språklig mångfald [Speech and language diversity]. Språkvård, 1: 28–34. Bratt Paulston, C. (1983) Forskning och debatt om tvåspråkighet [Research and Debate about Bilingualism]. National Board of Education: Stockholm. Brock, P. (2001) ‘Australia’s language’. In J. Lo Bianco and R. Wickert (eds) Australian Policy Activism in Language and Literacy. Language Australia: Melbourne, pp. 55–72. Clyne, M. (1991a) ‘Australia’s language policies: Are we going backwards?’, Current Affairs Bulletin, November, pp. 13–20. Clyne, M. (1991b) Community Languages: The Australian Experience. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Clyne, M. (1997a) ‘Language policy in Australia – achievements, disappointments, prospects’. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 18, 1: 63–71. Clyne, M. (1997b) ‘Language policy and education in Australia’. In R. Wodak and D. Corson (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education,Vol 1: Language Policy and Political Issues. Kluwer: Dordrecht, pp. 127–35.

Sally Boyd

177

Hansegård, N. E. (1968) ‘Tvåspråkighet eller halvspråkighet?’ [Bilingualism or Semilingualism?]. Aldus/Bonniers: Stockholm. Heath, S. B. (1983) Ways with Words: Language Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Hegelund, L. (2002) ‘A comparative language policy analysis of minority mother tongue education in Denmark and Sweden’, Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism 33. Danish University of Education: Copenhagen. Hoffman, C. (2000) ‘The spread of English and the growth of multilingualism with English in Europe’. In J. Cenoz and U. Jessner (eds) English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, pp. 1–21. Huss, L. (1999) ‘Reversing language shift in the far north: Linguistic revitalization in Northern Scandinavia and Finland’. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 31. Uppsala University: Uppsala. Huss, L. (2001) ‘The national minority languages of Sweden’. In G. Extra and D. Gorter (eds) The Other Languages of Europe. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, pp. 137–58. Hyltenstam, K. (1999) ‘Svenska ur minoritetsperspektiv’ [Swedish from a minority perspective]. In K. Hyltenstam (ed.) Sveriges sju inhemska språk [Sweden’s Seven Indigenous Languages]. Studentlitteratur: Lund, pp. 205–40. Lo Bianco, J. (1987) National Policy on Languages. Commonwealth Department of Education: Canberra. Lo Bianco, J. (2000) ‘Making languages an object of public policy’, Agenda, 7, 1: 47–62. Lo Bianco, J. (2001) ‘From policy to anti-policy. How fear of language rights took policy out of community hands’. In J. LoBianco and R. Wickert (eds) Australian Policy Activism in Language and Literacy. Language Australia: Melbourne, pp. 13–22. Løland, S., Schack, J., Reuter, M., Jónsson, B., Nestor, S. and Lindgren, B. (eds) (1992) ‘Språk i Norden 1992’ [Language in the Nordic region 1992], Årsskrift for Nordisk språksekretariat og språknemndene i Norden [Annual Report of the Nordic Language Secretariat and Language Councils in the Nordic Region]. Nordisk språksekretariat: Oslo. Martin-Jones, M. and Romaine, S. (1987) ‘Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence?’. In E. Wande, J. Anward, B. Nordberg, L. Steensland and M. Thelander (eds) Aspects of Multilingualism, Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism. Center for Multiethnic Research, Uppsala University: Uppsala, pp. 87–104. May, S. (2001) ‘Language and minority rights’. Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language. Longman: London. Melander, B. (2003) ‘Svenskans särställning’ [The special position of Swedish], Språkvård, 1: 35–40. Municio, I. (1987) ‘Från lag till bruk. Hemspråksreformens genomförande’ [From law to use. The implementation of the home language reform], Stockholm Studies in Politics 31. Department of Political Science, Stockholm University: Stockholm. Oakes, L. (2001) Language and National Identity, Comparing France and Sweden. Benjamins: Amsterdam. Ochs, E. (1983) ‘Cultural dimensions of language acquisition’. In E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin (eds) Acquiring Conversational Competence. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, pp. 185–91.

178

Communication and Community

Ozolins, U. (1993) The Politics of Language in Australia. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Phillipson, R. (2003) English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. Routledge: London. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981) Tvåspråkighet [Bilingualism]. Liber Läromedel: Lund. Smolicz, J. J. and Secombe, M. J. (2003) ‘Assimilation or pluralism? Changing policies for minority languages education in Australia’, Language Policy, 2: 3–25. Stanley, J., Ingram, D. and Chittick, G. (1990) The Relationship Between International Trade and Linguistic Competence. Department of Employment, Education and Training: Canberra. Stroud, C. (1977) ‘The concept of semilingualism’, Working Papers 16. Department of Linguistics, Lund University: Lund. Weltens, B. and de Bot, K. (1995) ‘Is Dutch just another Berber? An investigation into the language preferences of immigrants in the Netherlands’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8, 2: 133–140.

Government sources AACLAME (1990) The National Policy on Languages, December 1987 to March 1990. Report to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training by the Australian Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education (AACLAME): Canberra. DEET (1991) ‘Australia’s language’, The Australian Language and Literacy Policy. Department of Employment, Education and Training: Canberra. DEST (2003) Interview with Grette Toner and Noel Simpson (Director and Asst Director of Languages and Civics Education Section, Quality Schooling Branch), 2 June. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training: Canberra. Erebus Consulting Partners (2002) Evaluation of the NALSAS Strategy 1999–2001. Report to the Department of Education, Science and Training: Canberra. NALSAS (National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools) (1999) ‘Partnership for change, the NALSAS strategy’, Interim Report of the First Quadrennium of the NALSAS Strategy 1995–1998. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training: Canberra (also available at http://www.curriculum.edu.au/nalsas/about.htm [accessed: 22 September 2003]). Reg. prop. 1975/76:118 [Government bill], Om hemspråksundervisning för invandrarbarn m.m. [On home language instruction for immigrant children etc.,]. Stockholm. Reg. prop 1976/77:22 [Government bill], Om statsbidrag till hemspråksundervisning för invandrarbarn m.m. [On state subsidies for home language instruction for immigrant children etc.]. Stockholm. RRV (Riksrevisionsverket) (1990) Invandrarundervisningen i grundskolan. Revisionsrapport [Immigrant education in compulsory school. Audit report]. The National Swedish Audit Bureau: Stockholm. Skolverket (2003) Listing godkända skolor per inriktning/bidrag enligt/profil [List of approved schools according to profile], www.skolverket.se/friskola03 [accessed 22 September 2003].

Sally Boyd

179

SOU, 1974:69, Invandrarutredningen 3. Invandrarna och minoriteterna [The official inquiry into immigration 3. Immigrants and minorities]. Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet [Department of Labour]: Stockholm. SOU, 1997:192, Steg mot en minoritetspolitik, Europarådets konvention om historiska minoritetsspråk [Steps Toward a Minority Policy, The Council of Europe Convention on Regional and Minority Languages]. Fritzes Offentliga Publikationer: Stockholm. SOU, 1997:193, Steg mot en minoritetspolitik, Europarådets konvention för skydd av nationella minoriteter [Steps Toward a Minority Policy, The Council of Europe Framework Convention for Protection of National Minorities]. Fritzes Offentliga Publikationer: Stockholm. SOU, 2002:27, Mål i mun, Förslag till handlingsprogram för svenska språket [Draft Action Programme for the Swedish Language]. Fritzes offentliga publikationer: Stockholm (also available at www.kultur.regeringen.se/ propositionermm/sou/pdf/).

9 Language Maintenance and the Second Generation: Policies and Practices Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels The University of Western Australia

Introduction A focus on language maintenance for the second generation in transnational or diasporic contexts evokes discourses about the threats and challenges to linguistic diversity in the face of generational change and concomitant rhetoric of nationalism and social integration. In this chapter, we examine the institutional or policy-based discourses as well as the individual experience-based voices surrounding language maintenance for children of migrating sojourners to Australia. Frequently known as the second generation, they are seen to link the past and the future in numerous ways: as carriers of cultural histories and knowledge directly passed ‘down’ from the first generation, as bodies of integration into, or social cohesion of, the new society. The pivotal nature of the link is demonstrated in the ways in which the second generation are seen as threats or challenges to language maintenance as well as potential transformers for bi/multilingualism and linguistic diversity. Furthermore, the second generation are part of the broader sociocultural and historical landscape, attracting meanings about separation, distinction and difference. Reconsidering the spaces, or locales, occupied by the second-generation migrant/first-generation local (referred to as local second generation in our discussion) has been linked to ‘third spaces’ (Brah, 1996) or hybridity (Hall, 1992) for diasporic populations.

The authors would like to acknowledge the members of the Greek and German immigrant communities in Melbourne and the community research assistants who helped us with the research including Ms Jane B., Ms Connie Giannicos, Ms Tina Isaakidis, and Dr Andrea Truckenbrodt. 180

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

181

Their parents’ journeys and experiences remain relevant to the consideration of their language maintenance practices and attitudes together with prevailing discourses of their locale – Australia – and, potentially, discursive construction of new third spaces that contextualize their language maintenance alignments and identities. The challenges for language policy and the maintenance of minority languages in Australia are numerous and these have been outlined in other contributions to this book (see especially Chapters 2, 5 and 8). The perspectives presented have been largely macro ones focusing on the socio-historical and geopolitical aspects of policy formulation in various sites including Sweden, Norway and Australia (see Chapters 2, 5, 7 and 8 in this book). The primary data used to research the demography of minority languages and ethnolinguistic communities are population statistics drawn from Census collections and large-scale surveys. Discussions based on these data have analysed some aspects of the language practices (use of English, use of community languages) of the local second generation (see Clyne, 1991, 2005; Clyne and Kipp, 1997) revealing insights into the processes of language shift to the dominant language of their ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu, 1992). Here we present a synthesis of institutional, that is policy-based, ‘topdown’ discourses as well the ‘voices of the local second generation’ about their discursive identities and alignments. Our theoretical framing draws upon Bakhtin’s (1981) notions that the discursive and heteroglossic nature of society is constructed through individuals’ articulation of social ‘voices’. These voices are grounded in social and temporal practices and spaces. Considering institutional and individual voices creates a snapshot of the discursive struggles the local second generation face in various broader socio-historical settings. In particular, we focus on the planning and policy components of their language maintenance practices, that is language learning and linguistic capital in relation to this generation. In addition, we argue that the discursive voices articulated by local second generation bilingual women and men reflect their positioning or alignments (Goffman, 1981) about language maintenance and community language use in the Australian immigrant context. Consideration of the institutional voices provides a historical trace through, or a temporal perspective of, Australia’s language policies. However, the traces, as we shall show, of these voices do not ‘cease’ operating but leak across the dominant periods or stages of policy positions and alignments about language maintenance. The social voices resonate across time, frequently taking up alternative presentations and meanings. For example, in the discussion below we highlight one aspect of the

182

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

voice of assimilation: the silencing of minority language vocalizations in public spaces and the lack of tolerance for difference. However, we can also find evidence of this imperative for silencing ‘other’ voices present in the voices of inclusion and voices of pragmatism. The silencing or muting has been transformed from an outsider–insider oppositional condemnation (in the earlier policy voice) to one that is in-group but cross-generational (see Example 3). In language shift, maintenance and contact research the participants in the initial migration journey, usually labelled the first generation, have been seen traditionally as the carriers of homeland or originating linguistic and cultural identities as well as practices. Consequently, the local second generation is ‘interesting’ as they have been assumed to reflect the metaphor of ‘vessels of vulnerability’ (losing the home language skills and hence potential for language shift and/or language attrition), and are seen as problematic in terms of the contestation of cultural–linguistic difference and eroding bilingualism. Embracing consideration of new ‘third’ spaces (Brah, 1996) and associations of hyphenated belongings and hybridity (Hall, 1992), we reframe the language maintenance alignments of the local second generation. Through this we contribute to ensuring that questions of ethnolinguistic identities and the sociolinguistics of language contact are critically positioned within and across research traditions interested in the study of migration and belonging. We see our micro-based critical sociolinguistics as providing scenarios for more detailed and localized discussions of language identities assisting in identifying, and refining, planning opportunities and framing substantive arguments in the development of Australia’s language policies.

Participants The participant voices framing the discussion of language maintenance identities in transnational contexts have been drawn from numerous interviews and ethnographies undertaken in Australia in the 1990s (see Pauwels, 1995; Winter and Pauwels, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2006). This research has investigated the practices of various linguistically and culturally diverse speakers from a range of migrant backgrounds and histories in the late twentieth century. As this chapter is largely exploratory, we want to highlight some of these discourses but we are wary of generalizing their specific experiences and practices for all transnational families. However, we do assess the implications and consequences for the development of language strategies and policies

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

183

aimed at ensuring linguistic diversity with some mechanism for ensuring language maintenance. The participants referred to in this chapter are presented in Table 9.1 highlighting the biographical elements stressed by the participants themselves. Table 9.1 Participants included in the case study Pseudonym Brief biography Anna

She migrated to Australia in the 1970s from Germany after marrying a German-Australian whom she met in Australia while on an adventure with a girlfriend (first generation).

Christa

Her German/English bilingualism has included (disrupted) formal study and she is insistent that her children (local third generation) maintain their German heritage and language.

Connie

She actively promotes Greek language and culture through her community work and works as a private Greek language tutor in addition to her teaching role at a Greek Secondary College.

Elena

Describes herself as a Greek-Australian. She was an interviewer with Greek/Australian participants (local second generation).

Heinz

He is a German-Australian with pride in his cultural heritage interested in speaking German but with very limited opportunities and is more comfortable in English.

Helga

She is a local second-generation Australian with grown children who are now attempting to raise their children (local fourth generation) bilingually with German.

Hilda

Her maintenance of German is not important to her but she uses it with her bilingual friends to gossip and construct privacy from ‘others’ in public spaces.

Jane

She is a local second-generation German-Australian who carried out some of the interviews with German/Australian participants

Jurgen

He is a member of a transnational family who has lived in Australia and Germany for extended periods of time. He has maintained literacy in German as part of his Australian-German identity.

Marlis

Being a bilingual Australian is central to her life. As a girl, she used German with her grandmother who came to Australia for extended periods, and as a married woman she uses German as a lingua franca with her husband’s German-French-speaking relatives.

Max

He says he is an Australian with German heritage. His use of German is limited: some conversations with his parents and occasional use in the workplace with German–English-speaking bilinguals.

Michael

He says he is proud to be both Greek and Australian. His bilingualism, in various traces, is found in most aspects of his life – family, friends, workplace.

184

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

Table 9.1 (Continued) Pseudonym Brief biography Sabine

She sees her choice as a German-speaking bilingual Australian to be her responsibility, with only residues of contact in the family setting, and as such seeks out opportunities to improve her own linguistic competencies.

Vasilis

As a Greek-Australian, he persists with using Greek, despite recognition of limited skills and literacy, in order to maintain closeness to, and membership of, the Melbourne Greek community.

Werner

He says he is a German-Australian with many similar local second generation friends, but interaction is strictly English only.

The absent voice: Linguistic assimilation In the immediate post-war period, which saw the greatest influx of migrants from non-English language communities, migration and settlement philosophies were directed at the rapid assimilation of the new arrivals into Australia’s predominantly Anglo-Celtic/Anglo-Saxon oriented society. Linguistic assimilation was the official discourse of the day, and this was to be achieved through a range of explicit and implicit strategies rather than through policy development. They included the provision of some English language learning assistance to adult migrants such as the home tutor scheme, English at work and evening classes. Such provisions were seldom extended to child migrants and children of migrants who were believed to be able to pick up English in the playground and at school. Implicit but often more pernicious ways to achieve linguistic assimilation among migrants came in the guise of advice expressed by representatives of powerful institutions (migration officers, health professionals, social workers, teachers and school principals) that parents should abandon speaking their own language to their children and switch to English as the language of the home. This switch was ‘promoted’ to facilitate their children’s, and also their own integration (read assimilation) into Australian society. The following extract (Example 1) from an interview with Anna, a first-generation participant, exemplifies how this voice of assimilation affected the personal and private discourses of the migrants. Example 11 Anna: [possibly but it wasn’t a] conscious a I mean the wish to assimilate I don’t know whether that was a very conscious thing but I know all of our friends    that they learned English very quickly and

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

Jane: Anna: Jane: Anna: Jane: Anna: Jane: Anna:

185

I would say that in six months they could converse in English quite well and we even spoke to each other in English Okay we stopped really using German yes    hum you obviously didn’t have any children when you came to Australia No Hum you hum, hum    did    did you speak hum German to your children hum when [they were born] [when they were] born = = yes I did when they were little they could only speak German    hum but I stopped that because I started to work and it was very difficult to find anyone who could understand them

This push to shift to English was obviously very powerful for Anna, and for her migration cohort, as she mentions speaking English with the friends she had migrated with quite quickly, in six months, after settling in Australia. Interestingly, she resisted the assimilationist push in her familial setting once she became a mother. She comments that her children, the local second generation, could only speak German. The later shift to English was necessitated because of the unavailability of bilingual, or at least German speaking, childcare workers rather than because of the pressure to assimilate for ideological or social reasons. Anna reported in a voice of assimilation her extended private interactions, with friends, but in her immediate family the voice of inclusion dominated her language of mothering. However, it was the prevalent voice of assimilation, English in childcare, that prompted her to adopt the voice of pragmatism for bilingualism with a shift to English for raising her children (these additional voices are elaborated in following sections). Another powerful strategy constructed as the voice of assimilation was the negative reactions to the speaking of other languages in public and semi-public settings. Example 2 Helga: I did not really suffer a lot of resentment but I could feel it I once walked along with my girl friend    er in St Kilda somewhere I can’t even recall but a main street in St Kilda and we were talking in German but we weren’t talking loudly we were just talking to each other and this couple said to us ‘look at those bloody Germans/’ and I turned around and I said ‘and what are you a bloody Australian?’

186

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

In Example 2, Helga remembers an intimate and personal context I once walked along with my girlfriend when she was confronted by the racist voice Look at those bloody Germans. In this case, she adopted the structure of the insult in her retort And what are you a bloody Australian, mirroring the expletive and the emphasis on nationality. The use of the German language even if private for a dyadic interaction is subject to condemnation in public streetscapes, in this case an area, St Kilda, known for its tourism and population diversity even in the 1970s. This confrontation can be constructed as contrasting insider (belonging, Australian) and outsider (foreigner, German) status and reinforcing the embargo on public articulation of languages other than English. This kind of racist taunt and intolerance is reported in many of our interviews and narratives all drawing upon belonging and foreigner or insider/outsider contradictions. In talk drawn from local second-generation participants, we find numerous examples that also express rejection and notions of integration and belonging. These voices are sited in the ‘time’ of the voice of inclusion and/or voice of pragmatism. One such example is illustrated in Example 3 in which Vasilis collaborates with Elena (the interviewer) about hushing voices of difference in public settings. Example 3 Vasilis: well if you’re out and something comes up to you and you start some thia2 starts screaming her head off in Greek when you’re in Safeway and you’re trying to buy fruit [@@] Elena: <@@yeah@@> [@@] Reservations about performances in public spaces are evident in their talk about the avoidance of Greek and loudness in the supermarket. For these two second-generation Greeks (Vasilis and Elena) the ‘voices’ of the first generation woman in a public space needs to be hushed and conforming. Example 3 is situated in the time where the dominant institutional discourse is one of the voice of inclusion (see below). In this multilingual/multicultural context, we have previously identified that for second-generation Greek men, authority and respect can be located within the use and maintenance of Greek (Winter and Pauwels 2005, 2006). A key voice for these second generation men is an imperative for obligatory oralities and their use of Greek, even if the only Greek used is an exhortative honorific thio. These oralities for masculine Greek identities are not extended to Greek femininities. Loudness is gendered. Women, particularly older first-generation women, are ‘shaming’ for the local second generation with their loud performances in public urban spaces. Thus the assimilation discourses through the voice of assimilation persist

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

187

with a changed context of cross- or inter-generational difference and articulated voices in public spaces in the space afforded to voices of inclusion in policy discourses. In the era of the voice of assimilation, there was little room for maintaining, appreciating or tolerating linguistic diversity. Similarly, there was no consideration of the maintenance of migrant languages beyond the first generation through any form of institutional assistance, that is bilingual schooling or community language learning in schools. Within the context of an assimilationist migrant settlement philosophy the institutional treatment and positioning of child migrants and migrant children in relation to language was marked by complexity and contradiction: on the one hand, such children were considered linguistic ‘sponges’ who could soak up English naturally (without a need to eliminate previous linguistic fluids) and thus become models of linguistic assimilation. On the other hand, their bilingualism and skills in the migrant language came in ‘handy’ when authorities needed to communicate with the first generation, whose English language skills were insufficient for these types of interaction. Although never endorsed officially, children were frequently used as translators and interpreters for their parents and others in interactions with various authorities. Their bilingualism was simultaneously denied and valued as a temporary asset by Australian institutions. By implication there was no need to provide such children with the opportunity to maintain or enhance their language skills in the context of education. Interestingly, our data does not reveal any rememberings of these contexts for illustration. During this period, another negative voice or discourse – that of unfair advantage – started to emerge. Initially it was confined to German and German language migrants (e.g., Clyne, 2005): migrant children who had a background in German were able to undertake German language study at school but were subjected to very different examination procedures as they would otherwise have an unfair advantage (such procedures were not extended to migrant children in relation to English).

The emergent voice: Moving towards valuing multilingualism Following the failure of the assimilationist approach to migrant settlement we see an emergence of ethnic lobby and migrant action groups which take on board among many other issues the question of community language learning as well as English language provision for child migrants. There is no doubt that these groups assisted by some professional language associations successfully put the expansion of school-based language learning

188

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

on various state government agendas. By the early 1980s, there was an increase in the number of community languages available in state-funded day schools (mainly secondary although also some primary schools). Some states, notably Victoria and South Australia, also moved to the provision of a large number of community languages (currently around 40) through state-funded or state-sponsored after-school programmes. Although these programmes were always open to any student wishing to pursue language study to Year 12, they did boost the chances of migrant children and child migrants to maintain their home language or to acquire literacy in the home language. Example 4 Christa: Well we – it was compulsory in high school for us to do German Anna: mm [for how long] Christa: [till year eight/] and then I thought I’d carry on with it by year nine I got sick of it but Dad made me carry on until the end of year ten – with my brother he said year eight, after it was finished being compulsory he didn’t have to carry on but with me he made me carry on, I dropped it because I didn’t like the way it was being taught at school um In Example 4, Christa reports on the introduction of compulsory second language learning in her school. The compulsory nature ended in year eight meaning that the learning of another language was compulsory for two years in her secondary school. In her case the language available was German, and she indicates the gendered nature of parental insistence she encountered in the study, and therefore maintenance, of her home language when her father made me carry on until year ten while her brother was able to discontinue study of German after it finished being compulsory. Of major significance in the emergent voice was the legitimization of several ethnic/community languages as matriculation subjects in many states and territories of Australia. This gave members of the local second generation the opportunity to study their home language for educational credit. It also signalled the maintenance or expansion of bilingualism. Notwithstanding the growing positive disposition towards community language learning, there continued to be some hesitation about valuing the community language skills children of migrants brought to the classroom. These were often judged to be outdated, corrupted and deficient and therefore not to be seen as an asset but as a barrier to learning. In most cases these judgements were made out

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

189

of ignorance or lack of in-depth linguistic knowledge. Sometimes they were the result of teachers and others feeling threatened that the presence of background speakers may expose their own limited skills in the language. Prior to federal and state language policy developments the provision of language, and cultural, schooling for the local second generation had been the sole province of the ethnic community and of affiliated churchbased institutions. The Greek community is one that has established a strong tradition in this regard, particularly in Melbourne as documented by many historians and political writers (for details, see Tamis, 2005). Often missing from these accounts are the voices of the local second generation about their experiences and about the linguistic competencies gained. In Example 5, Michael reports his experiences learning Greek in such settings and reflects on the place of speaking, learning and looking Greek in the construction of authentic identities. Example 5 Michael: yeah it was just so that what really turned me off everything about being Greek for a while because it was er it was just so [xxx] it really Elena: [mm] Michael: trivialised being Greek because th they would be forcing this stuff down your throat    and you it made you think ‘this isn’t what I want to be this is you know this is like. punishment’ Elena: @@@ Michael: [<@that’s what it was@>] Elena: [@@] Michael: And then there was the other stuff that I because I don’t look particularly Greek I’d get there and I’d get shit hung on me    by my fellow Greeks and I’d think ‘hell shut up!’ Elena: <@mm@> Michael: but um you know that was weird and I really hated it but like I said now I wish I had learnt I’d continued but not where I was = Elena: = Mm = Michael: = I wish I’d gone to one of the um private schools which were apparently hell on earth but the. um. the people that I know that went there know the language really well Michael voices his remembered experience through the historical present combining the present tense and the locale of the Greek school

190

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

as this, rather than that – this isn’t what I want to be this is you know this is like punishment. His voice is a spoken interactive one complete with discourse markers of inclusivity with the hearer you know – and the youth marker of positioning like. Interestingly, the like marker would probably not have been so used in the times of his youth but is appropriated here in the animated authoring of a young man’s experiences. The interviewer Elena joins in the remembering through co-shared laughter, but Michael elaborates that fitting into the mould of doing Greekness included looking the part. Michael reports getting shit hung on me, a very Australian English narrative device of colloquial understatement with expletive. Again he animates his frustration through voicing with added loudness qualities ‘hell shut up’. This merging of Australian English and Greek linguistic identities reflects the dissatisfaction with what was constructed as Greek it really trivialised being Greek and his lack of contemporary linguistic skill. The alternative private schools were clearly hell on earth but graduates appear to have maintained Greek better than Michael. His performativity of the local second generation has a desired Greekness despite his youthful efforts to resist and his inability to gain automatic inclusion because of his appearance. The provision of language learning is dictated by constructions of Greekness that are contested by local second-generation expectations and experiences. The institutional emergent voice did not necessarily comply with the desired identities and language maintenance alignments for the local second generation.

The voice of inclusion: Valuing the linguistic capital and resources of the Australian community The voice of inclusion promoted the valuing of the linguistic resources of all sectors of the Australian community with the formulation and implementation of a national policy of languages (NLP) (Lo Bianco, 1987). The value of languages was seen to lie in providing cultural and intellectual enrichment, generating economic benefits, enhancing social cohesion and facilitating strategic responses to global issues. Language learning was seen to be a key to achieving these benefits. The NLP formally recognized the wealth of linguistic resources available in Australia through its linguistically diverse population. It endorsed the maintenance of these linguistic resources through government-funded educational initiatives. This was of major benefit to the local second generation whose bilingual skills were considered valuable and worthy of maintaining.

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

191

The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP) implemented in the early 1990s (for more information, see Chapters 5 and 8) continued to endorse these principles although the emphasis in terms of community language learning through the voice of inclusion shifted from maintenance to acquisition. Subsequent policy statements at both federal and state level continued to display similar trends with regard to support for and attitude towards community language learning. On a macro-level this meant that language programmes geared to language maintenance (excluding indigenous language programmes) were increasingly seen to be the province and the responsibility of the communities themselves (i.e., implying to some extent a return to the pre-policy days). Instead, the ‘ab-initio’ learning of another language or the learning of a language by non-background speakers was foregrounded often in implicit rather than explicit ways. The impact of this shift on accommodating the linguistic needs and skills of second generation was mixed. In Example 6, Connie reflects on her experiences as a language teacher in public education in relation to her expectations as a second-generation Greek Australian who had attended Saturday Greek school in her youth, and the success of mainstreaming Greek in schools. Example 6 Connie: something, it’s, I don’t know I I suppose it doesn’t work very well in schools of what I’ve seen. I’ve    what I’ve seen, of teaching like a second language within the English, schools so [it was probably biased] = Elena: [you don’t think it works] = Connie: = no. no not at all    I mean. you know. children will pick up a couple [of words] but they’re not going to learn Greek Elena: [Mm] Connie suggests that the introduction of community languages into mainstream schools does not match with her expectations about knowing, and therefore maintaining, a language, in this case Greek. In the case of some migrant groups the impact of these policies and initiatives was negligible because the second generation had almost completely lost all skills in the home language (e.g., Dutch and other northern European migrant groups) partly as a result of the linguistic assimilation period. In the case of others, the impact was more substantial either because the language in question was no longer offered in mainstream education (though it may still be available through after-school

192

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

programmes funded or subsidized by the state) or their background knowledge was seen as constituting an unfair advantage vis-à-vis those without a background in the language. We will take this up in the next section.

Voices of pragmatism, economic rationalism and national security: Selective valuing of multilingualism Current institutional voices concerning community language learning continue to be complex and ambivalent especially in relation to valuing the linguistic capital of the second generation. The concurrent discourses of pragmatism, ‘economic rationalism’ and that of national security have affected how community language learning should be approached. Pragmatism and economic rationalism constantly put pressure on the number of languages that can be reasonably sustained within an educational context. Although the NLP had introduced the notion of key languages with a recommendation for the identification of nine such languages at national level, subsequent policy statements became more selective in the choice of languages which should be prioritized and supported (e.g., National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS)). Similarly, schools increasingly argue that sustaining more than one or two community languages is not financially viable. The question of which languages to offer in schools is increasingly answered using economic arguments: those languages which benefit Australia’s economic situation. Hence major Asian languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian were promoted in addition to a few European languages especially French, Spanish and German. Languages perceived as lacking this economic importance for Australia tend to be the ones whose status as school languages is precarious and/or is constantly reviewed. This approach has had differential impacts on the local second generation (of school age). In some cases this approach has boosted the opportunity for some groups to study their ‘home’ language at school (e.g., Chinese) although not always without problems as alluded to in the previous section: that is background speakers are seen as having an unfair advantage or background speakers do not possess skills in the ‘standard’ language variety. For others its impact is barely felt as there are either few school-aged members of the second generation or few who still have community language skills (e.g., Dutch, Polish). In yet other cases (e.g., Vietnamese) the impact is quite substantial as there is a growing number of local second generation who still have skills in the ‘home’ language.

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

193

In earlier work we identified a discursive position: the Intellectualisation of Bilingualism (Winter and Pauwels, 2005), to refer to the local second-generation alignments to language maintenance and transmission for future generations. This discursive alignment orients to the advantages of and uses for a second language with differing degrees of commitment to transmission of the community language. This discursive alignment shows clear clinks with the voice of pragmatism. The base-line position for all participants is that second-language learning should be compulsory for all students but they diverge in the extent to which these alignments mirror the voice of pragmatism. For example, a disengagement with the community language and ethnolinguistic histories was evident in the discourses of the German men and some German women: in their support for second-language learning, and language maintenance, pragmatic rather than identity reasons dominate. They were keen for their children (actual or future) to learn something of German culture from their grandparents (the first generation) but they would not necessarily use German themselves. Staying within a skills and instrumental approach, some German participants argued for bilingualism without links to their heritage language (i.e., not compulsory and a non-agentive role for the participants) but through formal education (compulsory participation). However, there are reasons for which language to study and the nature of the learning environment differ (see Examples 7 and 8). Example 7 Hilda: Um, I wouldn’t put a definite answer as to say German alone I    would push them to learn languages because in today’s society it’s a benefit to know a few languages. I prob probably would say Japanese and German because they’re the two most dominating languages in the world um    Example 8 Sabine: But I don’t agree with the fact like we have lots of kids at or school who are Greek or Cambodian, and they have to go for about four hours every weekend    and they’ve got a lot of homework as well    and I don’t think that’s fair to a six year old or a seven year old, I think that’s just overkill with the language    I think it should be on a much more relaxed basis    it might be a language class or like we have commun    communal language at our school the Spanish where the kids

194

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

learn it at school and it’s not really rammed down their throats, I think there is an extreme to learning a second language and I think in some pl- in some cases it’s not done the right way    The voice of pragmatism constructed through Hilda’s comments reveals a voice of choice and the need to consider the economic and international status of languages and their benefit for future generations. Different reasons provoke Sabine’s comments about language choice in formal learning and community-based opportunities. For her, education values and the role of ‘in-school’ as the appropriate place of learning are supported by her pragmatic approach to children’s timetable of activities and responsibilities. Sabine illustrates that it is a community language taught in her children’s school (primary level) but not represented to any great extent among the school community population. Extra-curricular community language education is seen as onerous and unnecessary for young children, despite the acknowledgement that the out-of-school learning is intimately linked to specific identities and belongings Greek and Cambodian, two languages not available in their local school. The discursive position – Intellectualisation of Bilingualism – also comprised variations: positions that advocated strong activism for the maintenance and use of the community language (Greek men and some Greek women); or that favour, non-compulsory community language knowledge as part of preferred bilingualism; as well as positions that insist the intellectualization needs to be grounded in community language schooling. As part of the Intellectualization of Bilingualism, participants frequently exemplified their concerns about competency and use, changing opportunities for talk and the nature of social and personal change – moving away from parents, entering the workplace and the impact of technology – with reference to literacies of the community language. Formal instruction is a highly contentious issue for the Greek participants (see Winter and Pauwels, 2000, 2006). A few Greek participants hold strong views about the imperative for their children to know and use Greek as part of their bilingualism. Whilst the local second generation’s own experiences with learning Greek through ethnic schools, after-hours programmes or out-of-school programmes were mixed and a source of much debate, they do express the view that they would like to see the third generation exposed to formal language instruction to attain literacy in Greek. Interestingly the more recent public discourses of national security resulting from global terrorism threats complicate the previous

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

195

discourses with regard to the choice of languages to be studied. Some languages of strategic importance in this context (e.g., Arabic) are also community languages with significant numbers of young speakers (often Australian-born or local second generation). The complicated politicized interaction between ethnicity, language, nationality and national allegiance has meant that the significant linguistic capital and the bilingual skills of the local second generation associated with some of these languages have been, or are being, ignored because of questions of national allegiance.

Hyphenated belongings and voices of the local second generation In previous sections, we have documented the voices of the local second generation in specific contexts that illustrate, support and/or contest the temporalities of the institutional voices – voice of assimilation, the emergent voice, the inclusive voice and the voice of pragmatism – presented in a socio-historical progression or overview. We noted that the demarcation of institutional voices at the policy level was not necessarily mapped in an orderly fashion with those of the individual voices. Discourses of particular ‘time-periods’ recur across other institutional voices. It is also the case that some of the institutional voices get performed with different meanings and function to construct difference along various dimensions, for example generation, time, space. In this final section, we join with some of the voices from the academy which argue that space is the relevant concept for issues of identities and change (e.g., Fortier, 2000; Foucault, 1986) to see how new spaces, or at least how space is being recreated and (re)constructed for the local second generation. These ‘new’ spaces should not be understood as ‘domains’ (Fishman, 1970), a concept used in sociolinguistic descriptions of linguistic diversity and bi/multilingualism to refer to situations or places of language use. Here we discuss briefly two such spaces: friendship and transnational family mobility. Commentary about social organization in contemporary (post)modernity has highlighted the transformations to personal relationships and suggested that friendship is of increasing significance (e.g., Giddens, 1992). Friendship-based relationships are replacing many traditional forms of family relations, partnering and transnational movement of peoples and may ‘represent the relational genre of the future’ (O’Connor, 1992: 8). For the local second generation the friendship spaces open up the gaps between family and community language practices.

196

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

As part of the re-conceptualization for space we also explore the notion of hybridity and hyphenated belongings. Hyphenated belongings, for example Vietnamese-, Greek-, German-Australians, construct varying language maintenance alignments that reflect the evoking of shared histories and authenticities (the migration experience) and the localizing of settlement (Australia). In earlier work, we have highlighted the place of hyphenated belongings for the local second generation and their bilingualism in the co-presence of bilingual friends (Winter and Pauwels, 2006). Our discussion shifts the orientation from the presence and/or availability of bilingual friends to one which considers the spaces these local second-generation women and men occupy for purposes of doing friendship in bilingual settings. For example, the interviews with German women revealed that German was certainly not the dominant or only language used with friends but that it nevertheless featured frequently. The following excerpts illustrate the contexts of use of German with friends for the women. Example 9 Sabine: I find I am speaking German more to other people than to than to my family and my parents these days Example 10 Hilda: if I’m out with a girlfriend we can speak German, so we’re not understood by the shopkeeper or whoever Example 11 Marlis: with our friends for instance    when w we go out, and we have a lot of German background friends where I’ll slip in a German word and they’ll cack themselves laughing coz they think <@its absolutely hysterical@> These brief excerpts provide an indication that German women use German with their friends because opportunities to speak German with friends rather than family are to some extent more prevalent (Example 9). The use of German provides some security and secrecy from outsiders, particularly in transnational settings (Example 10) and it allows for the performance of humour and joking, and the establishing of shared histories and experiences (Example 11).

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

197

Co-presence of bilingual others in friendships proves to be a minimum but not sufficient condition for language maintenance. A striking example is to be found in the friendship spaces of local secondgeneration German men. They argue that their limited competencies and fluency of expression lead them to avoid using German. For example, when asked if he spoke German with his peer group Heinz states I would not speak to them in German (German/English bilingual male same-age peers) and Jurgen likewise says No in response to the same question. Max argues that he would avoid German and use English because I really just don’t feel confident enough/I have a friend who speaks it fluently and Werner also incorporates skills and evaluation of his use of German when he says not not fluently but fairly well I can understand it fairly well but he avoids speaking it except with his parents. Oral language use may expose the lack of skill and increase the risk to the discourse of masculinity. Shifts to English in the oral performances reflect the German men’s confidence in their English language skills and a consequent reduction in risk to their performances of masculinity. These discourses show that accounting for the non-use or decreasing use of German as simply a lack of competency overlooks the crucial elements associated with the masculinities of orality and performance for these German men as they take up friendship spaces among hyphenated peers. They report privileging English over German even with skilled German-speaking friends. Clearly the masculinities of oral performance in peer interaction mean compulsory shifts to English-speaking positions. For these men, social practices around the performance of self in interaction with others leads to a silencing or muting of their community language voices. We have proposed that these discourses effectively construct a Masculinities of muting (Winter and Pauwels, 2005, 2006). We advocate augmenting the dynamics of co-presence with issues of hyphenated belonging to provide insights into language maintenance alignments and constraints. Impacting upon the local second generation and their language maintenance alignments is the force of transnationalism (Vertovec, 1999) and its reconstruction of ‘home’ and ‘away’ spaces. The potential relevance of this space is strengthened and reinforced in recent research on Australian diaspora which highlights the increasing transnational mobility of this group of Australians. According to Hugo et al. (2003) the Australian ‘diaspora’ is the second largest of the English language nations and stands at 4.3 per cent of the population. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade figures of 2002 estimated the number of Australians (citizens) living overseas on a long-term basis to be around 9,00,000. The majority

198

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

of Australia’s diaspora, which includes a significant number of the local second generation, are highly educated professionals often undertaking extensive transnational travel and residencies. Other Australian research (e.g., Baldassar, 2001) echoes the increasing transnational mobility of this group triggered by a variety of reasons including care for ageing relatives and career opportunities. In our interviews, we also find evidence that language maintenance is an imagined ‘reason’ for transnational families (see Example 12). Transnational movements in relation to education, work, leisure and familial networks mean that settlement locales are reconsidered in discourses of (be)longing and language maintenance practices (Winter and Pauwels, 2005). In Example 12, we hear from Connie who as part of her Intellectualization of Bilingualism discourse argues that a transnational family might be the most opportune and realistic space for her children to engage with language maintenance. Example 12 Elena:

mm, so you’re thinking of going to, like would you bring up are you thinking of bringing up your children in Greece Connie: I would like [that very much] Elena: [for that] reason yeah yeah Connie: especially when they are becoming teenagers in their teenage years Elena: so that they can, you know, maintain, are more able to maintain the language Connie: yeah the language and the culture [the culture especially]

Concluding remarks In this paper, we have documented the dominant institutional voices – the assimilationist voice, the emergent voice, the inclusive voice and the voice of pragmatism – characterizing Australia’s policies towards linguistic diversity, language maintenance and language education. We demonstrated how they limited or enhanced opportunities for the maintenance of minority/community languages especially for the local second generation. Concurrent with these institutional voices we presented individual voices of the local second generation to illustrate the ways in which the former voices were realized, ignored or opposed. We opted for a linear and a temporally based presentation of these four ‘dominant’ voices as this matched and mapped the developments

Joanne Winter and Anne Pauwels

199

of Australia’s language policies in the late twentieth century. However we drew attention to the fact that the institutional voices merge and overlap, and even persist despite substantial time passing. It is also the case that the discursive functions of the persistent voices, most notably the voice of assimilation, change and occupy new spaces. Most recently, the voice of pragmatism has been taken up through a discursive position about the Intellectualization of Bilingualism that the local second generation embrace or resist, most commonly along gendered, ethnolinguistic group membership. In the final section of the discussion, we adopted an alternative perspective, one that is gaining prominence in the study of migration and transnationalism, a space-based context, to look at the voices of new (third) spaces. The local second generation and their hyphenated belongings pursue language maintenance alignments for themselves and for their ‘imagined’ children, and children’s children, in consideration of heritage rememberings, transnational possibilities, educational opportunities and the emergence of alternative relationships, such as friendship, dominating the community landscape.

Notes 1. Transcription conventions

Name Bold ‘Voice’ : ? / = @  . <>

Participants increased loudness quoted talk/voices speaker turn questioning intonation rising intonation latched talk laughter overlapping talk pause enclosed suprasegmental information.

2. thia = Aunty used as an honorific in Greek.

References Bakhtin, M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination, trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. University of Texas Press: Austin. Baldassar, L. (2001) Visits Home: Migration Experiences Between Italy and Australia. Melbourne University Press: Melbourne.

200

Language Maintenance and the Second Generation

Bourdieu, P. (1992) Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press: Boston. Brah, A. (1996) Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. Routledge: London. Clyne, M. (1991) Community Languages: The Australian Experience. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Clyne, M. (2005) Australia’s Language Potential. University of New South Wales Press: Sydney. Clyne, M. and S. Kipp (1997) ‘Trends and changes in home language use and shift in Australia 1986–1996’. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18, 6: 451–73. Fishman, J.A. (1970) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction. Rowley, Newbury House: MA. Fortier, A.-M. (2000) Migrant Belongings: Memory, Space, Identity. London: Berg. Foucault, M. (1986) ‘Of other spaces’, trans. J. Miskowicz, Diacritics, 16: 22–27. Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Polity Press: Cambridge. Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Blackwell: Oxford. Hall, S. (1992) ‘New ethnicities’. In J. James and A. Rattanis (eds) Race, Culture and Difference. Sage: London, pp. 252–59. Hugo, G., Rudd, D. and Harris, K. (2003) Australia’s Diaspora: Its Size, Nature and Policy Implications. CEDA Information Paper No 80, December 2003. Lo Bianco, J. (1987) National Policy on Languages. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra. O’Connor, P. (1992) Friendship Between Women. A Critical Review. Harvester Wheatsheaf: London. Pauwels, A. (1995) ‘Linguistic practices and language maintenance among bilingual women and men in Australia’. Nordlyd, 23: 21–50. Tamis, A. (2005) Greeks in Australia. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Vertovec, S. (1999) ‘Conceiving and researching transnationalism’. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22, 2: 447–62. Winter, J. and Pauwels, A. (2000) ‘Gender and language contact research’. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 20: 508–22. Winter, J. and Pauwels, A. (2001) ‘A critical examination of the use of interviews in the study of immigrant language research in Australia’. Proceedings of the 2001 Congress of the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia http://www.slie.canberra.edu.au/ALAA/ALAA_Published/Papers/. Winter, J. and Pauwels, A. (2005) ‘Gender in the construction and transmission of ethnolinguistic identities and language maintenance in immigrant Australia’. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 25, 1: 153–68. Winter, J. and Pauwels, A. (2006) ‘The discourses of language maintenance in friendship practices among children of German, Greek and Vietnamese migrants’. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 18: 123–39.

Author Index Addison, A. F. P., 93 Al-Ali, N., 1 Alladina, S., 41, 42 Almenningen, O., 126 Anderson, B., 83, 84 Aveling, H., 110 Baker, P., 42 Bakhtin, M., 181 Baldassar, L., 2, 198 Baldauf, R., 113 Bianco, Lo J., 6, 88, 94, 95, 97, 101, 112, 118, 160, 162, 163, 168, 171, 190 Billig, M., 82, 141, 155 Blommaert, J., 85 Bot, de K., 64, 173 Bourdieu, P., 181 Boyd, S., 156, 157, 159, 174 Brah, A., 180, 182 Bratt Paulston, C., 148 Breitenstein, R., 67 Brock, P., 165 Broeder, P., 39, 41, 50 Bull, T., 5, 125, 130

Eriksen, K. E., 130 Eversley, J., 42 Extra, G., 34, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 50, 109 Fase, W., 42, 50 Fishman, J. A., 24, 31, 32, 84, 96, 97, 109, 195 Gellner, E., 83, 84 Giddens, A., 83, 195 Goebl, H.et al, 61, 63 Goffman, E., 181 Gogolin, I., 35, 50 Gorter, D., 37, 42 Grankvist, R., 125 Greenfeld, L., 80, 81 Greller, W., 129, 130 Grin, F., 73

Castles, S., 1 Caubet, D. et al, 42 Christ, H., 68 Churchill, S., 42 Clyne, M., 14, 17, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 39, 44, 101, 108, 109, 111, 112, 116, 143, 148, 160, 161, 163, 166, 168, 170, 174, 181, 187 Cohn-Bendit, D., 35 Curtain, H., 51

Haarmann, H., 63 Hætta, O. M., 130 Hall, S., 180, 182 Hamilton, M. et al, 93 Hansegård, N. E., 148 Hastings, A., 81 Haugen, E., 124, 126 Heath, S. B., 142 Hegelund, L., 141 Hobsbawm, E. J., 83, 84 Hoffman, C., 153 Hornberger, N., 109 Hugo, G. et al, 197 Husén, T., 42 Huss, L., 132, 134, 135, 145, 149, 151, 157, 159 Hyltenstam, K., 135, 171

Dawkins, J., 100

Ingleson, J., 113

Edwards, J., 30, 31, 32 Edwards, V., 42 Enloe, C. H., 79

Jahr, E. H., 126 Jaspaert, K., 42, 109 Jørgensen, J., 42 201

202

Author Index

Kipp S., 14, 17, 24, 26, 27, 28, 108, 116, 181 Kloss, H., 26 Koser, K., 1, 2 Kroon, S., 42, 109 Kruyt, A., 34 Kulbrandstad, L. A., 133, 136 Leal, et al, 113 Løland, S. et al, 153 Londen, Van S., 33 Mackinnon, K., 88 McLeod, W., 88, 90 Martin-Jones, M., 148 Martin, P. et al, 47 Mattheier, K., 64 May, S., 141 Melander, B., 154, 159, 162 Milani, T., 135 Moore, H., 86 Muller, W., 111 Municio, I., 147, 148 Nairn, M., 113 Nelde, P. et al, 62, 72 Nicholas, H. et al, 113 Nicholas, J., 41 Nicholls, C., 86 Niemi, E., 130 Niessen, J., 34 Nikolov, M., 51 Nygren-Junkin, L., 109 Oakes, L., 32, 33, 141, 145, 153, 156, 171, 174, 175 Obdeijn, H., 42, 50 Ochs, E., 142 O’Connor, P., 195 Oksaar, E., 63 Opper, S., 42 Otnes, P., 130 Ozolins, U., 86, 160, 163

Pauwels, A., 109, 120, 121, 182, 186, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198 Pennycook, A., 2 Phillipson, R., 50, 85, 153 Powney, J. et al, 93 Ravena, E., 131 Reich, H., 42, 50 Reid, E., 42, 50 Romaine, S., 148 Roosens, E., 31, 40 Ruijter, de A., 33 Ruiter, de J. J., 42, 50 Sammallahti, P., 129 Sara, Á., 129 Schmid, T., 35 Scott, P. H., 91 Secombe, M. J., 160, 170 Skutnabb-Kangas, T., 148, 163 Smolicz, J. J., et al, 28, 31, 160, 170 Stanley, J. et al, 168 Stoljar, M., 110 Stroud, C., 148 Tamis, A., 189 Taylor, C., 35 Tilmatine, M., 42, 50 Tollefson, J. W., 97 Tosi, A., 42 Trudgill, P., 124 Verhoeven, L., 34, 42, 109 Vermeulen, H., 40 Vertovec, S., 1, 197 Weltens, B., 173 White, P. et al, 118 Winter, J.182, 186, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198 Yagmur, K., 41, 42, 43, 45, 50

Subject Index

Akan, 18 Albanian, 18, 45, 136, 137, 150 Amharic, 18 ancestry, 21, 31, 39, 40, 80, 82, 107 Antilleans, 37 Arabic ancestry, 21, 85, 137 in education, 100, 109, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 137, 149, 150, 164, 167, 194 as an immigrant language, 42 language demography, 7, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 107, 108 language maintenance, 26, 108 as a national language, 33 Armenian, 18, 45 Asante, 18 assimilation, cultural and linguistic, 26, 34, 35, 65, 129, 130, 143, 145, 160, 161, 184–7, 195, 198, 199 Assyrian, 18 Australia 1996 Census, 13–29, 108 2001 Census, 3, 4, 13–29, 39, 40, 107, 108, 117 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander literacy, 163, 166 Australian Academy of the Humanities Report [AAH], 113, 114, 115, 118 Australian Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education [AACLAME], 164, 165 The Australian Language and Literacy Policy [ALLP], 100, 113, 165, 191 Australian Schools Strategy (NALSAS), 100, 102, 167, 168–70, 192 COAG, 100, 102, 103

Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools, 161 Migrant Education Action Committee, 161 National Policy on Languages [NLP], 6, 99, 112, 160–4, 190, 192 priority languages, 52, 102, 167 Victorian School of Languages, 53 White Australia Policy, 14 Australian Sign Language [AUSLAN], 99, 165 Basque, 3, 33 Belgium census, 5, 71, 72 language conflict, 70–1, 73 language demography, 42 language education, 48, 49 as a multilingual state, 69–70, 73, 143 Bengali, 18 Berber, 36, 45 bilingual education, 47, 101, 109, 148, 165 bilingual skills, 96, 190 bilingualism, 60, 69, 71, 86, 96, 97, 99, 126, 138, 146, 157, 170, 182, 185, 187, 188, 193–9 Bokmål, 126, 127, 130 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 64, 136, 146 Bosnian, 137 see also Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, Bosnian–Serbian–Croatian British Sign Language, 87, 94–5 Canada, 34, 39, 40, 69, 74 Cantonese in higher education, 109, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 121 language demography, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 107, 108

203

204

Subject Index

census collection of language data, 36, 39, 107 inclusion of language questions, 5, 107 see also Australia; Belgium; Canada; Great Britain Chinese ancestry, 21 communities, 36, 37, 169 in education, 93, 100, 111, 114, 115, 117, 167, 168, 169, 192 language demography, 37, 98 language vitality, 45 varieties, 14, 19, 109 see also Cantonese; Hakka; Mandarin; Teochew; Wu citizenship, 32, 34, 78, 82, 88, 93, 95, 102, 138 community language in citizenship, 95 defining characteristics of, 51, 101, 147 in education, 93, 94, 100, 101, 109–22, 161, 163, 168, 170, 187–8, 191, 192 language demography, 13–29, 98, 107, 108, 114 maintenance of, 113, 181 as national languages, 65 status of, 8, 143, 194 see also heritage, language community language teaching, 47–50, 112 community of speakers, 142 ‘complete’ language, 155 core values, 33, 35 Council of Europe administration and implementation of policy, 51, 53, 135, 150, 153, 163, 176 Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, 5, 86, 133, 134, 150, 163 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, 5, 81, 150

Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, Bosnian–Serbian–Croatian in education, 114, 115, 118, 121 language demography, 16, 19, 107, 108, 136, 150 vitality, 45 diaspora, 197 discrimination, 61, 68, 70, 72–3, 74, 100, 133, 156, 161 Dutch community language, 191, 192 in education, 48, 111 language demography, 3, 36, 37, 107, 108, 109 official language, 70 English as a global language, 2, 6, 8, 153, 165 as a global lingua franca, 2, 7, 35, 44, 46, 50, 52, 65, 120, 165, 166, 171 in education, 40, 46, 52, 86, 119, 125, 149, 150, 152, 184, 187 and globalization, 2, 153 language demography, 15, 17, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 39, 107, 181, 197 literacy, 93, 100, 101, 165 and migration, 26, 28, 29, 34, 96 official language, 32, 85, 96, 99 prestige/status of, 44, 46, 51, 68, 159 as a second/foreign language, 2, 7, 75, 87, 99, 125, 160, 164, 171 shift to, 24, 25, 90, 153, 156, 158, 162, 185, 197 spread and internationalization, 8, 152, 155 as a threat to, or loss of linguistic diversity, 8, 33, 87, 153, 171 Estonian, 149 ethnic group, 31, 37, 129, 170 ethnicity in census data collection, 39, 40, 41, 150 and identity, 31, 82 language demography, 37, 38, 39 and nationalism, 82, 83, 85, 195

Subject Index European Commission Action Plan 2004–2006, 51 Education across the EU 1993/4, 95, 97 Whitebook, 7, 51, 95 European Credit and Accumulation System, 121 European Union Charter of Regional and Minority Languages, 86, 96, 133, 150 Declaration on European Identity, 33 Euromosaic Report, 59–60, 62 impact of English as a global lingua franca, 7, 8 language demography, 4, 36–7, 42, 50, 62, 65, 97 and national languages, 33, 35, 51, 61, 65, 85, 87, 93, 155, 158 and provision of language education, 6, 7, 51 working languages of, 7, 8, 75 see also trilingualism exclusion, 34, 143, 156 family communication and community, 20, 142, 174, 195 migration and transnational movement, 16, 18, 24, 47, 59, 195, 198 transmission of language, 24, 28, 109 Farsi, 150 Fijian, 18 Filipino, 16, 17, 18, 24, 26, 27, 29, 107, 117, 119 see also Tagalog Finland, 129, 133, 143, 146, 174 Finnish, 47, 133, 134, 135, 149, 150, 151, 157, 164 France, 22, 23, 25, 42, 48, 49, 50, 63, 68, 74, 81, 82 French as a foreign language, 2, 7, 100 language demography, 16, 17, 21, 70, 98, 107, 108, 114, 160 language learning, 110, 149

205

language planning and policy, 62, 65, 71, 161, 170, 192 and language vitality, 45 as official language, 33, 50, 70, 93 nationalism and identity, 32 territoriality principle, 69 functions of language in nationalism authenticity function, 84–5, 96 efficiency function, 78, 79, 84–5, 96 unification function, 84, 96 Gaelic, see Scottish Gaelic gender, 186, 188, 199 German in education, 67, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 170, 187, 188, 193 and identity, 31, 32, 183, 184, 187–97 as an international language, 68 and language conflicts, 66, 68 language demography, 16, 17, 19, 66, 98, 108, 109, 116 maintenance of, 117, 184 as a minority language, 67, 68 as a national language, 70 primi inter pares, 62 status of, 72 vitality, 44, 45 Germany birthplace and language demography, 14, 22, 23, 25, 108, 146 immigrant minorities, 7, 14, 47, 66 language conflict, 63, 66, 67 language education, 49, 50 nation state and nationalism, 1, 7, 31, 32, 63, 66, 81, 82 globalization, 1–4, 7, 50, 60, 61, 78, 80, 83, 86, 92, 144, 173–5 gradualism, 126 Great Britain language and education, 41, 47, 61, 63, 67, 74, 136 Nuffield Report, 7, 93

206

Subject Index

Greek ancestry, 21 in education, 100, 111, 115, 116, 167, 189, 191, 194 and identity, 184, 186, 189, 190, 196 language conflict, 27 language demography, 3, 16, 19, 20, 108, 109 language maintenance, 26, 107, 108, 128, 186, 190, 191 language shift, 108 Hakka, 18 Hebrew, modern, 18, 133 heritage language, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95, 98, 101, 174, 193 see also community language Hindi, 16, 18, 19, 26, 107, 109, 115, 118, 121, 170 home language, 8, 13, 20, 37, 40–4, 47, 53, 114, 116–17, 137, 147, 149, 151, 153, 188, 191 home language instruction, 53 hybridity, 180, 182, 196 identity ethnic identity, 31, 33, 156 European identity, 33, 51 language as a marker of, 13, 28, 38, 45, 48, 69, 85, 87, 90–5, 143, 161, 175, 193, 305 multiple transnational identity, 33 national identity, 31, 89, 90, 94, 101, 142, 156 see also nation state; nationalism immigrant languages in education, 5–6, 7, 47–53 maintenance of, 9, 30 planning and policy, 30–53, 125, 136–8, 158, 159, 160, 171, 172 vitality, 45 inclusion, 34, 93, 94, 143, 146, 182, 185, 186, 190–2

Indonesian in education, 100, 115, 120, 168, 192 language demography, 16, 19, 20, 37, 98, 107, 109, 114 integration minorities, 32, 34–5, 47, 65, 130, 147, 156, 180, 186 regional, 93, 95, 102 intergenerational transmission, 14, 24 internationalization, 50, 61, 94 Iraq, 21, 24, 25, 136, 137, 146 Italian ancestry, 21 background speakers, 112 in education, 100, 111, 115, 116, 160, 167 as a foreign language, 7 as an immigrant language, 3, 42 in language conflicts, 63 language demography, 16, 17, 19, 20, 37, 98, 107, 108 language maintenance, 38, 116 Japanese, 100, 110, 114, 167, 168, 170, 192 Korean in education, 100, 114, 115, 167, 168 language demography, 16, 18, 19, 24, 98, 107, 109 Kurdish, 45, 137 Kven Kven/Finnish, 134, 135 as a minority language, 134, 135 peoples, 133, 134, 135 language language choice, 43, 65, 71, 73, 194 language conflict, 26, 59–76, 128, 173, 174 language development, 48, 128, 163 language loss, 8, 26, 117, 132, 153 language maintenance, 2, 3, 6, 21–9, 46, 48, 72, 78, 99, 101, 107, 108, 109–10, 111, 112, 113, 117, 118–19, 121, 122, 138, 160, 165, 180–99

Subject Index

207

language proficiency, 43, 95 language shift, 20–9, 31, 47, 108, 109, 116, 117, 130, 132, 142, 162, 166, 181, 182 language socialization, 142, 143 language vitality, 44–5 language policy documents, 141–2, 144 see also Australia; European Union; Great Britain; Norway; Scotland; Sweden Lao, 18 Latvian, 3, 109 linguistic democracy, 124, 128, 139 linguistic diversity, 1–3, 4, 7, 26, 35, 53, 65, 79, 125–9, 144, 152, 161, 175, 180, 183, 187, 195, 198 linguistic hegemony, 2 linguistic imperialism, 2 linguistic pluralism, 79, 124 linguistic rights, 74, 125 linguistic tolerance, 124, 128 Lithuanian, 3, 109, 114

minorities ethnic minorities, 31 immigrant minorities, 5, 30, 91, 143, 150, 154, 164 national minorities, 5, 133, 134, 150, 151 territorial minorities, 150, 151 minorization, 32, 33, 42, 46, 47, 51 Moluccan, see Indonesian monolingualism, 61, 71, 154, 159, 160 Moroccan, 37 mother tongue, 7, 40, 47, 51, 60, 69, 125, 128, 147–51, 154, 155, 157–8, 163–5, 172 multiculturalism, 34–5, 41, 59, 147, 160, 175 multilingualism, 2, 4, 9, 30, 33, 41, 50, 51, 52, 59–62, 64, 69, 72, 73, 75, 100–2, 125, 138, 144, 148, 151–4, 159, 160, 162, 168, 171–5, 180, 187, 192, 195

Macedonian and birthplace, 21, 22, 23, 27 in education, 117, 118 language conflict, 27 language demography, 16, 19, 20, 107, 116, 117 language maintenance, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 108 language shift, 21, 108 Maltese, 16, 24, 25, 107, 108, 109, 114 Mandarin in education, 109, 115, 116, 117, 120, 169 language demography in Australia, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 100, 107, 108 Marathi, 18 Meänkieli, 135, 150, 151 migration, 1–2, 13–20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 45, 47, 51, 89, 111, 133, 138, 144, 145, 147, 152, 160, 168, 171, 182, 183, 185, 196, 199

nation state, 7, 31–3, 41, 52, 141, 143, 144, 145, 155, 173 national minority, 125, 143–50, 152 nationalism, 30–3, 76, 80, 81, 82, 79, 80–4, 85, 92, 97, 101, 102, 141, 174–5, 180 nationality, 31–4, 36, 37, 38, 41, 41, 79, 81, 101, 102, 186, 195 Nepali, 18 Netherlands, 8, 14, 22, 23, 25, 36, 37, 42, 49, 50, 74, 108 Norway Norway Language Council, 127 Norwegianization of Sámi minority, 129–30, 139 official languages, 130 Norwegian, 3, 124, 125–8, 130, 131, 132, 136, 138 in education, 137, 138 language other than, 136, 137 Nuffield Report, 7, 93 see also Great Britain Nynorsk, 126, 127, 130

208

Subject Index

official language, policy, 13, 27, 32, 59, 87, 96, 124, 128, 130, 132, 143, 155, 156, 157, 158 official minority language, 135, 154, 164 Oromo, 18 Pashto, 18 Polish in education, 115, 118, 121, 150 language demography, 3, 16, 19, 107, 108, 192 language vitality, 45 politics, 8, 59, 62, 74, 82, 83, 101, 102, 141, 153 Portuguese, 45 principal language, 156, 157 productive diversity, 168 Punjabi, see Urdu race, 31, 39, 40, 156 revitalization, 24, 27, 29, 90, 98, 99 Romani/Sinte language demography, 44, 133, 151 language vitality, 44, 45 as a national minority, 133, 150, 151 Russian, 45, 66, 98, 111, 115, 121, 149, 167 Sámeláhka (Sámi act/law), 130 Sámi language, 125, 129–33 Lule Sámi, 131, 132–3, 138 North Sámi, 131, 132, 138 peoples, 129–33 as a second language, 130 South Sámi, 131, 132 Scotland Creating our Future    Minding our Past, Scotland’s National Cultural Strategy, 87 MacPherson Taskforce Revitalising Gaelic: A National Asset, 89–90, 91 The Meek Report A Fresh Start for Gaelic, 89, 90, 91 The Mulgrew Report Standards and Quality in Primary and Secondary

Schools 1994–1998: Modern Languages, 93 Scots, 86, 87, 91–2, 93, 96 Scottish Gaelic, 87, 88–91, 92, 93, 96 second generation, 20, 21, 28, 108, 113, 162, 180–99 segregation, policies, 143, 145 Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, Serbian–Croatian–Bosnian ancestry, 137 in education, 114, 115, 118, 121, 150 language demography, 16, 17, 19, 64, 107, 108, 136 vitality, 45 Sinhalese, 18, 26, 115 Slovenian, 114 Somali, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 45, 136, 137 Spaniards, 37 Spanish in education, 93, 100, 114–16, 120, 167, 172, 192 as a foreign language, 7, 32, 164 language demography, 16, 17, 19, 98, 107, 108, 120, 137, 150 vitality, 45 spelling reform, 126–7 standard language, 50, 52, 84, 124, 125, 127, 128 standardization, 127, 128 state, see nation state Surinamese, 37, 42 Sweden Action Plan for the Swedish Language, 141–64, 171, 172 Home Language Reform, 147, 151, 172 language education in, 41, 47, 147–51 minorities, 141–76 Swedish Language Council, 8, 152 Swedish, 141–76 Swedish as a second language, 148 Swedish Sign Language, 149, 151, 154, 156 Switzerland, 22, 63–4, 69, 74, 143 symbolic value, 31

Subject Index

209

Tagalog in education, 115, 117, 119, 121 language demography, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 107, 116 Tamil, 115, 119, 121, 137 Teochew, 18 territoriality principle, 69–70, 71 Thai, 114, 167, 170 Tigrinya, 18 Timorese, 18 Tongan, 18 transnationalism, 197, 199 trilingualism, 7, 51, 156 Turkish in education, 114, 137, 150 as an immigrant language, 33, 42 language demography, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 45, 107 language maintenance, 26, 45, 108 language shift, 108, 159 peoples, 36, 37

United States, 32, 34, 39, 61 US English English only movement, 32 Urdu, 18, 26, 45, 93, 136, 137

UNESCO Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity, 53

Yiddish, 18, 133, 150, 151 Yugoslavia (Former), 3, 37, 136, 146

vernacular, the language(s) and literatures, 81, 84, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 Vietnamese ancestry, 21 in education, 109, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 137, 167, 170, 192 language demography, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 107, 108, 136, 159 language maintenance, 196 vitality, 45 Welsh, 33 Wu, 18