[lg policy] GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICIES IN EUROPE
Harold Schiffman
haroldfs at GMAIL.COM
Fri Jul 23 15:00:11 UTC 2010
GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICIES IN EUROPE
FROM LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY TO PLURILINGUAL EDUCATION
Main Version
DRAFT 1 (rev.) April 2003
BEACCO Jean-Claude BYRAM Michael
Language Policy Division
Council of Europe Strasbourg
GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICIES IN EUROPE
>>From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education
Main Version
DRAFT 1 (rev) April 2003
BEACCO Jean-Claude, Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle BYRAM
Michael, University of Durham
Language Policy Division
Council of Europe Strasbourg
The opinions expressed in this work are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe.
All correspondence concerning this publication or translation of all
or part of the document should be addressed to the Language Policy
Division of the Council of Europe (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex). e-mail
:
decs-lang at coe.int
Fax :+33 388 41 27 06 / 88 The reproduction of extracts is
authorised, except for commercial purposes, on condition that the
source is quoted.
This draft will be revised after consultation.
In this version [*] denotes that references to a
Study will be added at a later stage. Bibliographic references will
also be added.
This text is available in downloadable form on the Council of Europe
website : www.coe.int/lang
(Language Policy Division - Policy Development activities)
PRELIMINARY NOTE
This document is version 1 (revised) of April 2003. It replaces the
previous pilot version of November 2002.
This version of the
Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe
is a first draft. The essential nature of its form and contents was
conceived during meetings of a Scientific Committee composed of a core
group which was assisted by a number of others on specific occasions.
This Scientific Committee was as follows:
Core Group
: M. Candelier, Université du Maine G. Lüdi,
Université de Bâle P. O’Riagáin, The Linguistics Institute of Ireland,
Dublin A. Raasch, Universität des Saarlandes C. Truchot, Université
de Strasbourg
with the assistance of :
G. Boldizsar; P. Cink; A. Dobson; D. Gorter; D. Heindler; V. Knapp; H.
Komorowska; M. Mazinska; D. Nasta; J. Poth; R. Schärer; J.L.M. Trim.
The preparation and production of this
Main Version
, which is the reference version, and of the
Executive Version
(for policy deciders involved in language education policies but who
may have no specific specialist knowledge of technical matters in
language education) were completed by Jean-Claude Beacco and Michael
Byram. The
Main Version
was written in French and then translated into English. The
Executive Version
was written in English on the basis of the
Main Version
, and then translated into French. The
Guide
is accompanied by a series of Reference Studies which provide
in-depth analysis of key issues (see next page). The final version of
the
Guide
will make explicit reference to these studies. The
Guide
is being distributed for consultation which will lead to the
preparation of a revised version. Guidelines and a form for providing
feedback in the consultation process are available on the website
www.coe.int/lang
(Language Policy Division / Policy Development activities).
Respondents are requested to make concrete suggestions for each of
the three parts / six chapters of the
Main Version
separately, adding more general comments for parts 1, 2 and 3 or for
the document as a whole if necessary. Please comment on relevance,
comprehensiveness and clarity. Respondents are invited to comment
also on the shorter
Executive Version
of the
Guide
using the same form (adding the title “Executive Version”). Please
send feedback to decs-lang at coe.int
(e-mail), by post to the
Language Policy Division
, DG IV, Council of Europe, F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or by fax (+33
388 41 27 88 / 06).
6
LIST OF REFERENCE STUDIES
The texts of the studies currently available can be downloaded from
the Council of Europe website
www.coe.int/lang
(Language Policy Division / Policy Development activities).
Reference Studies
Castelloti Véronique / Moore Danièle
Social representations of languages and teaching Costanzo Edvige
L'Educazione Linguistica in Italia: Un'esperienza per l'Europa?
Language education in Italy: an experience for Europe? Gogolin Ingrid
Linguistic diversity and new minorities in Europe Grin François
Using language economics and education economics in language education
policy Huhta Marjatta Tools for planning language training Johnstone
Richard Addressing 'the age factor': some implications for languages
policy Ó'Riagáin Pádraig
The Consequences of Demographic Trends for Language Learning and
Diversity Piri Riita Teaching and learning less widely spoken
languages in other countries Raasch Albert Europe, frontiers and
languages Skutnabb-Kangas Tove
Why should linguistic diversity be maintained and supported in Europe?
Some arguments Starkey Hugh Democratic Citizenship, Languages,
Diversity and Human Rights Willems Gerard
Language teacher education policy promoting linguistic diversity and
intercultural communication
Studies on English and diversification
Breidbach Stephan Plurilingualism, Democratic Citizenship in Europe
and the Role of English Neuner Gerd Policy approaches to English
Seidlhofer Barbara
A concept of international English and related issues: from `real
English' to `realistic English'? Truchot Claude Key aspects of the use
of English in Europe
Studies on diversification elsewhere in the world
Alexander Neville
Language education policy, national and sub-national identities in
South Africa Churchill Stacy
Language Education, Canadian Civic Identity and the Identities of
Canadians Main Version – April 2003
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRESENTATION.....................................................................................................................7
I.
Aims of the
Guide
: an instrument for developing a common approach to language
education policy..........................................................................................................................7
II.
Who the
Guide
is for: language policy
actors.............................................................................9
A.
Who the Guide is
for.........................................................................................................9
B.
The different versions of the
Guide...................................................................................9
III.
Organisation of the
Guide
: the issues covered..........................................................................10
PART ONE:
LANGUAGE EDUCATION
POLICIES....................................................13
Chapter 1:
Language Policies and Language Education Policies in Europe: General
Approaches...............................................................................................................14
1.1.
State language policy trends in Europe: from national monolingualism
to tolerated multilingualism?.......................................................................................................................16
1.1.1.
The linguistic norm and national
identity.................................................................16
1.1.2.
National cohesion and linguistic
minorities..............................................................17
1.1.2.1.
The retreat of state
monolingualism............................................................................19
1.1.2.2.
The autonomy model: the adjustment of state
monolingualism..................................19
1.1.2.3.
The federal model: from nation-state to
region-state?.................................................20
1.1.3.
Migrants: new linguistic minorities, new linguistic
rights?......................................21
1.2.
Language education policies in national education systems: national
language(s) versus “foreign”
languages..................................................................................................................21
1.2.1.
The language of education as language of
affiliation...............................................22
1.2.2.
“Foreign” languages and the non-integration of language
teaching.......................22
1.3.
Linguistic ideologies................................................................................................................24
1.3.1.
Common linguistic ideology: the inequality of
languages........................................24
1.3.2.
The linguistic ideology of the
nation.........................................................................25
1.4.
The linguistic ideology of
economy.........................................................................................26
1.4.1.
The principle of economy and lingua
francas...........................................................26
1.4.2.
The dissemination of English: towards the linguistic homogenisation of
Europe?..26
1.4.3.
English and plurilingualism......................................................................................28
1.5.
Conclusion................................................................................................................................28
Chapter 2:
The Council of Europe and language education policies: plurilingualism
as a fundamental
principle.....................................................................................30
2.1.
What principles for language policies for
Europe?...................................................................30
2.1.1.
The linguistic principles used in nation-states are not relevant to
Europe...............30
2.1.2.
Only common principles can provide the basis of a language policy for
Europe.....30
ii
2.1.3.
The principles for a language policy in Europe can only be part of the
democratic
framework...............................................................................................31
2.1.4.
These principles should take into account current social
developments...................31
2.1.5.
These principles are also connected with the issue of a feeling of
belonging to Europe.......................................................................................................................31
2.2.
Plurilingualism as a principle of language education policies in
Europe.................................32
2.2.1.
The founding texts of the Council of Europe: plurilingualism and
language policies.......................................................................................................................32
2.2.2.
Plurilingual and pluricultural repertoire: the pluricultural
component...................34
2.2.3.
Plurilingualism and democratic
citizenship..............................................................35
2.3.
Plurilingualism:
Interpretations................................................................................................35
2.3.1.
Plurilingualism as a diversification of languages known and of foreign
languages offered by education
systems.....................................................................................35
2.3.2.
Plurilingualism and multilingualism: linguistic diversity as
heritage......................36
2.3.3.
Plurilingualism as shared
goal.................................................................................37
2.3.4.
The implementation of language education policies based on
plurilingualism........38
2.4.
Conclusion................................................................................................................................39
PART TWO:
DATA AND METHODS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION
POLICIES....................................................41
Chapter 3:
The Development of Language Education Policies: social factors in
decision-making.......................................................................................................42
3.1.
Public opinion and
languages...................................................................................................42
3.1.1.
Familiarity with social representations of languages, identifying
language needs..43
3.1.2.
Taking into account social representations of the teaching of
languages.................44
3.2.
European societies and languages: assisting and anticipating
change......................................44
3.2.1.
Demographic change................................................................................................45
3.2.2.
Economic change......................................................................................................45
3.2.2.1.
Taking occupational mobility into
account.........................................................45
3.2.2.2.
Assessing the value of languages: cost-benefit analysis of language
education policies...............................................................................................46
3.3.
Conclusion................................................................................................................................47
Chapter 4:
The Development of Language Education Policies: linguistic factors in
decision-making.......................................................................................................48
4.1.
Linguistic varieties
present.......................................................................................................48
4.1.1.
Linguistic varieties from the speakers’ point of
view................................................49
4.1.1.1.
Order of acquisition of linguistic
varieties..........................................................49
4.1.1.2.
Functions of linguistic
varieties..........................................................................51
4.1.2.
Linguistic varieties from the point of view of their status in
society.........................52
4.1.3.
Linguistic varieties at school: written language, language of
instruction................55
4.2.
Quantitative data on the use or knowledge of linguistic
varieties............................................57
4.2.1.
Identifying the information available on
languages..................................................57
Main Version – April 2003
iii
4.2.2.
Adopting reliable, common methodologies for collecting data on
languages..........58
4.2.3.
Language needs analysis...........................................................................................59
4.2.4.
Exploiting information on language education policies in other
countries..............60
4.3.
Conclusion................................................................................................................................61
PART THREE: ORGANISATIONAL FORMS OF PLURILINGUAL
EDUCATION.........................................................................................63
Chapter 5:
Creating a culture of
plurilingualism....................................................................64
5.1.
Plurilingualism: the principle and goal of language, personal and
citizenship education........64
5.1.1.
Plurilingualism as a transversal
project...................................................................64
5.1.2.
Plurilingualism and language education: enhancing the status of and
developing linguistic
repertoires.................................................................................................65
5.1.3.
Plurilingualism and the education of the individual: developing
pluricultural awareness and intercultural
communication............................................................67
5.1.4.
Plurilingualism and educating citizens: education for democratic
citizenship in Europe.......................................................................................................................69
5.2.
Disseminating plurilingualism: expected political
benefits......................................................70
5.3.
Disseminating plurilingualism: creating social
consensus........................................................72
5.3.1.
Making “ordinary” representations of languages and language teaching
more sophisticated..............................................................................................................72
5.3.2.
Increasing and diversifying the forms in which languages are present
in the media and public
space.............................................................................................74
5.4.
Preparing education systems for
plurilingualism......................................................................75
5.4.1.
Raising the awareness of partners, particularly at local
level..................................75
5.4.2.
Learner awareness....................................................................................................75
5.4.3.
Raising the awareness of and training language
teachers........................................76
5.5.
Conclusion................................................................................................................................77
Chapter 6:
Organising plurilingual
education.........................................................................79
6.1.
Principles for the organisation of plurilingual
education..........................................................79
6.2.
Equipping education systems for
plurilingualism.....................................................................80
6.2.1.
Periodic review of the languages on offer in educational
establishments................80
6.2.2.
Identifying the obstacles to plurilingual
education...................................................81
6.2.3.
Diversifying teachers’
roles......................................................................................82
6.2.4.
Stimulating, managing and evaluating pedagogical
innovation..............................83
6.3.
Longitudinal coordination of education and language provision in the
education system and educational
establishments.................................................................................................84
6.4.
Decompartmentalising language
education..............................................................................85
6.5.
Structuring diversified educational
paths..................................................................................87
6.5.1.
Alternating types of teaching and
learning...............................................................88
6.5.1.1.
Centrality of autonomous language
learning......................................................88
iv
6.5.1.2.
Language lessons in school: presentational
teaching..........................................89
6.5.1.3.
Presentation teaching in a homophone environment (abroad, for example).......89
6.5.1.4.
Self-directed learning..........................................................................................90
6.5.1.5.
Distance learning................................................................................................91
6.5.2.
Adapting teaching
formats........................................................................................92
6.5.3.
Adapting the ways in which language teaching is present in
education...................92
6.5.4.
Alternating and linking teaching
establishments.......................................................93
6.6.
Adapting language
curricula.....................................................................................................95
6.6.1.
Differentiating the target linguistic and cultural competences: The
Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages..................................................95
6.6.2.
Adapting teaching
content.........................................................................................97
6.6.2.1.
Education for plurilingualism: a transversal
concern..........................................97
6.6.2.2.
The content of language teaching and learning in compulsory
education..........98
6.6.2.3.
Content of language teaching and learning and language
needs.........................98
6.6.2.4.
Content of language teaching and learning in higher
education.........................99
6.6.2.5.
Content of language teaching and learning according to personal
interests.....100
6.7.
Diversifying language teaching
methods................................................................................100
6.8.
Diversitying approaches to
assessment...................................................................................101
6.9.
Adapting education for plurilingualism according to linguistic
contexts...............................102
6.10.
Implementing education for plurilingualism and education for
plurilingual awareness.........103
6.10.1.
Enhancing coherence in language
teaching............................................................103
6.10.2.
Curricula to diversify the range of languages offered and to develop
plurilingual competence..............................................................................................................104
6.11.
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................106
GENERAL CONCLUSION................................................................................................109
Main Version – March 2003
7
PRESENTATION
This
Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe
is a response to the need to develop language policies on the basis
of a coherent approach: clarifying principles and defining goals,
analysing situations, identifying resources, expectations and needs,
and the implementation and evaluation of these measures. The aim is to
reduce the number of ad hoc decisions, often taken under the pressure
of events, and promote a “global concept” for languages. It is
important also that the language policies of European education
systems be developed in the context of a democratic debate and be
implemented in such a way as to gain the acceptance of the social
agents concerned, since any form of imposition, especially with
respect to languages, would be counterproductive. This document does
not advocate any particular language education policy measure, but
seeks to clarify the issues involved in these policies, identify the
analyses that need to be conducted, and provide an inventory of ways
of organising language teaching that comply with common European
principles. These principles are already established since they have
been set out in a large number of Council of Europe recommendations
and conventions. This document seeks to clarify those principles
through the successive formulations they have been given, and above
all to explore their practical application. It will be shown that the
principles may be put into practice through concerted action involving
long-term investment on the basis of existing teaching practices and
theory.
The
Guide
does not claim to be original. It is based on existing research
which, although it does not cover the whole field, can be considered
reliable. The Guide’s purpose is to help readers acquire a better
understanding of what languages are, the management of language
teaching, the issues surrounding it and its organisation, since in
this field more than others there are numerous received ideas that do
not help to solve the already complex questions at issue. It is part
of on-going Council of Europe work on modern languages and language
policies which has been presented in many documents, including
Recommendations, the Common European Framework for Languages, the
European Language Portfolio , and also in the
Proceedings
of the Conference “Linguistic Diversity for Democratic Citizenship in
Europe” (Innsbruck, May 1999).
The
Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe
exists in two versions of unequal length. The present “Main Version”
(Version intégrale) is the reference version. An abridged “Executive
version” (Version de synthèse) is also available. They have been
designed to meet the needs of readers familiar to varying degrees with
the subject according to how much detailed explanation they will need.
The two versions are designed for various categories of readers who
share an interest in language issues and education: readers who are
not specialists in educational questions and those who are familiar
with educational problems but not particularly well-informed about
linguistic questions. They are also designed for specialists who will
find in them well-known approaches to and analyses of language policy
and language teaching methods. The
Guide
is accompanied by a series of separately published reference studies
which enlarge on some of the issues covered in the Main Version.
I. Aims of the
Guide
: an instrument for developing a common approach to language education policy
The aim of the
Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe
is to offer an analytical tool which can serve as a reference for the
formulation or reorganisation of language teaching in member States
(essentially in education systems) and, through it, an examination of
European language policies. It is not prescriptive, seeking rather to
gain support for principles and modes of action that can be shared.
This area of intervention will be called
language education policies
(in order to stress that it is not only a question of dealing with
the subject in technical terms, the province of educational
‘engineering’ and language teaching methods), whether they concern
national or ‘foreign’ languages, those known as
mother tongue
or second languages, majority or minority languages, and so on.
On the contrary, this document emphasises the central place of
8
languages of every kind and education systems in the social problems
that have to be confronted in Europe on the basis of common
principles.
More precisely, the ambition of the
Guide
is to contribute to a renewal of thinking in member States about the
language education policies they conduct, separately and collectively.
The goal is to try to draw up language education policies that have
been carefully thought out rather than being the sum of ad hoc
decisions. The policies should at least have the common characteristic
of complying with the values and principles of the Council of Europe
to which member States have subscribed. One of the central principles
of the document will be that policies should be based on
plurilingualism as a value and a competence. The concept of
plurilingualism
will be defined more fully in Chapters 2 and 6; for the moment, it
will be defined simply as the potential and/or actual ability to use
several languages to varying levels of proficiency and for different
purposes. More exactly, following the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(p. 168), plurilingual and pluricultural competence is the ability
“to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part
in intercultural action, where a person, viewed as a social agent, has
proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience
of several cultures”. It is not seen as a juxtaposition of distinct
competences, but as a single competence, even though it is complex.
This leads to the distinction between
plurilingualism
as a speaker’s competence (being able to use more than one language) and
multilingualism
as the presence of languages in a given territory: there is a shift,
therefore, from a perspective focusing on languages (a state may be
referred to as monolingual or multilingual) to one that focuses on
speakers. It is posited that the purpose of plurilingual education is
to develop speakers’ language skills and linguistic repertoires. The
ability to use different languages, whatever degree of competence they
have in each of them, is common to all speakers. And it is the
responsibility of education systems to make all Europeans aware of the
nature of this ability, which is developed to a greater or lesser
extent according to individuals and contexts, to highlight its value
and develop it in the early years of schooling and throughout life,
since it forms the basis of communication in Europe, but above all of
linguistic tolerance, the prerequisite for the maintenance of
linguistic diversity. The experience of plurilingualism also provides
all European citizens with one of the most immediate opportunities in
which actually to experience Europe in all its diversity. Policies
which are not limited to managing the diversity of languages but adopt
plurilingualism as a goal may also provide a more concrete basis for
democratic citizenship in Europe: it is not so much mastery of a
particular language or particular languages which characterises
European citizens (and the citizens of many other political and
cultural entities) as a plurilingual, pluricultural competence which
ensures communication, and above all results in all languages being
respected.
In order to promote such aims, the
Guide
will first provide frameworks for:
•
identifying language education policies as such
•
relating them to current changes in Europe and the proposals of the
Council of Europe
•
making decision-makers and the agents of language education policies
aware of social issues involved in language policies.
The
Guide
has been designed to serve as a framework for the analysis of
national education systems with respect to language teaching or
teaching in languages. It could serve as a reference instrument for
those seeking ways of introducing or reorganising teaching designed to
develop the plurilingual competence of learners of whatever age. Using
this document as a basis, it will, in particular, be possible to
organise, on the initiative of interested states, meetings or working
groups in which national and international experts could discuss their
ideas. The purpose of such exchanges would be:
•
to enable the education systems concerned to situate themselves in
relation to the educational principles developed on the subject by the
Council of Europe and other European and International organisations
Main Version – March 2003
9
•
to look at language teaching issues from the point of view of
diversification and plurilingual education aimed at enhancing the
status of and developing individual and group linguistic repertoires
•
to identify problems and solutions to problems with respect to
implementation and promotion of plurilingualism which might be of
common interest
•
to create a common educational culture based on instruments such as the
European Language Portfolio
•
to give all national actors concerned with languages and their
teaching the opportunity to develop contact with one another
•
to deal with language teaching from the point of view of quality,
common standards and mutually compatible certification processes.
Such exchanges could result in documents being drafted that take stock
of the situation and identify a number of priorities. The production
of the reviews
covering national languages, the languages of newly arrived residents,
foreign languages and so on would be a practical means of facilitating
the implementation of common principles and arriving at national
solutions that it might be possible to use elsewhere in Europe.
II. Who the
Guide
is for: language policy actors
A. Who the Guide is for
The purpose of the
Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe
is to inform all those involved with language education policies, and
not only the experts in the field, since these issues concern society
as a whole. It concerns all those who develop strategies in these
fields, or take part in decision-making itself, whatever their exact
functions: elected representatives and those responsible for education
and culture, head teachers and those responsible for continuing
education in companies, the officers and members of parents’
associations, managers of companies working in the language market,
residential language courses and tourism. It seeks to make the
general public and the media more aware of the issues involved in
proficiency in more than one language and knowing more than culture so
that belonging to Europe does not only mean supporting the principles
of market economy and of democracy, but also fosters the personal
appropriation of plurilingual competence as a means of communication
and a common, diversified way of relating to the Other. It will bring
out the roles incumbent on national education systems in this respect,
if they are regarded as having the social function of correcting the
predictable mechanical effects of language supply and demand, and
promoting European education for languages.
B. The different versions of the Guide
In order for the proposals made here to be accessible to readers with
different needs, the
Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe
is available in two versions:
•
the Main (reference) Version, the present document, which discusses,
argues and exemplifies all the principles, analyses and approaches for
organising European language education policies, as they are conceived
in the framework of the Council of Europe. This version is designed
for readers interested in all aspects of these issues, including their
technical dimensions. It provides the means of answering the question:
how can language education policies geared towards plurilingualism
actually be introduced?
10
This version is itself extended by a series of reference studies
which have been produced specifically for the
Guide
by specialists in the relevant fields. They provide a synthesis of or
take up in more detail the issues dealt with in this version. They are
available separately;
•
an Executive Version which contains the gist of what is proposed in
the main version. It is designed for those involved in language
education policy decision-making and answers the question:
how can a policy that aims to preserve and develop linguistic
diversity be put in place?
III. Organisation of the
Guide
: the issues covered
The
Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe
provides the means needed to describe and therefore, to a certain
extent, understand better the linguistic problems of European
societies, in particular those that education systems have to deal
with. Generally speaking, it reviews and comments upon the principles
of the Council of Europe in this area of language education and
describes the administrative and didactic ways of putting those
principles into practice. It will be for each member State to select
from the proposals put forward those best suited to its particular
characteristics. The
Guide
has been divided into three parts in accordance with this overall project.
Part One
(Language Education Policies
) seeks to demonstrate the fundamentally political nature of language
and language education policy issues. It gives an overview of the
common characteristics of the language policies at present conducted
in member States in order to show the gap there is between the
principles subscribed to and national education policies:
•
these policies may still be defined from the viewpoint of the
nation-State, seen as a political entity in which the community is not
based on group, lineage, territory or religion and therefore
transcends cultural particularities through the notion of citizenship.
But citizenship is understood restrictively from the linguistic point
of view because it is the national language or languages that makes or
make the citizen. This legal definition of citizenship strongly bound
up with that of the national language(s) tends to make monolingualism
the official (national or regional) norm and introduce antagonistic
relationships between languages in that it leads to some languages
receiving preferential treatment and a radical distinction being made
between the national/official language(s) and all the others;
•
the political nature of language issues is rarely identified as such.
They are often discussed in terms of common-sense arguments or beliefs
put forward as obvious but which are in fact the reflection of
unexpressed, mutually contradictory underlying principles. Linguistic
ideologies are at work which are not related to established political
ideologies (nationalism, liberalism, socialism, and so forth) to which
they do not unambiguously correspond. Acknowledging that language
education policy issues are a matter for public debate and not simply
market forces, i.e. linguistic supply and demand, is a precondition
for their being taken into account in collective terms in a European
perspective (
Chapter 1
).
Other principles will also be put forward through a reading of the
principles of linguistic diversity and plurilingualism that have been
affirmed many times by the Council of Europe. They cannot be
understood in the limited sense of more attentive management of the
diversity of languages. Linguistic diversity is in fact dependent on
the acceptance of other people’s languages and the curiosity every
individual feels about those languages: these are the attitudes that
can ensure that the minority languages in a territory survive and
result in openness to other communities. Linguistic diversity can be
brought about in European societies through education for
plurilingualism and plurilingual education that seeks to exploit the
linguistic resources of all individuals and develop their potential.
This means including in the same educational approach the teaching of
the mother tongue (which may or may not be the official language) and
the teaching of other languages (
Chapter 2
).
Main Version – March 2003
11
Part Two
(
Data and Methods for the Development of Language Education Policies
) describes a controlled approach to the management and implementation
of language education policies, the principles of which have been
defined from a European perspective. Objective data are available that
must be taken into account in order to guide education systems with
respect to languages. The discussion is therefore methodological since
it deals with the collection, identification and interpretation of
such data in order to clarify the factors to be taken into account in
decision-making in this area. It will be shown that designing
language syllabuses and courses is not only a pedagogical matter since
languages are not a type of knowledge comparable to other subjects
transmitted by education systems. Languages can be learned outside
school and are also used to construct individual and group identity.
They cannot therefore be reduced to a means of communication and it is
this that makes their management a particularly delicate matter.
Emphasis will be placed on the role played by social representations
of languages (how easy or difficult they are, the best way of learning
them, etc) and the need to be familiar with these common perceptions
in order to influence them. The importance of forward-looking analyses
will also be stressed, since language provision takes a long time to
organise and should anticipate social change (demographic, economic,
etc). General trends (such as the prolonging of youth and old age) are
such as to modify social demand for languages, so appropriate
collective responses to them must be planned (
Chapter 3
).
The languages present in a particular territory are especially
decisive for the definition of language education policies. It is
therefore important to understand how they are linked at various
macro-levels (presence of national and regional languages and the
languages of minorities) as well as how speakers (or groups of
speakers) use or would like to use them. This chapter describes the
possible ways of analysing linguistic situations in order to identify
the types of collective conflict that such differences are likely to
provoke. The community of citizens must, through its language
education policy choices, introduce acceptable modes of arbitration
and create consensus (
Chapter 4
).
Part Three
(
Organisational Forms of Plurilingual Teaching and Learning
) has the purpose of showing that education that includes education
for plurilingualism and is geared towards developing plurilingual
competence can be introduced so long as the necessary resources are
made available.
It is possible for language teaching-learning no longer to be a
disputed area since space can be created for every language,
particularly if all languages contribute to education for citizenship.
Plurilingualism will therefore be interpreted not only as having to
bring about better communication between Europeans and with the rest
of the world, but as a means of developing intercultural sensitivity
and as an intrinsic component of democratic citizenship in Europe. The
expected benefits of such an education policy mean that support for
the principle should be stimulated by educating the social demand for
languages by, for example, increasing the diversification of the ways
in which languages are present in the media. Such an option also
requires action aimed at education systems: local officials and
teachers of every subject need to be made aware of the role of
languages and the collective issues involved in teaching them. This
objective also means rethinking the initial training of language
teachers, whatever languages they teach (
Chapter 5
). The last chapter offers an inventory of the technical means by
which language teaching based on these principles may be organised.
Once it is accepted that knowledge of a language is real, even if it
is not complete and that languages can be acquired at times
particularly propitious for learning them, but also throughout life,
the cohabitation of languages becomes possible, especially if everyone
is made aware that they use or could use several. These means will be
identified in general terms as a matter of alternation over time and
space: alternation of languages learned, forms of teaching, places of
teaching and learning, etc. Syllabuses can be modulated according to
the anticipated role of each language in the linguistic repertoires of
each group, all having in common the ability to use several languages
through clearly signposted learning paths. This requires the linkage
of the educational resources available, whether official, voluntary or
private. The instruments the Council of Europe has developed over the
last thirty years are particularly relevant in such an educational
space structured by common shared values (
Chapter 6)
.
Main Version – March 2003
13
PART ONE: LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICIES
Developing and implementing policies for the teaching of languages
(national, regional, foreign, those of recently settled communities,
etc) requires not only technical decisions, but also that such
decisions should be based on certain principles. Language policies
will therefore be examined from the point of view of their
relationship with the ‘European project’, in an attempt to provide a
comprehensive picture. It will be shown that the principles on which
some aspects of the language education policies currently pursued in
Europe are based are not clearly geared towards linguistic diversity
(Chapter 1). The Council of Europe’s principles on the matter, which
centre on the concept of plurilingualism as a value and competence,
will be discussed (Chapter 2).
14
Chapter 1: Language Policies and Language Education Policies in
Europe: General Approaches
In order better to understand the position taken by the Council of
Europe on language teaching, this chapter will provide an overview of
some of the language policies and language education policies that
currently predominate in Europe. It is not claimed that this very
general analysis, which would probably prove inadequate if related to
a particular country, describes national policies, but the aim is to
bring out the timeliness of refocusing these policies in such a way as
to define a language policy based on shared European values. It will
be emphasised that government language policies, especially those
concerning minorities, are still imbued with the idea of
monolingualism as the basis of national cohesion and regional
identity, as is clear from the modest place accorded to the languages
of groups that have settled in Europe very recently. As a result, the
dominant characteristics of language education policies are that the
national or regional language(s) is (are) made the language of
instruction in order to create a feeling of national/regional
identity: the teaching of these languages is carefully distinguished
from that of foreign languages, although in both cases the purpose is
to give pupils, students and adults language education. These general
trends should be related to the principles inspiring them, which
amount to veritable linguistic ideologies, coherent systems of ideas
on languages, their role and teaching. Their constituent elements
will be identified and it will be shown that these linguistic
ideologies are mutually antagonistic and, in short, incompatible with
the principles the Council of Europe has developed as the basis of
language education policies.
A preliminary requirement: recognising the political nature of
language teaching issues
Languages in and for Europe are a problem that is often avoided and
one that cannot be resolved by resorting to ready-made solutions that
are probably inappropriate to the cultural realities of the whole
continent. What is required is a collective examination of the matter
and it is to this that the
Guide
hopes to make a contribution, particularly as the problems are
destined to become more complex (migratory movements, the
multicultural nature of society, etc) or may well resolve themselves:
the question of languages, and particularly the way they are taught,
could receive
de facto
answers if certain market forces which tend to lead to linguistic
homogenisation are left to operate for too long. When looking at
language teaching issues, it is important to remember that all
political decisions are taken on the basis of two types of
considerations: the first relate planned measures to general
principles, such as social equity, individual freedoms, tolerance, the
model of society, the market economy, etc, which are supposed to
legitimate those decisions, while the others are of a technical nature
and concern the congruence of the planned measures with available
resources, collective priorities, the time-scale for implementation,
and desired effects. The same should be the case for language
policies, particularly language education policies. This latter
field, however, is not everywhere the subject of in-depth debate in
societies, except in situations or circumstances in which language
questions take on acute forms. An example of this is that many
political parties devote virtually no space to language issues in
their manifestos. Language issues are increasingly present with
respect to minority languages, but these would benefit from being
approached in the context of a comprehensive view of languages for
Europe, in particular because the emphasis given to the linguistic and
educational rights of minorities tends to strengthen majorities in the
feeling that such issues do not concern them since they are of no
direct relevance to them, being the affair of minorities. With
respect to language teaching, the most frequent intervention is in the
form of regulatory decisions taken at ministerial level or, more
simply, by general or regional directorates of education. These
decisions are presented as being justified by the dominant social
demand or their technical relevance (for example, the choice of
languages to be taught in elementary schools). They seem to result
from
Main Version – March 2003
15
commonly accepted truths or agreement among educational specialists
that do not involve public debate. This situation results from the
fact that the problems of language education policy are not usually
seen as being matters for political debate, unlike economic and
cultural policies or other issues concerning education in general
(equality of opportunity, efficiency of education systems, educational
freedom, and so forth). Citizens are likely to recognise and
consciously adhere to distinct philosophies on these questions,
although the very principles on which linguistic education policies
are based are often unclear. Nevertheless, those principles, which
may take the form of linguistic ideologies, exist and give rise to
different language policies. The degree of failure to understand
the political nature of language and language teaching issues varies
from country to country and is accentuated by the fact that, although
it has existed for centuries, conscious intervention with respect to
languages has only recently been identified as such in the worlds of
politics and linguistics. Linguistics develops knowledge which
decision-makers could take into account and that will be used in this
Guide
.
Definitions: language education policies and plurilingualism
It will be argued that
language policy
is a conscious official or militant action that seeks to intervene in
languages of whatever type (national, regional, minority, foreign,
etc) with respect to their forms (the writing system, for example),
social functions (choice of language as official language) or their
place in education. The language policy may be pursued by citizens or
groups, by political parties and in the voluntary or private sector.
Action on languages takes place in the context of particular social
situations or events of which it bears the mark. Such language
policies are also, however, based on principles (economy and
efficiency, national identity, democracy, and so forth) which give
them a meaning that extends beyond current circumstances. The scope
of language policies is made up of this set of issues (conception of
the nation, purposes of education, etc), agents (politicians,
activists, trades unionists, etc), and levels of intervention
(legislative, regulatory, etc). Recognising the political nature of
language and language teaching issues is a prerequisite of any action
in this field, since the technical difficulties (structural,
administrative, financial, etc) governments have to overcome,
individually or through joint action, cannot be overcome unless
positions are clearly taken in relation to these principles. The
scope of language policies concerns language rights (of minorities in
particular), courts and administration, public signs, media… and
language teaching (from elementary school to higher and vocational
education). Interventions in this latter area, the central concern of
this
Guide
, will be called
language education policies
. Language policies, language education policies and linguistic
ideologies which underpin them will be related to
plurilingualism
, which is a fundamental principle for Council of Europe language
education policies. Plurilingualism should be understood as:
•
the intrinsic capacity of all speakers to use and learn, alone or
through teaching, more than one language. The ability to use several
languages to varying degrees and for distinct purposes is defined in
the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(p.168) as the ability “to use languages for the purposes of
communication and to take part in intercultural action, where a
person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency, of varying degrees,
in several languages and experience of several cultures”. This ability
is concretised in a repertoire of languages a speaker can use. The
goal of teaching is to develop this competence (hence the expression:
plurilingualism as a competence
).
•
an educational value that is the basis of linguistic tolerance:
speakers’ awareness of their plurilingualism may lead them to give
equal value to each of the varieties they themselves and other
speakers use, even if they do not have the same functions (private,
professional
16
or official communication, language of affiliation, etc). But this
awareness should be assisted and structured by schools since it is no
sense automatic (hence the expression:
plurilingualism as a value
). Plurilingualism should be understood in this dual sense: it
constitutes a conception of the speaker as fundamentally plural and a
value in that it is the basis of linguistic tolerance, an essential
element of intercultural education.
Multilingualism
refers here exclusively to the presence of several languages in a
given space, independently of those who use them: for example, the
fact that two languages are present on a territory does not indicate
whether inhabitants know both languages or one only. Language
policies and linguistic ideologies will therefore be examined in
relation to how they approach plurilingualism with respect to:
•
education for plurilingualism
, which involves enhancing and developing speakers’ individual
linguistic repertoires from the earliest schooldays and throughout
life.
Education for plurilingualism
will from now on refer to language education (national, “foreign”,
regional languages) in which the purpose will be to develop
plurilingualism as a competence
•
education for plurilingual awareness
, which is one of the requirements for the maintenance of linguistic
diversity. Education for plurilingual awareness will refer to
education, not necessarily limited to language education whose purpose
is to educate for linguistic tolerance, raise awareness of linguistic
diversity and educate for democratic citizenship. Plurilingual
education includes both education for plurilingualism and education
for plurilingual awareness, as specified above.
1.1. State language policy trends in Europe: from national
monolingualism to tolerated multilingualism?
The following considerations should be read as a description of the
current situation which is probably of uneven relevance to different
contexts. In this attempted overview, it is stressed that current
linguistic situations in Europe vary but are, in the final analysis,
comparable. They are related because they have been inherited from a
common past: they are, in particular, the product of changes in
borders between European countries in the late nineteenth and in the
twentieth centuries and, more radically, in the very nature of modern
states. They are also related because recent political events have
reactivated the classic geopolitical issues in Europe: return of real
sovereignty to countries that have not been subject to historical
discontinuity, the reappearance of former sovereign states, the
sometimes tragic emergence of regional entities that were previously
part of federations as independent states or regions with intensified
self-government. Migratory movements, which affect the whole of
Europe, and all the various forms of marginalisation connected with
social breakdown have also produced problems with linguistic
dimensions. New policies or projects are being devised to enable
education systems to respond to these European and global
developments. The goals of such language policies include a European
dimension but one that is not necessarily centred on education for
plurilingualism and education for plurilingual awareness.
1.1.1. The linguistic norm and national identity
Some political philosophies well represented in Europe propound the
theory that state, nation and language are coterminous: the national
language is a symbol and component of nationality and is also a factor
in the definition of citizenship itself. Accordingly, it is crucial
that the national language be clearly defined and distinguished from
other linguistic varieties used in the territory or its environs. In
Main Version – March 2003
17
the course of European history, instruments have gradually been
created to define the national linguistic variety and ensure its
stability over time (dictionaries, grammars, academies, etc). These
linguistic authorities have official and/or academic or cultural
powers and disseminate linguistic norms to other institutions, such as
the education system. The state reinforces the legitimacy of this (or
these) standard linguistic variety(ies) by the exclusive use of it
(them) it authorises in its relations with citizens and in education.
In practical terms, problems relating to the national norm have
obvious political and educational implications. Debates particularly
concern:
•
defining the source of the norm as a unifying model: what is the
right language
, what level of ability in it should schools provide? This question
concerns parents (especially with respect to how they can help their
children) as well as employers
•
spelling may be at the centre of debate, sometimes taking a clearly
political turn, since it is the objective external form of linguistic
competence on the basis of which linguistic or intellectual ability
can be judged. This question is linked to the previous one, but the
development of specific graphic code is also a way of constructing
national identity where there are neighbouring varieties
•
pronunciation is also a very visible marker of social differentiation.
Linguistic communities tend to favour certain pronunciations as
correct or distinguished and stigmatise “lower class” pronunciations
or “accents” considered vulgar. Schools play a part in forming such
linguistic norms
•
the definition of language skills that make it possible to demonstrate
that one belongs to the community or to acquire citizenship through
naturalisation. This may be vague (demonstrating a
good level
of knowledge of the language of the host country) or precise,
evaluated by interview or specific tests. This is an apparently
technical question that may become extremely political, the level of
competence required being a tangible indication of integration policy
•
in some countries and some cultural and political contexts the
borrowing of words from other linguistic varieties gives rise to
debates in the context of which the notion of national linguistic
identity reappears. The degree of interest in such linguistic
questions varies according to national context but, generally
speaking, they concern only some aspects of the teaching of official
languages. The excessive attention paid them too often gives the
impression that these are essential linguistic problems. This may
well be the case from a national point of view, but their relevance to
the question of the future of Europe is less certain.
1.1.2. National cohesion and linguistic minorities
The central political issue remains managing linguistic diversity
since current language policies are set in the context of
nation-states whose very creation has involved the invention of
national languages favoured above others.
[*]
The ideal model of the modern nation is one where linguistic
frontiers, cultural and religious frontiers and external and internal
political frontiers coincide: in this case, all citizens speak the
same linguistic variety, which is therefore designated the national
language. This shared linguistic variety may then be considered a
signifier of belonging: the nation consists of the community of those
who speak that language.
18
But this model of the nation-state, devised in the early nineteenth
century, is purely theoretical, even mythical: political, linguistic
and cultural frontiers are not identical and in a given population or
territory there are always speakers of other linguistic varieties who
are there as a result of ancient migrations (often predating the
arrival of those who brought the “regional” language that would become
dominant) or recent migrations. All national entities are
multilingual, even if they clam to be homogeneous. Every nation-state
must therefore devise solutions in order to articulate an abstract
definition of citizenship, such as adherence to certain common values
that make up the social contract (where citizenship is defined
independently of lineage, territory, wealth, religion, etc) and what
might be called a concrete affective adherence to one national
grouping rather than another. In order to resolve this contradiction,
national citizenship has again been given a cultural dimension, which
receives a concrete content in the form of a shared memory or
language. It is this latter which is the basis of state
monolingualism and leads the state to reduce linguistic heterogeneity.
In Europe, linguistic and cultural heterogeneity has not
disappeared with the development of modern nations: it was first
renewed by the redrawing of nation-state boundaries themselves by the
Treaty of Versailles and following the end of the Second World War. It
has also been maintained by the emergence of communities that have
become aware of forming specific entities and that consider themselves
as such. Lastly, it has been renewed by the settlement in European
countries of communities from every part of the world. The new
arrivals, still linked by a feeling of belonging to the same cultural
group because of their common origins, may continue to use their
languages and want to transmit them. These regional and minority
communities whose identity is bound up with a common language have
varying origins and statuses:
•
groups whose territory was part of a previously existing state and
which have been attached to a different state
•
historically indigenous minorities which are part of collective
entities (kingdom, empire, modern nations, etc) which have long
enjoyed some form of autonomy and have been able to maintain it in
modern nations
•
recently emerged minorities which have received legal recognition as
national minorities. These are groups whose members are linked by the
feeling of belonging to a specific group and are also citizens of a
single nation-state
•
communities consisting of newly settled groups which may tend to
disintegrate over the generations
•
communities that speak regional varieties of the national language
without having any strongly affirmed or claimed political and cultural
identity The severity of the recognition problems such minorities
give rise to depends on such characteristics as:
•
their demographic weight in relation to the national entity in which
they are present and their degree of geographic concentration
(dispersion among the majority group or concentration in certain
places where its members form the majority)
•
their economic power (geopolitical situation, access to natural
resources, economic dynamism, etc)
•
their history, particularly democratic deficits that need to be
corrected, if they have been subjected to linguistic repression
Main Version – March 2003
19
•
the status of their linguistic variety and its “degree” of acceptance
by speakers of the majority language: if it is regarded as very
“exotic” (with respect to its sounds, for example) or very “minor”,
the feeling of foreignness will be more acute
A priori
, it is not possible to determine on the basis of these
characteristics the form of the societal problems to which such
situations may give rise. Forms of conflict will remain political
(demand for independence, self-government, legal and cultural
recognition, etc) or become violent. The demands made will range from
recognition of a community’s language as an official language of
certain institutions or as the language of education, to minimal
demands, such as that the language be taught at least as an option in
the national curriculum in order to ensure its transmission. The
responses of national central government to these questions in the
context of language education policies converge in Europe in that they
focus on managing acceptable balances between national variety(ies)
and other linguistic varieties: multilingualism is accepted as a fact
to which one adjusts because questions relating to the languages of
minority communities are regarded as concerning only those minority
groups. The plurilingual nature of the diverse communities of a State
is not everywhere accepted as a basic principle of language policies.
1.1.2.1. The retreat of state monolingualism
In Europe, linguistic repression is now considered a politically
out-dated, costly “solution”, although the use of languages other than
national/official may still be penalised or restricted, particularly
where there are serious tensions between communities. The policy is
still pursued, indirectly at least, through the dissemination of
powerful national ideologies that result in linguistic self-censorship
by speakers of unofficial varieties or because these communities lack
access to the mass media. As a result of advances in democracy,
imposed monolingualism is now held to be illegitimate and even
illegal. Such a policy was frequently implemented in the past. It
was accompanied by other forms of domination and, in Europe and
elsewhere in the world, its aim was to eliminate dialects, patois or
indigenous languages. Where it was politically possible to ignore the
presence of or eliminate other linguistic varieties, steps were taken
to establish a language policy aimed at imposing the greatest possible
degree of monolingualism, including in private life. The most radical
solution found to ensure the linguistic homogeneity of the
nation-state was to prevent the use of varieties other than the
national one(s) by every possible means.
[*]
Nowadays, while the presence of other varieties is recognised,
national language policy continues to emphasise the preference to be
given to the national variety(ies) in its (their) official usages (in
government departments, at school or before the courts, where the
language question is crucial), other varieties being accepted for
private use. The result is a strengthening of the current social
representation which regards individuals as fundamentally monolingual.
Language policies tend to tolerate citizens’ linguistic diversity as
necessary for communication or social harmony. But such diversity is
still not recognised and encouraged for its own sake.
1.1.2.2. The autonomy model: the adjustment of state monolingualism
Where it has proved impossible to ignore the presence of speakers of
other linguistic varieties in the country because assimilation
policies might be a threat to national cohesion itself, language
policies have created legal conditions to accommodate such linguistic
heterogeneity. The members of communities using regional or minority
varieties have then obtained certain forms of linguistic autonomy on a
territorial basis, which often may or sometimes may not mirror forms
of political autonomy.
[*]
20
On the basis of this principle of relative linguistic autonomy, the
organisation of specific systems (legal, educational, etc) that give a
place to regional and minority linguistic varieties involves complex
adjustments (to the national or federal constitution, for example)
which are the subject of delicate negotiations. The degree of
autonomy is extremely variable and may go so far as to make the
acquisition of the official national variety a simple symbolic
concession. Such adjustments to put in place or preserve the identity
of communities using minority linguistic varieties are always fragile;
they find practical expression in detailed technical measures, which
may always be disputed, because of the complexity of their
implementation on the ground. This may lead to a general questioning
of the
status quo
with respect to secondary issues.
1.1.2.3. The federal model: from nation-state to region-state?
The recognition of rights to national minorities in Europe has also
taken the form of federal or federalist constitutions. This has
happened when it has been impossible not to take into account the
presence of specific linguistic communities (because of their
demographic weight in the nation, for example) or because it has not
been possible to reach consensus as to what the national language
itself should be. This has particularly been the case when new states
have been created by the territorial restructuring of existing states.
Language policies have then essentially concerned the equitable
management of multilingualism, i.e. devising ways in which several
linguistic varieties may coexist as official languages.
[*]
Such policies may, however, have the same results as monolingual
policies since they reproduce them at local level, i.e. in the
administrative and territorial authorities that make up the federal
entity (regions, cantons,
autonomias
,
länder,
etc): each may be managed as though it were linguistically
homogeneous, in other words, according to a conception that remains
monolingual. The dominant groups in these territories, which are
not necessarily homogeneous despite their smaller size, may promote
language policies whose goal is to develop a feeling of belonging and
end up making the official linguistic variety of this subdivision of
“territory” a standard of belonging for all its inhabitants. The
members of such communities will, however, have to become bilingual to
some extent, since they will have to acquire one of the other official
varieties of the federal entity. Thus they have to give some place,
including in the framework of federal legislation, to a linguistic
variety other than the one they regard as their own. This type of
plurilingualism may not be accepted willingly and therefore not
satisfactorily put in practice (or with disappointing results, if
compulsory teaching in schools is involved) because it is seen as
being imposed by the sociolinguistic and institutional situation.
There are therefore policies defending or adjusting state or other
monolingualism that recognise minority linguistic varieties. The
differences between them are clearly far from negligible with respect
to democratic values. But the principles of these language policies,
which seem to be so opposed, are in fact similar: they are founded
upon the principle of linguistically homogeneous political entities.
Where a monolingual ideology is not acceptable and official
bilingualism is necessary in order to reach a
modus vivendi
, citizens’ plurilingualism may nonetheless be regarded as contrary to
the unitary conception. Recognising the linguistic rights of
minorities, particularly on a territorial basis, should not lead to
the reproduction of monolingual rationales which are appropriate only
to linguistically homogeneous entities, the nature and size of which
are open to question. Juxtaposing state monolingualism or forms of
bilingualism necessitated by the requirements of good community
relations is not the same as promoting plurilingualism: the purpose is
still the symbolic and legal assimilation of the language to the
nation.
Main Version – March 2003
21
1.1.3. Migrants: new linguistic minorities, new linguistic rights?
Ending the recruitment of foreign labour in the 1970s slowed, but did
not put a stop to, immigration. The need for labour, now qualified
professionals, was again felt at the beginning of the new millennium.
There continue to be new arrivals, in particular from the
Mediterranean, along East-West and South-North trajectories. Economic
factors are likely to generate new needs in Europe which might be of
the order of several million people. Language policy issues
concerning these people will therefore continue to arise for many
years. Receiving newly arrived migrants involves setting up language
education structures for them and their children, in the absence of
which the acquisition of the national or official language will take
place spontaneously only with respect to oral forms. This would lead
to later handicaps as a result of inability to write the language.
For a time, the national language of the host country can only be a
second language for such new citizens: the language of the media, work
and ordinary social relations. But exposure to the language of the
host country varies according to each community’s degree of
self-sufficiency: in the case of non-working women, for example, it
may be weak. The integration, even temporary and reversible, of such
populations takes place through the acquisition of (one of) the
national variety(ies). At the latest, this will happen with the
second generation through school attendance. But this also raises the
question of recognising the mother tongues of the migrants’ children
in a manner comparable to those of established national minorities.
These languages are likely to be lost and, by the third or fourth
generation, to be merely the ancestral language. “Ethnic
mobilisation” around cultural identities does not necessarily focus on
the transmission of original languages. For example, second
generation North Africans, who have gone from being immigrants to
minority groups, seem to be interested in cultural action focusing
more on new values (anti-racism and civil rights, for example) which
do not always make transmission of various forms of colloquial Arabic
or Kabyle or the acquisition of classical Arabic a priority. These
linguistic varieties are generally given only minimal space. There
are numerous examples of recently settled minorities with no specific
territorial base who have immigrated to Europe for economic reasons
since 1945, importing linguistic varieties which are given no
significant place in schools and receive little cultural tolerance.
[*]
Some believe that, while policies respecting the principles of
multiculturalism (recognised ethnic communities) have avoided major
social disturbance, they have not provided equal opportunity, or at
least sufficient forms of integration. They are, however, at least a
temporary solution in a situation where little account is taken of the
languages of new arrivals. This may be regarded as unfortunate merely
in economic terms, given the enrichment the presence of speakers of
foreign languages represents for a country. The political question is
whether the integration of such new citizens presupposes the eventual
disappearance of their heritage languages.
1.2. Language education policies in national education systems:
national language(s) versus “foreign” languages
The need to maintain the stability of official languages leads
dominant social groups and the state apparatus to set norms which are
disseminated by education systems, in particular by the teaching of
the so-called
mother tongue
and the teaching of other subjects in that language. Language issues
are therefore particularly central in education systems, especially in
the early years of schooling, since their function is both to improve
children’s communicative skills and give them the basic cognitive
skills, and ensure their social training and training as citizens.
22
1.2.1. The language of education as language of affiliation
The role of languages as an element of membership of the national
community explains the attention they receive in education systems.
For this reason, the national language is often the first written
variety learned in the education system, even by children who have not
acquired its oral forms in their home environment. It can be expected
that in all cases where the linguistic variety of the school is not
the mother variety this situation will produce inhibitions or delay
these children’s learning processes. They will only appropriate the
written forms of their mother tongue later, if at all. It was because
of such fears and in order to respect a democratic principle that
international declarations were made recommending that children should
be educated in their mother tongues.
[*]
In some national education systems the right of immigrant populations
to be taught in the official linguistic variety of the host country
has been acknowledged (in order to avoid any discrimination), at the
same time stressing the need to take into account the heritage
language and culture. It is accepted that the acquisition of writing
should initially take place in the language of the child’s family
socialisation. But, in this case, it is accepted that these are only
transition programmes to the acquisition of the written form of the
national variety, though there are exceptions in Europe to this
quasi-general rule. The very establishment of such programmes gives
rise to negotiations regarding the age at which children should be
exposed to the school variety or the subjects which may later be
taught in the mother variety. Exposure may be wanted as early as
possible to the mother tongue, to as many subjects as possible taught
in the mother variety. These debates are only apparently pedagogical.
However that may be, such transition programmes are only a temporary
accommodation of pupils’ linguistic diversity in relation to the
homogenising purposes of schools.
[*]
The situation has become more complex with the accession to certain
forms of political autonomy by regions recently formed in existing
sovereign states, since the minorities there have acquired the right
to educate their children in their own linguistic variety rather than
that of the linguistic majority. If writing skills are acquired in
this initial variety, the mastery of writing skills in the national
variety will also be necessary, which may be justified in terms of
participation in the life of society as a whole. This makes
compromise bilingual schooling indispensable, with the problems
underlined above of a satisfactory balance between the mother/regional
and national linguistic varieties. This situation is made still more
complex if there are substantial minorities in these regions.
Language education policies of this type, which are still a
significant current in national policies, are not receptive to the
concept of plurilingualism and diversified language repertoires. The
imposed coexistence of linguistic varieties as a result of mediation,
the cost of which is sometimes borne in part, could be accepted fully
and result in coordinating the teaching of the various languages
(mother, affiliation, official, national, etc), thus forming the basis
of plurilingual education and education for plurilingualism.
1.2.2. “Foreign” languages and the non-integration of language teaching
So-called
foreign
languages present different problems. The reasons for their inclusion
in training programmes are nowadays often economic and practical,
although the teaching of languages, particularly classical languages
(Greek and Latin) was for long considered a means of “mental
training”, access to the corresponding literatures and to general
knowledge, with the prestige that went with them. The general trend
of European education systems seems to be to give foreign languages a
more important place than previously, often to the detriment of
classical languages. This major attention results from the increased
social demand for languages, which is itself the result of greater
awareness
Main Version – March 2003
23
that a knowledge of foreign languages is an advantage in working life.
A greater number of languages may now be offered and the time devoted
to them is tending to increase. The European dimension obviously has
something to do with this general trend. These conclusions are
clearly set out in the
Eurydice
study on language teaching in schools
1
. The following observations have been made:
•
more space given to languages (earlier teaching, increased time
devoted to languages throughout schooling)
•
major sensitivity to teaching regional languages and, to a much lesser
extent, the first languages of immigrant children, for whom the most
widespread solution still seems to be integration in education systems
•
a wider range of languages is offered, though real choices are still
limited. Thus the overall situation of foreign languages is positive
but mixed. Apart from the quantitative progress with respect to the
languages education systems offer, the systems seem to pursue the same
general education policy, in that they give foreign languages the same
status as before:
•
languages are still taught in exactly the same way (frequency, length,
types of certification, etc) as other school subjects, as though
languages were objects of knowledge like others (yet language
acquisition is a natural competence)
•
they put foreign languages in competition with each other in grouped options
•
they put them in competition with other subjects (for example,
classical languages and computer sciences)
•
they put them in competition with the teaching of regional minority
languages This status as optional subjects or matters of choice sets
foreign languages school subjects apart in which there is an
appearance of taking learners’ expectations into account. But this
possibility of choice is not often accompanied by education for
plurilingual awareness, which would facilitate understanding of the
multiple value of languages. Furthermore, the options system
contributes to the fragmentation of subjects, each coming under a
distinct set of teachers (primary school teachers, teachers of a
particular language) who often have little professional contact with
one another, despite the work of national and international teachers’
federations that group together all modern languages. This
administrative and pedagogical fragmentation encourages a
heterogeneous approach to the teaching of foreign languages, maternal
varieties and foreign and classical languages, although they all
involve the same competence: the potential and/or effective ability to
use several languages at different degrees for different purposes that
may vary over time. Such a separation of languages is very noticeable
in the case of foreign languages, where it creates problems for
learners (heterogeneous grammatical terminology from one language to
another, for example). The lack of adequate coordination between the
different languages learned according to modern methods, between
different levels of schooling (languages learned successively), and
between the ways the national/official variety and foreign varieties
are taught is a source of inefficiency and it helps to mask the single
nature of plurilingual competence. Even referring to these languages
as “foreign” is reductive since the term may be used to refer to the
languages of “nationals” who have acquired them as their first
languages outside school and use them a great deal. National identity
is confirmed by this opposition between national language(s) and
languages which are differentiated from it, essential unity as opposed
to cosmopolitan plurality, which some find threatening. Moving beyond
such oppositions involves considering any linguistic variety
1
Eurydice (2001): Foreign language teaching in schools in Europe.
24
used in Europe as a language of Europe, wherever it originally came
from. The role of plurilingual education seen from this point of view
is to ensure a perception of linguistic varieties at last separated
from the value each of them may have as an element of national or
regional identification. Policies for national/official languages,
those of minorities and immigrant populations and those known as
foreign
often seem to be devised through sometimes incoherent institutional
forms and according to political principles inspired by a qualified
monolingualism in which linguistic diversity is tolerated rather than
accepted. This
Guide
calls for language issues to be seriously examined and above all for
them to be treated as a whole from a standpoint that takes its
coherence from clearly established, common European principles. This
action is possible because a shared educational culture has been
formed in Europe. It is as yet not widely accepted by some sections of
public opinion, however, and is hampered by a number of linguistic
ideologies at work in language policies and national language
education policies.
1.3. Linguistic ideologies
The management of language issues in education systems and elsewhere
is based on beliefs or perceptions that may be erected into a system:
belief in ease of learning a language, the ability to reflect
modernity or transmit science, the value on the job market, according
to its internal characteristics, may lead to the formation of
stabilised, coherent sets of opinions. The groups that adhere to such
representations are likely to use them for their benefit in debates
with other social groups. These sets of beliefs that are the basis of
arguments advanced about languages may be called
linguistic ideologies
. Such representations are equally active in European debates: it is
important to describe them in order to situate them more precisely in
relation to other opinions and to be better able to discuss them.
1.3.1. Common linguistic ideology: the inequality of languages
One of the most widespread linguistic ideologies is born of the
simple feeling, which has no scientific foundation, that languages are
unequal. This ideology, which is often not controlled, suggests that
languages are intrinsically unequal in value. It usually has its
origin in ethnocentric prejudices which make it necessary to denigrate
languages spoken by others in order to establish the superiority of
one’s own language and group. Other languages are presented as
unpleasant, rudimentary or fundamentally unsuitable for sophisticated
uses such as literary or scientific expression. It is with this in
mind that the term
linguistic variety
has been used in this document as a neutral generic term whenever it
seemed appropriate to avoid the word
language
itself, which already implies a value judgment. Any assessment of a
linguistic variety as being, or not really being, a
language
because, for example, it is more or less able to express contemporary
scientific knowledge, is the result of external factors and not of the
intrinsic potential of each linguistic variety. All linguistic
varieties may be equipped to accomplish functions they have not
previously been required to perform. From the point of view of
linguistics, any linguistic variety, whatever its social status, is a
system of signs used as a basis of communication by a human group, all
languages being manifestations of the capacity for language peculiar
to the human race. However, in a particular society and in different
societies, languages are considered not to have the same value. Such
judgments are apparently based on the nature of the languages
themselves, but they are in fact a function of their status in a
society or the status of the people who speak them. The legitimacy of
one linguistic variety in relation to others in a given place is
dependent on external factors which have been clearly identified by
sociolinguistic research, such as:
•
its use as the language of communication by dominant social groups
(military, economic, cultural, religious, scientific, symbolic or
elite) or by central government
•
its standardisation through forms, grammars, dictionaries, etc
Main Version – March 2003
25
•
its historical legitimacy as a linguistic variety belonging to all the
cultural groups in the place in question and its recognition as
expressing at least a part of their identity
•
its cultural legitimacy acquired through literary, artistic,
scientific, philosophical, religious and other productions
•
its status as a taught language and its role as the language in which
other school and university subjects are taught Quite derogatory
representations of other languages and their speakers may be promoted
by the denomination of languages, the attribution of characteristics
to them (languages are regarded as being more or less clear, simple,
rich, beautiful, etc) or the designation of certain uses of them, and
particularly of the national language: speaking with an “accent”,
speaking in a “lower class” or “vulgar” way or “incorrectly”, etc.
Some immigrant children say they speak only one linguistic variety,
the national language of the host country, because they have absorbed
the dominant representation according to which their parents’ language
is not considered a “real” language where they now live. These words
designating languages are themselves the first issue of groups working
for recognition: a particular regional dialect wishes to be recognised
as a full
language
, the denomination having the power of legitimisation, just as a group
wishes to be recognised as a
people
in order legitimately to found a state. This linguistic ideology is
still very much alive in media and political discourse, perhaps in
forms less virulent than in the past. It is clear that it may lead to
linguistic intolerance in that it is not likely to foster the
recognition of equal dignity to all linguistic varieties.
Decision-makers involved in drawing up, formulating and implementing
language policies and language education policies are not necessarily
free of these common stereotypes about languages. Drawing up language
education policies in a democratic context involves using perceptions
of languages other than those based on such representations,
especially since the ideology of the unequal value of languages has
been used as a premises for policies of cultural and religious
repression, in order to justify or perpetuate territorial conquests,
marginalise social groups, hinder their emancipation or
retrospectively justify colonial enterprises.
1.3.2. The linguistic ideology of the nation
Modern European nations embodying a new concept of the state were
created in the late eighteenth and in the nineteenth centuries, and
are still being created today, on the basis of complex cultural and
political processes in which languages play their part. This
development of sovereign territorial entities is based on a feeling
different in kind from obedience to a single sovereign: it comes from
collective, renewed, and therefore always revocable, adherence to a
common project. Nations are formed around adherence to a community of
equals. But while belonging to a community of individuals held to be
equal is defined as a choice and a legal status independent of
belonging to a clan, lineage, religion, territory, it should also be
shaped through and in common experience and values, in a shared
heritage which constitutes the affective dimension. This affective
attachment, which is at the root of patriotism, has in Europe been
based on symbolic and material elements that differ, but are
comparable, in different states: such multiple forms of national
identity are constructed from materials such as the memory of great
ancestors, heroes incarnating national values, and so forth. These
common national traits have reintroduced the principles of cultural
differentiation where the abstract identity of these communities made
cohesive through attachment to values such as equality before the law
or the sovereignty of the people should prevail.
A particular linguistic ideology has been evolved to form, with other
materials, the cultural common denominator which has been used to
define historical nations. A single linguistic variety of the
territory, which has a central position or is spoken/adopted by the
dominant urban classes, for example, is chosen as the official
language: it becomes one of the incarnations of the nation and the
26
national spirit (sometimes even the essence of the nation). The
nation, in its turn, reinforces this by giving it pre-eminence (it is
used by government, disseminated by teaching). This “officialising”
mechanism may be supplemented by measures to eradicate, slowly or
suddenly, the other linguistic varieties or systematically to make
them minor varieties. It is recalled that the exacerbated exaltation
of such national identities led to the implosion of Europe. The same
ideology may be mobilised by minority groups seeking recognition as
distinct communities to reduce the space given to other linguistic
varieties still “more minor” than theirs in the name of the need to
maintain or create the cohesion of this newly formed and recognised
community. Such a linguistic ideology is clearly inappropriate for
the European project: one cannot think of Europe as a monolingual
political entity and base its cohesion on the voluntary adoption by
all its citizens of a single language that would provide a concrete
basis for their adherence to that community.
1.4. The linguistic ideology of economy
Another linguistic ideology is based on the need for a common
language that would reduce the cost of multilingualism. It has been
strengthened by current economic globalisation and the development of
the communication technologies which have greatly increased
opportunities for and the nature of contacts.
1.4.1. The principle of economy and
lingua francas
The needs of international relations, particularly trade, have
contributed to the development of knowledge of languages which have
been put in contact with one another by specialised groups: soldiers
and emissaries, monks and pilgrims, merchants and tradesmen, nowadays
businessmen and tourists. Mutual comprehension may also be brought
about by knowledge, mutual or otherwise, of interlocutors’ languages
or the use of specialised linguistic varieties in these forms of
international communication. A common language may be created on
the basis of one or more existing linguistic varieties and thus be
used as a more functional means of communication between speakers of
different mother tongues. During the Middle Ages,
Lingua Franca
based on French and Occitan was created and used as a means of
communication in the Mediterranean Basin and later disappeared.
Sociolinguistics uses the name of this language to refer to linguistic
varieties performing those functions, be they artificially created
(like Esperanto) or composite (like
Lingua Franca
itself). The role of
lingua franca
may also be played by an existing linguistic variety: it may be the
language of a particular community and become the language of
communication between groups (like Bambara in Mali). The role may
also be played by the language of a particular community (Latin,
Spanish, English), its use being the result of the multiple forms of
primacy (military, ideological, cultural, economic, etc) that that
community may enjoy. But, once it has become international, the
language of a dominant nation may also ultimately be cut off from its
original territorial bases, and no longer have the function of being
the vector of that dominant power. It can be adopted in new forms as a
result of diversification, by other communities which can then
consider it at their own language. The linguistic ideology based on
a principle of economy is often placed at the service of the economy.
The costs of the diversity of human linguistic varieties are then
invoked: the cost of learning and translation, the difficulty of
mutual comprehension. It is also the source of national policies for
which the use of a common, homogeneous language ensures the fluidity
of the national market, particularly the labour market, and maximum
efficiency to the state. Economy of languages is used to justify
efforts to thwart linguistic diversification. This ideology can be
considered part of liberal economic ideology.
1.4.2. The dissemination of English: towards the linguistic
homogenisation of Europe?
The present place of English (or, more exactly, Anglo-American) in
international communication is most often justified by such a
linguistic ideology: this linguistic variety allows an economy of
scale in
Main Version – March 2003
27
trade, which now extends worldwide. English has followed other
languages in being used internationally because it is the language of
dominant states. It is a language of Europe, where it is not used
universally as a language of communication, but is widely used in
certain fields, such as trade and finance.
[*]
It may firstly be feared that sociolinguistic processes are at work
which could lead from English being used as the common language of
inter-group communication to its becoming the ordinary language of
national communication in certain milieus (economic, artistic,
scientific, etc), in the end competing with some national languages.
English is commonly presented by the ideology of linguistic economy as
the single language of the future, which is not enough to justify
fears of linguistic homogenisation in Europe. It has certainly not
been proven that this scenario for the linguistic future is relevant
or that it will be fulfilled: the prospects for the development of
Global English involve various issues. It is indeed possible to
envisage:
•
that this linguistic variety might, at least partly, lose its role as
single official language in the USA as a result of the rise of other
languages, such as Spanish and Asian languages
•
that this linguistic variety, because of its regional diversification
and use among non-native speakers (the English, Indian, American and
Australian varieties going so far as to become mutually
incomprehensible), will eventually no longer conform to the linguistic
standards of native speakers and develop into forms which would make
it just one variety for special relationships between the states of
which it is the official language
•
that the roles of
lingua franca
and language of dominant powers may split as a result of a more
massive rejection than is at present possible of certain elements of
the American model. Anti-globalisation movements may be an indication
of this
•
that the functions performed by this linguistic variety will split
from the goods it is used to trade. There is a notable trend to
describe certain products in the language of the purchaser and not in
that of its designer or vendor:
National Geographic
is now distributed in several languages,
CNN
has created regional editions,
Coca Cola’s
advertising campaigns are national; all these are indications of the
impact of individualised sales techniques which highlight the
specificity of the consumers targeted and therefore their languages
and cultural references
•
that social distinction strategies will value the acquisition of
competence in several languages (at least two), and less widely
studied languages. As knowledge of foreign languages becomes
commonplace (a certain degree of knowledge of English, for example),
the social space for less common languages might be recreated. All
these reasons argue in favour of a cautious assessment of the effects
of homogenisation based on the linguistic ideology of economy.
However, other elements suggest that a process of dissemination may
have started which, in quantitative terms, has reached the point of no
return: English has a dominant place in education systems and
international communication. This universality (although very
relative) could at least weaken the languages of small communities if
communications between its members took place exclusively in this
other language in whole sectors (scientific and economic exchanges,
etc). Each state should therefore think about its own linguistic
future (to decide whether it should “marginalise” its national
language which has no international standing, for example). The
essential point is that these forces should not reach their logical
conclusion without the members of each community being explicitly
informed and called upon to debate them democratically. It can be
imagined that European perspectives will have a role to play in those
debates.
28
1.4.3. English and plurilingualism
It is obviously very difficult to draw conclusions on this question,
which has a number of political undercurrents. Whether or not one
believes that English is “threatening” Europe with linguistic
homogeneity, it remains the case that dominant social representations
attribute every virtue to this language (for use, communication, the
new technologies, etc) and thus contribute to disseminating an
ideology of monolingualism. The question of the relationship between
mastery of English and plurilingualism is, in fact, in a sense more
cultural than sociolinguistic. The role of English as world language
is to a great extent the result of the current dominance of the
“American model”, in particular with respect to mass culture. The
increasing importance of cultural activities in social life and the
efficiency of the United States of America and other English-speaking
countries in the culture industries, as well as their contributions of
every kind to the world community, have led to the international
dissemination of models of behaviour and values. English therefore
not only plays the role of a language of communication but is also
valued for itself as the language of a model of life or society. In
this sense, it is no longer a
lingua franca
, although it is conceivable that it might be appropriated only to
express one’s culture and construct one’s own identity. This would be
possible if the contents of teaching were culturally neutralised (with
no relation to English-speaking societies) and the linguistic
reference model were one of the varieties of international English.
Such a path has already been explored and is encouraged, among other
things, by some teachers’ fear of being accused of neo-colonialism.
[*]
English is therefore valued as an indispensable communication tool
and as a means of access to modernity. This conjunction of functions
may lead to the appropriation of other linguistic varieties being seen
as superfluous (and not only by native English-speakers), because
knowledge of English is in itself sufficient to satisfy communication
needs and model social aspirations. It is therefore important that
the teaching of English, and of all linguistic varieties in the same
position, should be dealt with specifically, in particular with
respect to its functions in education for plurilingualism and
intercultural communication. Dealing with the question of English
without taking into account the position it has been given would
amount to abandoning action concerning situations whose educational
consequences are crucial. In these circumstances, it is not enough
to diversify the languages offered in schools; the education system
must also be enabled to offer education for plurilingual awareness,
that is, organise as part of the teaching of languages, but also
elsewhere, educational activities which lead to equal dignity being
accorded to all the linguistic varieties in individual and group
repertoires, whatever their statute in the community. Teaching of
English should be conceived so as to stimulate speakers’
plurilingualism and not block its later development in the name of a
monolingual ideology.
1.5. Conclusion
The problems which make the search for consensus between the states
of Europe more complex in the field of languages (mother tongue,
second language, etc) and their teaching derive from the fact that
languages have multiple social functions: they are associated with
collective identities (nation, region, community, etc), play a part in
the formation of the individual and the citizen, are an increasingly
indispensable instrument in working life, facilitate the discovery of
other cultures and societies, and have an educational role in that
intolerance and racism are also expressed in contempt for the Other’s
language. Furthermore, the social demand for the teaching of English
is probably unable to foster the dissemination of pluralistic
perspectives like those developed in the Council of Europe. If
languages are to be a real means of communication and openness to
Otherness, this goal must become one of the essential goals of
education policies. In order to achieve commitment even more clearly
to an education policy that is not reduced to a juxtaposition of
languages and is given the
Main Version – March 2003
29
means to create space for the less commonly spoken and taught
languages (whether national, regional, minority, community,
extra-European, etc), it is indispensible to explore all the resources
of
plurilingualism
.
“All languages for all”
is certainly a maximalist, unrealistic slogan, but it is also the
concise, jubilant expression of a viable educational project
(education for plurilingualism as valuing and developing everyone’s
linguistic repertoire) and the identification of a consensual value
(education for plurilingual awareness as education in linguistic
tolerance) that are both constituents of democratic citizenship in
Europe.
30
Chapter 2: The Council of Europe and language education policies:
plurilingualism as a fundamental principle
An attempt was made in the previous chapter to describe a number of
dominant characteristics of the linguistic ideologies active in Europe
and the types of language teaching to which they give rise. It was
shown that it is not languages that are at war, as is commonly
suggested, but antagonistic linguistic ideologies. Other principles
are also at work, however: the principle of the diversification of
languages in schools and society has already been accepted by many
governments, although its practical expression is uneven, particularly
with respect to the implementation of this diversification. It may be
considered that these problems of application are the result not
simply of political circumstances or ideological resistance, but of a
lack of adequate elucidation of the very principle of diversification.
The Council of Europe has identified principles to form the basis of
common language education policies in Europe. This chapter will recall
the Conventions ratified and the Recommendations approved by member
states in which those principles on languages and education have been
set out and affirmed, and how their legitimacy is derived from higher
political principles, those of democracy and human rights. The notion
of plurilingualism, which is at the centre of this linguistic
ideology, will be examined, and it will be shown that it can be
interpreted in many different ways which are not, however,
contradictory. Plurilingualism is at once connected to the legal
protection of minority groups, the preservation of Europe’s linguistic
heritage, the development of individuals’ language skills and the
creation of a feeling of belonging to Europe in the context of
democratic citizenship.
2.1. What principles for language policies for Europe?
The definition of principles for European language education policies
is part of a continuum ranging from technical choices to choices
concerning identity. All these options are present in the debate
about the future of Europe in that they arise from different
interpretations of European cohesion, which see it in economic
(movement of goods and persons), cultural, social (social cohesion),
political (democracy and minority rights) and even anthropological
(what form of community identity for Europeans?) terms.
2.1.1. The linguistic principles used in nation-states are not
relevant to Europe
Europe is not a political entity of the same kind as a nation-state,
to which it would be sufficient to give one (or more) official
national language(s) in order to derive a form of unity or identity
from it (them). It is a fundamentally novel grouping, a plural space,
where numerous linguistic varieties are used – the expression of the
cultural diversity of which it consists – which have enriched each
other, but where no linguistic variety has had a dominant position for
long. There is probably no single language which Europeans could
experience as the language of affiliation to this space. There are
too many national/official European languages for all of them to
obtain a privileged position in the education system of other
countries and for all the linguistic and cultural communities to
achieve mutual recognition thereby. For official communications,
common languages would be used which would be foreign for everyone
except those for whom they are the first language. Thus, in order to
ensure linguistically the free movement of goods and persons, it would
be enough to make the use of one or more common languages official (
lingua francas
), but this would have little effect on Europeans’ cultural cohesion.
Europe needs common linguistic principles more than it needs common
languages.
2.1.2. Only common principles can provide the basis of a language
policy for Europe
Technically, it may be possible to agree on the space to be given to
particular languages in European education systems, but those choices
will probably not be the same because of the differences in the
Main Version – March 2003
31
sociolinguistic situation of each country. It would seem that such
issues should be dealt with on the basis of a shared definition of the
values and principles on which to base not only communication between
Europeans but also choices of language policies, because plurilingual
education and the use of European languages are capable of forming
each citizen’s practical, intimate experience of his or her belonging
to a common political and cultural space whose institutions may be
felt to be distant and whose ideals abstract. From this point of
view, choices of language education policy are decisive. They should
be made at the highest level of decision-making in order that they may
be implemented in a coherent, clearly identified framework covering
simultaneously compulsory education, secondary education, vocational
training and higher and continuing education.
2.1.3. The principles for a language policy in Europe can only be
part of the democratic framework
Language rights are also components of human rights. While
individual rights must be protected, it is easy to understand that the
transmission of languages threatened because they are little used can
only be ensured with the cooperation of linguistic majorities. The
survival of languages depends on everyone being educated to respect
linguistic differences. This means organising the coexistence of
languages in a manner other than their juxtaposition. Linguistic
conflicts must not be allowed to degenerate into more serious
confrontations. The history of twentieth-century Europe is punctuated
by domestic and international conflicts in which linguistic issues
were the manifestation of far more complex conflicts. Stability and
peace in Europe depend upon issues of this sort being taken into
account in a democratic framework that respects the rights of all
groups. Furthermore, language policies are decisive because they are
also an integral part of social policies. No European social policy
seeking to reduce poverty, inequality and marginalisation is
conceivable which fails to take into account national, regional,
minority or foreign languages. The acquisition by everyone of
national languages, particularly their written forms, and of foreign
languages, is an increasingly essential competence for working life as
much as for social cohesion. Action taken to combat marginalisation
inevitably involves verbal communication as a pre-condition and form
of socialisation. It is the function of these principles for
convergent education policies to make linguistic diversity, the
management of communication in Europe and democratic citizenship
compatible.
2.1.4. These principles should take into account current social developments
The establishment of principles for language education policies
should also take into account current developments: on the one hand,
internationalisation, the commercialisation of most human activities,
the increasing role of multinational companies, the formative
influence of the economy on society and the impact of television
culture and, on the other, the re-emergence of feelings of identity
and the resurgence of ethnocentrically based nationalism. This dual
movement is leading to cultural homogenisation or identity-centred
isolationism. To move towards the recognition of communities, with
their specificities among national and transnational entities, the
principles of language policies in Europe will have to be based on
something other than the link established between belonging to the
same political grouping and the languages spoken by the members of
that community.
[*]
2.1.5. These principles are also connected with the issue of a
feeling of belonging to Europe
In the constitutions of modern European states, national languages
have been assigned the role of being one of the fundamental components
of national affiliation. This is because through languages
individuals identify and define forms of affiliation or membership for
themselves, just as they do through religious beliefs and shared moral
values. Does Europe, which in E. Morin’s well-known words, sees
itself as a
community of destiny
, need a linguistic project of this kind in order gradually to develop
its new identity, in the same way as it discovered a need for an
anthem and a flag? From this
32
point of view, should language teaching play the same role as history
teaching which, through a common, but not monolithic, reading of the
past seeks to create the link of citizenship in the diversity of its
attitudes? If such a form of affiliation seeks to be free of the
exclusion of otherness and exteriority, it will be seen that it can
only be based on an open conception of language education and the
language skills that need to be acquired.
Europe could be identified, not by the languages spoken there, whether
or not they are indigenous languages, but by adherence to principles
that define a common relationship with languages.
2.2. Plurilingualism as a principle of language education policies in Europe
There are many potential agents in language education policies:
citizens’ groups, businesses, cities and regions, nations and
international instances such as UNESCO and the European Union. The
Council of Europe is one of those agents: concerns about education and
languages have always been important in the activities of its Steering
Committee for Education. The central position of language education
policies is clear in many texts. And the policies adopted by the
Council of Europe already provide a basis for the development of
language education policies which together contribute to the
development of a Europe of citizens characterised by plurilingualism.
These ideas have found practical expression through the development of
reference instruments for planning and organising language teaching on
the basis of shared principles. It initially favoured the so-called
communicative
language teaching methods by drawing up specific reference tools (
Threshold Levels
) from 1972 onwards and then developed an analytical framework for
language teaching and a description of common reference levels to
enable language competences to be assessed: the purpose of the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(2001) is to make the language teaching programmes of member States
transparent and coherent. In addition to these technical and
institutional advances, however, it is the very notion of
plurilingualism which has asserted itself as a form of language
education appropriate to European realities. This trend was made more
concrete and further legitimised both by the dissemination of the
European Language Portfolio
, designed to enhance the value of the linguistic experiences of
adults and children, and by the
European Year of Languages
(2001), itself sustained by the European Day of Languages (celebrated on 26
th
September). This educational culture has been disseminated among
language professionals and is sufficiently developed at the
theoretical and practical levels to be submitted for political
examination in a real sense.
2.2.1. The founding texts of the Council of Europe: plurilingualism
and language policies
Taking into account language and language teaching issues has led to
the drafting of numerous official Council of Europe documents. They
outline a language education policy for Europe which cannot be
presented in its entirety here. The most important documents will be
reviewed briefly in order to give readers unfamiliar with the field a
general idea of them, but also in order to compare these principles,
which have been approved by member States, with national provisions
and their implementation. Article 2 of the European Cultural
Convention (dated 19 December 1954) describes the action all States
Parties should take for the promotion, teaching and learning of
languages: “Each Contracting Party shall, insofar as may be possible,
a encourage the study by its own nationals of the languages, history
and civilisation of the other Contracting Parties and grant facilities
to those Parties to promote such studies in its territory, and b
endeavour to promote the study of its language or languages, history
and civilisation in the territory of the other Contracting Parties and
grant facilities to the nationals of those Parties to pursue such
studies in its territory.”
Main Version – March 2003
33
The
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
, a convention opened for signature on 5 November 1992 (European
Treaties Series, no.148), is an essential legal instrument with
respect to managing plurilingualism. The Charter provides for
specific measures to promote the use of this category of languages in
education (Part III, Article 8) as taught languages or languages in
which other subjects are taught in pre-school, primary and/or
secondary and higher education, vocational education, etc. In 1995,
the member states of the Council of Europe (through the
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
, 1995, European Treaties Series no.157) agreed to: “undertake to
promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national
minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the
essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language,
traditions and cultural heritage” (Section II, Article 5). The
strategic role of convergent language education policies has several
times led to the drafting of Resolutions and Recommendations more
specific to language teaching. They have defined the main lines for
state action and form the basis of the proposals developed in this
Guide
. The most important are:
•
Resolution (69) 2 adopted at the end of the Council for Cultural
Co-operation’s “Major Project” put in place following the Conference
of European Ministers of Education in Hamburg (1961);
•
Recommendation No. R (82) 18 resulting from the work of CDCC Project
No. 4 (“Modern Languages 1971-78 ");
•
the Final Declaration of the Second Council of Europe Summit (10-11
October 1997). Here, the Heads of State and Government of member
States stressed the development of a Europe based on the principles of
pluralistic democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Chapter IV of the Action Plan appended to the Declaration set out
three fields of action in which immediate progress was possible in
relation to democratic values and cultural diversity: education for
democratic citizenship, enhancement of the European heritage, and the
new information technologies in relation to freedom of expression and
their educational and cultural potential;
•
Recommendation No. R (98) 6 of the Committee of Ministers to member
States, resulting from the “Language Learning for European
Citizenship” project implemented by the Education Committee between
1989 and 1996, where the many measures to be implemented concerning
the learning and teaching of modern languages include, in particular,
“Promote widespread plurilingualism” (Appendix to the Recommendation,
A.2), “by diversifying the languages on offer and setting objectives
appropriate to each language” (2.2) and “encouraging teaching
programmes at all levels that use a flexible approach …” (2.3);
•
Recommendation 1383 (1998) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe expressly devoted to “Linguistic diversification”:
“Beyond the cultural and practical dimensions, a command of foreign
languages is a decisive factor in understanding between peoples,
tolerance of other communities, be they indigenous or foreign, and
peace between nations, as well as being an effective barrier against
the return of barbarity in its various guises.” (2);
•
Recommendation 1539 (2001) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe on the European Year of Languages states that
plurilingualism “should be understood as a certain ability to
communicate in several languages, and not necessarily as perfect
mastery of them” (4). It recommended that the Committee of Ministers
call upon member States to “maintain and develop further the Council
of Europe’s language policy initiatives for promoting plurilingualism,
cultural diversity and understanding among peoples and nations (11.i)”
and to “encourage all Europeans to acquire a certain ability to
communicate
34
in several languages, for example by promoting diversified novel
approaches adapted to individual needs …” (11.ii) All these texts,
and others, invite the governments of member States, while respecting
their specific characteristics, to implement sets of measures to
promote the acquisition of language skills by encouraging the use of
foreign languages for the teaching of certain subjects, to facilitate
lifelong language learning, and make linguistic diversification the
priority in language education policies. For example, paragraph 3 of
Recommendation 1383 (1998) recalls that “Existing statistics show that
a vast majority of pupils in Europe learn English, while other ‘major’
European languages such as French, German, Spanish and Italian lag far
behind. Languages which are spoken by hundreds of millions of people
in the world, such as Russian, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese, have
only a tiny place in school curricula …”. These recommendations and
conventions form the expression of a particularly coherent consensus,
compatible with national requirements, on the development and
implementation of comprehensive language polices. There have been
considerable advances in the field of languages and language teaching,
out of all proportion to the resources mobilised by the Council of
Europe: its work and reference instruments are disseminated because of
their intrinsic relevance and are often the catalyst for redirecting
national language education policies. The Guide takes the elements
developed in these texts (diversity, plurilingualism, tolerance,
cohesion, etc) and reorganises them around the concept of individuals’
plurilingual repertoire.
A common goal of language education policies could be to enhance the
value of and develop the linguistic repertoires of social agents
through education for plurilingualism (in the form of measures to
facilitate language teaching and learning) and education for
plurilingual awareness, as education for linguistic tolerance.
2.2.2. Plurilingual and pluricultural repertoire: the pluricultural
component Individuals have usually acquired one language, but
sometimes more than one, in the process of socialisation starting at
birth: such language acquisition is a fundamental element of the
development of a sense of belonging to one or more social and cultural
groups. The acquisition of language thus involves acquisition of
cultural competence and the ability to live together with others. The
extension of a plurilingual repertoire throughout life also involves
further development of the awareness of other cultures and cultural
groups, and may lead the individual into engagement with communities
speaking the languages currently being acquired. The depth of
engagement and identification with groups and individuals speaking
other languages depends not only on language acquisition but also on
many other individual and social factors, and on the mode of learning
involved. The acquisition of a plurilingual repertoire throughout
life is thus associated with the development of an awareness of the
cultural complexity of the environment, particularly evident in and
among European countries. This awareness can also be associated with
changes in cultural competence and identification. Individuals may
become able to live with others in new linguistic surroundings, and
may be able to identify with the values, beliefs and behaviours of
other groups as a consequence.
Where such changes take place, individuals have an understanding and
experience of at least some aspects of the lives of people of other
languages and other cultures. This also means that they have the
capacity to interpret another way of life and to explain it to those
who live another. This intercultural competence is crucial in the
development of mutual understanding of different groups, and is the
role of intercultural mediators of all kinds, from travel guides, to
teachers, to diplomats and so on. Intercultural competence and the
capacity for intercultural mediation are thus one of the potential
goals of language teaching, enabling plurilingual individuals to
acquire a capacity for living in the multilingual environment which is
contemporary Europe. It is fundamental for interacting with people of
other languages and cultures in the context of mutually supportive
activities within and across political boundaries, and which
constitute activities of democratic citizenship.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/47756914/GUIDE-FOR-THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-LANGUAGE-EDUCATION-POLICIES-IN
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Harold F. Schiffman
Professor Emeritus of
Dravidian Linguistics and Culture
Dept. of South Asia Studies
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305
Phone: (215) 898-7475
Fax: (215) 573-2138
Email: haroldfs at gmail.com
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list
More information about the Lgpolicy-list
mailing list