BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
Mercator Network Conference
17-18 September 2009, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
Inclusive perspectives
on minority languages in Europe
Guus Extra
[email protected]
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
Recent key references
•
Extra, G., M. Spotti & P. Van Avermaet (Eds.) (2009).
Language Testing, Migration and Citizenship: CrossNational Perspectives on Integration Regimes. London:
Continuum.
•
Barni, M. & G. Extra (Eds.) (2008). Mapping linguistic
diversity in multicultural contexts. Berlin/New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
•
Extra, G. & D. Gorter (Eds.) (2008). Multilingual Europe:
Facts and policies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
•
Extra, G. & K. Yağmur (Eds.) (2004). Urban multilingualism
in Europe: Immigrant minority languages at home and
school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
•
Extra, G. et al. (2002). De andere talen van Nederland:
thuis en op school. Bussum: Coutinho.
•
Extra, G. & J.-J. de Ruiter (Eds.) (2001). Babylon aan de
Noordzee. Nieuwe talen in Nederland. Amsterdam:
Bulaaq.
•
Extra, G. & D. Gorter (Eds.) (2001). The other languages
of Europe. Demographic, sociolinguistic and educational
perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
A)
The constellation of
languages in Europe
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
1
Prototypical actors for language transmission in
the private and public domain:
•
•
•
Families: parents in interaction with children
Schools: teachers in interaction with pupils
Policy makers: at the local, national and European
level
Both multidisciplinary and cross-national perspectives will be offered on two major
domains in which language transmission occurs, i.e., the domestic domain and the
public domain. The home and the school are typical of these domains. At home,
language transmission occurs between (parents and) children; at school this occurs
between (teachers and) pupils. Viewed from the perspectives of majority language
versus minority language speakers, language transmission becomes a very
different issue. In the case of majority language speakers, language transmission at
home and at school are commonly taken for granted: at home, parents usually
speak an informal variety of this language with their children, and at school, the
formal variety of this language is usually the only or major subject and medium of
instruction. In the case of minority language speakers, there is usually a much
stronger mismatch between the language of the home and that of the school.
Whether parents in such a context continue to transmit their language to their
children is strongly dependent on the degree to which these parents, or the minority
group to which they belong, conceive of this language as a core value of cultural
identity.
(Extra & Gorter 2008: 4)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
Descending hierarchy of
languages in Europe
•
•
•
•
English on the rise as lingua franca for transnational
communication (at the cost of all other national languages,
including French, and German)
National or “official state” languages of European countries
(Mantra of celebrating linguistic diversity)
Regional minority (RM) languages across Europe (celebrated
less)
Immigrant minority (IM) languages across Europe (celebrated
least)
(Extra & Gorter 2008)
Within and across EU member-states, many RM and IM languages have larger
numbers of speakers than many of the official state languages mentioned in the
previous table. Moreover, RM and IM languages in one EU nation-state may be official
state languages in another nation-state. Examples of the former result from language
border crossing in adjacent nation-states, such as Finnish in Sweden or Swedish in
Finland. Examples of the latter result from processes of migration, in particular from
Southern to Northern Europe, such as Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or Greek. It should
also be kept in mind that many, if not most, IM languages in particular European
nationstates originate from countries outside Europe. It is the context of migration and
minorisation in particular that makes our proposed distinction between RM and IM
languages ambiguous. We see, however, no better alternative. In our opinion, the
proposed distinction leads at least to awareness raising and may ultimately lead to an
inclusive approach in the European conceptualisation of minority languages.
(Extra & Gorter 2008: 6)
2
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
3
Overview of 30 EU (candidate) member-states with
estimated populations and official state languages
(EU figures for 2007)
N r M e m b e r-sta te s
P o p u la tio n (in m illio n s)
O fficia l state la ng u ag e (s)
1
G e rm a n y
8 2 ,5
G e rm a n
2
F ra n ce
6 0 ,9
F re n ch
3
U n ite d K in g d om
6 0 ,4
E n g lish
4
Ita ly
5 8 ,8
Ita lia n
5
S p a in
4 3 ,8
S p a n ish
6
P o la n d
3 8 ,1
P o lish
7
R o m a n ia
2 1 ,6
R o m a n ia n
8
T h e N e th e rla n d s
1 6 ,3
D u tch (N e d e rla n d s)
9
G re e ce
1 1 ,1
G re ek
1 0 P o rtug a l
1 0 ,6
P o rtug u e se
1 1 B e lg iu m
1 0 ,5
D u tch , F re n ch, G erm a n
1 2 C ze ch R e p u b lic
1 0 ,3
C ze ch
1 3 H u n g a ry
1 0 ,1
H u n g a ria n
14 Sweden
9 ,0
S w e d ish
1 5 A u stria
8 ,3
G e rm a n
1 6 B u lg a ria
7 ,7
B u lg a ria n
1 7 D e n m a rk
5 ,4
D a n ish
1 8 S lo va k ia
5 ,4
S lo va k
1 9 F in la n d
5 ,3
F in n ish
2 0 Ire la n d
4 ,2
Irish , E ng lish
2 1 L ith u a n ia
3 ,4
L ith u a n ia n
2 2 L a tvia
2 ,3
L a tvia n
2 3 S lo ve n ia
2 ,0
S lo ve n ia n
2 4 E sto n ia
1 ,3
E sto n ia n
2 5 C yp ru s
0 ,8
G re ek, T urk ish
2 6 L u xe m b o u rg
0 ,5
L u xe m b ., F re n ch, G e rm an
2 7 M a lta
0 ,4
M a lte se , E ng lish
C a n d id a te m em b e r-sta tes
P o p u la tio n (in m illio n s)
O fficia l state la ng u ag e
2 8 T u rke y
7 2 ,5
T u rk ish
2 9 C ro a tia
4 ,4
C ro a tia n
3 0 M a ce d o n ia
2 ,0
M a ce d o n ia n
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
4
Comments on table
• Large differences in population size
• Top-6 of most widely spoken languages
• German and Turkish in top position, not
English
• Strong linkage between references to nationstates and official state languages (only
exceptions for different reasons: Belgium and
Cyprus)
• Disregard of the other languages of Europe
(Extra & Gorter 2001)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
5
RM and IM languages
• The nomenclature (cf. European Charter on
Regional or Minority Languages)
• Unequal treatment of languages as core
values of culture
• Convergence in the criteria for defining RM
and IM groups
• The need for policies beyond the unilateral
concept of “integration” with tasks for all
inhabitants of multicultural societies
• The clash of facts and policies where RM and
IM languages coexist (examples: Great-Britain,
Spain and The Netherlands)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
6
Effects of globalisation for
multilingualism in Europe
Two competitive processes:
• Convergence at the transnational level:
English becomes lingua franca for international
communication, at the cost of all other national
languages in Europe, including French, and
German
• Divergence at the national level: diversification
of home languages (as yet little diversification
of school languages) (cf. outcomes of home
language surveys in London and The Hague)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
7
How ‘they’ hit the headlines
1 Foreigners / Etrangers / Ausländer
•
•
ius soli
ius sanguinis
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
non-national residents
non-English speaking (NES) residents
non-European languages
non-territorial languages
non-regional languages
non-indigenous languages
anderstaligen
2 In need of integration
•
•
Plea for integration is commonly unidirectional and
assimilation-oriented
Plea for integration co-occurs with the language of
exclusion (“othering”)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
8
Paradoxes in the European vs. national
public and political discourse
on diversity of languages and cultures
• At the European level: inherent properties
of European identity and prerequisites for
integration, accompanied by such devices
as celebrating linguistic diversity or diversity
within unity
• At the national level, with respect to
immigrant languages and cultures: threat to
national identity and obstacle for integration
• The concept of community languages as
occupied territory in Europe vs. abroad
(e.g., Australia)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
B) Mapping diversity in
multicultural Europe and beyond
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
9
Criteria effects in Dutch population statistics on 2007
(CBS 2008)
Groups
Birth country (PFM)
Nationality
Absolute
difference
Dutch
13,187,586
15,676,060
2,488,474
Turks
368,600
96,779
271,821
Moroccans
329,493
80,518
248,975
Surinamese
333,504
7,561
325,943
Antilleans
129,965
-
129,965
Italians
36,495
18,627
17,868
Spaniards
31,066
16,468
14,598
Somalians
18,918
1,175
17,743
Chinese
45,298
15,266
30,032
389,940
11,389
378,551
Other groups
1,487,127
434,194
1,052,933
Total non-Dutch
3,170,406
681,932
2,488,474
16,357,992
16,357,992
Indonesians
Total
Table 20 shows strong criterion effects of birth country versus nationality. All IM
groups are in fact strongly under-represented in nationality-based statistics. However,
the combined birth-country criterion of person/ mother/father does not solve the
identification problem either. The use of this criterion leads to non-identification in at
least the following cases:
 an increasing group of third and further generations (cf. Indonesian/Moluccan and
Chinese communities in the Netherlands);
 different ethnocultural groups from the same country of origin (cf. Turks and Kurds
from Turkey or Berbers and Arabs from Morocco);
 the same ethnocultural group from different countries of origin (cf. Chinese from
China and from other Asian countries);
 ethnocultural groups without territorial status (cf. Roma people).
(Extra & Barni 2008: 19)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
10
Criteria for the definition and identification of
population groups in multicultural societies
(P/F/M = person/father/mother)
(Source: Extra and Gorter 2008: 17)
C rite rio n
A d va n ta g e s
D isa d va n ta g e s
N a tio n a lity
(N A T )
(P /F /M )
•
•
•
o b je ctive
re la tive ly e a sy to e sta b lish
•
•
B irth co u ntry
(B C )
(P /F /M )
•
•
o b je ctive
re la tive ly e a sy to e sta b lish
•
•
•
S e lfca teg o ris atio n /
E th n icity
(S C )
•
•
to u ch e s th e h e a rt of th e m a tte r
e m a n cip a tory: S C take s in to
a cco u n t p erso n ’s o w n
co n ce p tio n of eth n icity/ id e n tity
•
•
•
H o m e la ng u ag e
(H L )
•
•
H L is sig n ifica nt criterio n of
e th n icity in co m m u n ica tio n
p ro c e sse s
H L d a ta are pre req u isite fo r
g o ve rn m e nt p o licy in a rea s
su ch a s p u b lic info rm a tion o r
e d u ca tio n
•
•
•
(in te rg e n era tio n a l) e ro sion
th ro ug h n a tura lisa tio n o r d o u b le
NAT
N A T n ot a lw a ys in d ica tive of
e th n icity/ id e n tity
so m e (e .g ., e x -co lo n ia l) g ro u p s
h a ve N A T of im m ig ratio n co u n try
in te rg e n e ratio n a l e ro sio n thro ug h
b irth s in im m ig ra tio n co un try
B C n o t a lw a ys in d ica tive of
e th n icity/id e n tity
in va ria b le /d e te rm in istic: d o e s n o t
tak e in to a cco u n t d yn a m ics in
so cie ty (in co ntra st to a ll o th e r
c rite ria )
su b je ctive b y d e fin itio n : a lso
d e te rm in e d b y th e
la n g u ag e /eth n icity of in te rvie w e r
a n d b y th e sp irit of tim e s
m u ltip le S C p o ssib le
h isto rica lly ch a rg e d, esp e cia lly
b y W orld W ar II e xp e rie n ce s
co m p le x crite rio n: w h o sp e a k s
w h a t la n g u ag e to w h o m a n d
when?
la n g u ag e is n o t a lw a ys a co re
va lu e o f eth n icity/id e n tity
u se le ss in o n e -p erso n
h o u se h o ld s
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
11
Comments on table
•
No royal road: (dis)advantages of all criteria
•
Criteria for statistics as important as statistics themselves
•
Predicted: top-down development of criteria in European
statistics: from NAT and BC to SC and HL as complementary
criteria
•
The need for SC + HL: language ≠ ethnicity vs. Fishman’s
lifelong dedication to language as carrier of ethnicity
•
Multiplicity of NAT/SC/HL criteria vs. BC criterion
•
Home language question offers more perceptual
transparency and societal utility (e.g., in educational and
media policies) than ethnicity question: and yet, more
countries with ethnicity question but without language
question than reverse (cf. UK Census 1991 vs. 2011)
•
Convergence in the criteria for identifying RM and IM groups
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
12
Overview of (clusters of) recent census questions
in four non-European multicultural countries
with longstanding experiences in this domain
(Source: Extra and Yağmur 2004: 67)
Australia
Canada
SA
USA
2001
2001
2001
2000
1 Nationality of respondent
+
+
+
+
4
2 Birth country of respondent
+
+
+
+
4
3 Birth country of parents
+
+
–
–
2
4 Ethnicity
–
+
–
+
2
5 Ancestry
+
+
–
+
3
6 Race
–
+
+
+
3
7 Mother tongue
–
+
–
–
1
8 Language used at home
+
+
+
+
4
9 Language used at work
–
+
–
–
1
10 Proficiency in English
+
+
–
+
3
11 Religious denomination
+
+
+
–
3
7
11
5
7
30
Questions in the census
Total of dimensions
Coverage
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
13
Comments on table
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Five clusters of questions
Variation in total of dimensions and in coverage
The cluster of ethnicity, ancestry and race
The cluster of four different language questions
The paradox of South African statistics
The importance of comparing different groups
using equal criteria
The violation of this principle
Table 23 also shows the importance of comparing different groups using
equal criteria. Unfortunately, this is often not the case in the public or
political discourse. Examples of such unequal treatment are references
to Poles vs. Jews, Israelis vs. Arabs, Serbs and Croatians vs. Muslims,
Dutchmen vs. Turks (for Dutch nationals with Turkish ethnicity),
Dutchmen vs. Muslims, or Islam vs. the West (where does the West end
when the world is a globe?). Equal treatment presupposes reference to
equal dimensions in terms of Table 23.
(Extra & Gorter 2008: 23)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
European statistics on population groups
in multicultural societies
(cf. Poulain, THESIM Group, Louvain-la-Neuve:
Towards Harmonised European Statistics on International Migration)
•
Nationwide censuses at fixed intervals of, e.g.,
5 or 10 years (in 23 out of 27 EU countries)
•
Regularly, e.g., yearly, updated administrative
registers at the municipal and national level (in
Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands)
•
Statistical surveys (large-scale or small-scale)
among particular subsets of population groups
Databases (in various combinations)
•
•
•
nationwide census data
administrative register data
sample survey data
14
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
Identification of ethnicity, language and
religious affiliation in 27 EU countries
(* = voluntary/optional question)
(Source: Extra and Gorter 2008: 19)
EU countries
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Ethnicity/
ethnic nationality
–
–
*
+
+
–
+
–
–
–
–
*
+
–
+
+
–
–
–
+
–
+
+
*
–
–
+
Language
+
–
*
+
+
–
+
+
–
–
–
*
+
–
+
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
+
+
+
–
+
Religion
affiliation
+
–
*
+
+
–
*
+
–
+
–
*
+
–
–
+
–
–
–
–
*
+
+
*
–
–
*
15
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
16
Comments on table
• Variability in total dimensions per country and
in crossnational coverage of dimensions
• Variability in the operationalisation of
questions
• Variability in optionality of questions
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
Operationalisation of language questions
in 17 EU countries
(Source: Extra and Gorter 2008: 20)
EU countries
Mother
(Other)
Language(s) Language(s) Speak Understand/
tongue language(s)
(most
spoken with
well/
Speak/
spoken
frequently)
family
average/
Read/
(frequently)
spoken
members
a little
Write
at home
or friends
Austria
–
–
+
–
–
–
Bulgaria
+
–
–
–
–
–
Cyprus
–
+
–
–
–
–
Czech Republic
(1)
–
–
–
–
–
Estonia
+
+
–
–
–
–
Finland
+
–
–
–
–
–
Hungary
+
+
–
+
–
–
Ireland
–
(2)
–
–
–
–
Latvia
+
+
–
–
–
–
Lithuania
+
+
–
–
–
–
Malta
–
–
+
–
+
–
Poland
–
–
+
–
–
–
Romania
+
–
–
–
–
–
Slovakia
+
–
–
–
–
–
Slovenia
+
–
+
–
–
–
Spain
(3)
–
(3)
–
–
(4)
United Kingdom
–
–
–
–
–
(5)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Indicate the language spoken by your mother or guardian when you were a child
Only Irish; if yes, daily within/outside the educational system/weekly/less often/never
Both language questions in the Basque County, Navarre and Galicia, for Basque/ Galician
In Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands for Catalan
Only in Wales and Scotland, for Welsh and Gaelic respectively
Hungary makes the most investments in finding out about language use. In addition
to these findings, it should be mentioned that in some countries, collecting home
language data is in fact in conflict with present language legislation. This holds in
particular for Belgium, where no census data on language use have been collected
since 1947 and traditional language borders between Dutch, French and German
have been allocated and fixed in the law.
17
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
18
The challenge of formulating
language questions
•
Variability in the operationalisation of questions
and limitations of crossnational comparisons of
outcomes
•
European preference for mother tongue question
vs. non-European preference for home language
question
•
Ethnographic vs. demolinguistic challenges
•
Single vs. multiple language questions
– UK Census of 2011 (“What is your main
language?”)
– ECF Multilingual Cities Project
(Extra & Yağmur 2004)
•
The value of data on language distribution and
language vitality
•
The notion of “ethnolinguistic” vitality:
MCP vs. Giles et al.
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
19
Rationale for home language surveys amongst
multicultural school populations
•
•
•
•
Taken from a demographic perspective, home
language data play a crucial role in the definition and
identification of multicultural school populations
Taken from a sociolinguistic perspective, home
language data offer valuable insights into both the
distribution and vitality of home languages across
different population groups, and thus raise the public
awareness of multilingualism
Taken from an educational perspective, home
language data are indispensable tools for educational
planning and policies (and yet such planning and
policies occur in absence of even the most basic
empirical facts)
Taken from an economic perspective, home language
data offer latent resources that can be built upon and
developed in terms of economic chances
To conclude, home language data put to the test any monolingual
mindset in a multicultural society and can function as agents of change
(Nicholas 1994) in a variety of public and private domains. Taken from an
educational perspective, it remains a paradoxical phenomenon that
language policies and language planning in multicultural contexts often
occur in the absence of basic knowledge and empirical facts about
multilingualism.
(Extra 2009)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
Rationale for focus
on multicultural cities
• International migration concentrates in urban
settings
• The same holds for intergenerational and
reciprocal processes of acculturation
• Multilingualism is most prevalent in urban
settings
• Cities are primary spaces where urban
planners create local policies on
multiculturalism and multilingualism
• Cities reinforce translocal and transnational
dynamics in dealing with diversity
20
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
21
Outline of the Multilingual Cities Project
under the auspices of the European Cultural Foundation
Dominant Germanic
Swedish
German
Dutch
Göteborg
Hamburg
The Hague
Mixed form
Brussels
Dominant Romance
French
Spanish
Lyon
Madrid
Key reference: Extra, G. and K. Yağmur (eds.), Urban Multilingualism in Europe:
Immigrant Minority Languages at Home and School. Clevedon Multilingual Matters.
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
22
Follow-up studies of the MCP
in three European nation-states
• Lithuania (Vilnius/Kaunas/Klaipeda)
• Austria (Vienna)
• Ireland (Dublin)
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
23
Top-23 of most frequently mentioned home languages
other than Dutch in 13 Dutch municipalities
(Extra et al. 2001: 54)
(sample size: approx. 140,000 primary and secundary school pupils)
T u rki sh 8 .6 86
A ra b ic 6.7 5 5
B er b er 6 .3 02
E ng li sh 5 .15 3
H i nd (u sta n) i 5.0 3 7
P ap ia m e ntu 1 .5 72
F r en ch 1.5 34
G e rm an 1 .44 9
S ra n an T o ng o 1.4 26
S pa n ish 1.2 7 0
C h in e se 1 .06 2
K ur d ish 1 .0 54
S om a li 6 9 2
Ital ia n 6 90
M o lu cca n /M a lay 6 5 7
U r du /P a kista an s 64 4
P or tug u es e 5 59
S er b /C ro a t/B o sn 5 3 4
Ja van e se 4 8 1
F a rsi 4 0 0
V ie tna m es e 3 35
G re e k 27 8
D a ri /Pa sh to 2 7 3
0
2 00 0
4 00 0
6 00 0
8 00 0
1 00 0 0
Key reference: Extra, G. et al. (2001), De andere talen van Nederland: thuis en op school.
Bussum: Coutinho.
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
24
Language vitality per language group and per language dimension
for pupils aged 4-13 in primary schools, including Frisian and
Maastrichts
(in %, LVI in cumulative %) (Extra et al. 2001: 150)
Language group
Maastrichts
Dari/Pashto
Turkish
Somali
Farsi
Urdu/Pakistani
Berber
Chinese
Serb/Croat./Bosnian
Arabic
Greek
Kurdish
Vietnamese
Papiamentu
Portuguese
Frisian
Hind(ustan)i
Spanish
Italian
Moluccan/Malay
English
Javanese
Sranan Tongo
German
French
Language
proficiency
Language
choice
Language
dominance
Language
preference
LVI
95
89
97
93
92
93
94
90
90
90
92
86
85
86
86
90
89
80
71
76
76
72
73
74
65
83
88
86
88
81
76
79
78
72
64
57
61
73
55
54
43
43
46
34
31
26
31
25
26
30
74
59
55
47
50
44
42
44
37
38
34
39
34
36
25
30
24
21
26
16
18
20
13
15
14
74
48
48
47
50
49
41
39
43
41
40
36
32
44
39
38
34
33
39
33
34
25
27
25
24
81
71
71
69
68
66
64
63
60
58
56
56
56
55
51
50
47
45
43
39
38
37
35
35
33
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
C) Dealing with plurilingualism
in education
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
25
Moving away from a monolingual mindset
• In retrospect:
compensatory/transitional/complementary
approaches in bilingual education
• In prospect: valuing trilingualism in
mainstream education
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
26
Major agencies and documents on language
rights at the global and European level
U n ite d N a tio n s (U N )
• U n ive rsa l D e cla ra tio n o f H u m a n R ig h ts (1 9 4 8 )
• In te rn a tio n a l C o ve n a n t o n C ivil a n d P o litica l R ig h ts (1 9 6 6 )
• C o n ve n tio n o n th e R ig h ts o f th e C h ild (1 9 8 9 )
• D e cla ra tio n o f th e R ig h ts o f P e rso n s B e lo n g in g to N a tio n a l o r E th n ic, R e lig io u s
a n d L in g u istic M in o ritie s (1 9 9 2 )
UNESCO
• U n ive rsa l D e cla ra tio n o n L in g u istic R ig h ts (1 9 9 6 )
• U n ive rsa l D e cla ra tio n o f C u ltu ra l D ive rsity (u p d a te 2 0 0 2 )
• E d u ca tio n in a M u ltilin g u a l W o rld (2 0 0 3 )
C o u n cil o f th e E u ro p e a n C o m m u n itie s (n o w E U , e sta b lish e d in B ru sse ls)
• D ire ctive o n th e sch o o lin g o f ch ild re n o f m ig ra n t w o rke rs (1 9 7 7 )
C o u n cil o f E u ro p e (e sta b lish e d in S tra sb o u rg )
• E u ro p e a n C h a rte r fo r R e g io n a l o r M in o rity L a n g u a g e s (1 9 9 8 )
• F ra m e w o rk C o n ve n tio n fo r th e P ro te ctio n o f N a tio n a l M in o ritie s (u p d a te 2 0 0 3 )
O rg a n iza tio n fo r S e cu rity a n d C o o p e ra tio n in E u ro p e (O S C E )
• T h e H a g u e R e co m m e n d a tio n s R e g a rd in g th e E d u ca tio n R ig h ts o f N a tio n a l
M in o ritie s (1 9 9 6 )
• O slo R e co m m e n d a tio n s R e g a rd in g th e L in g u istic R ig h ts o f N a tio n a l M in o ritie s
(1 9 9 8 )
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
Comments on
agencies and documents
• Differences in terminology of the
documents
• Differences in target groups
• Language rights on paper vs. language
rights in actual practice
27
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
28
Irish and Basque voices on RM and IM groups

Nic Craith, Europe and the Politics of Language (2006: 166-167)
Overall the question of non-European languages in Europe has
received little attention. As yet, there are many difficulties relating to
regional, contested and non-territorial languages which have been
prioritised by groups such as the EBLUL. Moreover there is a view
that non-European languages should not drain the limited resources
available to other language groups who may be in great difficulty, but
seek whatever recognition and support they desire from their country
of origin.
There are also other matters emerging in the new Europe. As the
EU expands, the presence of English has become increasingly
prevalent. Although theoretically the EU is a multilingual institution, at
a practical level all languages other than English are becoming
minoritised in relation to this global language. Recognition and status
are issues for all languages albeit at different levels. In the quest for
recognition there is little sympathy for languages such as Arabic or
Turkish which are perceived as operating in global rather than
European contexts. Moreover, there is the issue, not dealt with yet, of
the association of such languages with terrorist activities.
Languages in Europe are currently arranged in a somewhat
hierarchical manner with global, official, state languages at the top of
the pyramid and non-European languages at the bottom. Yet in an
increasingly democratic society, questions must be raised about the
future of such arrangements and whether it is time to review policies
and politics of recognition.
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon

Ruiz Vieytez, Human Rights and Diversity (2007: 21)
In this order of things, we need to reflect on the historical or
temporary legitimacies when organizing public spaces. The
processes of immigration not only raise challenges to the traditional
organization of the nation-state, but also force us to rethink the
traditional concepts of minority, and the distinction between historical
minorities and new minorities. What is true is that, with greater or
lesser historical roots in the territory of another political space,
people who immigrate and settle permanently in that territory
become part of it. They contribute to its formation and development.
They contribute to the public welfare system, and, in turn, deserve to
be treated as members of the political community. Is it legitimate, in
contemporary democracies, to make this membership conditional on
identity filters? What legitimacy, if any, should we assign policies that
privilege certain identities and damage others for numerical or
historical reasons? And, if we respond affirmatively to this, although
partially, then who is legitimized to make decisions about what
identity elements will mark belonging or political privilege?
Democratic deepening demands a new consideration of these
and other problematics, on a basis of inclusion and plurality. Just as
social realities are increasingly plural, institutional realities must be
adapted to this diversity. For that reason, we do not here wish to
raise the question as a process of integration of immigrants or
displaced native populations. We understand this approach as
unfortunate in a democratic perspective.
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
European institutions
as agents of plurilingualism
•
Concept of plurilingual citizens in multilingual
nation-states
•
European Union (Brussels/Belgium):
Unit for Multilingualism Policy
Directorate of Culture, Multilingualism and
Communication
•
Council of Europe (Strasbourg/France):
Language Policy Division
•
European Centre for Modern Languages
(Graz/Austria)
In a so-called Whitebook, the European Commission (1995) opted for
trilingualism as a policy goal for all European citizens. Apart from the
“mother tongue”, each citizen should learn at least two “community
languages”. In fact, the concept of “mother tongue” referred to the official
languages of particular member-states and ignored the fact that for many
inhabitants of Europe mother tongue and official state language do not
coincide. At the same time, the concept of “community languages”
referred to the official languages of two other EU member-states. In later
European Commission documents, reference was made to one foreign
language with high international prestige (English was deliberately not
referred to) and one so-called “neighbouring language”. The latter
concept always related to neighbouring countries, never to next-door
neighbours.
In particular the plea for the learning of three languages by all EU
citizens, the plea for an early start to such learning experiences, and the
plea for offering a wide range of languages to choose from, open the
door to the above-mentioned inclusive approach.
29
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
30
Attitudes towards plurilingualism
(Source: Special Eurobarometer 243: 53, European Commission 2006)
(AL = Additional Language)
Late 2005 findings, collected in 27 EU countries plus 2 candidate EU
countries (Croatia and Turkey) in face-to-face interviews in people’s
homes. For each country, a stratified sample was defined derived from
European and/or national population statistics offices, taking into account
such variables as gender, age (15 plus), region and size of locality. The
total sample consisted of 28,694 respondents, based on approximately
500 (Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta) to 1000 interviews per country.
(Extra & Gorter 2008: 40)
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Don’t
know
 Everyone in the EU should be able to speak one AL
84%
12%
4%
 All languages spoken within the EU should be treated
equally
72%
21%
7%
 Everyone in the EU should be able to speak a
common language
70%
25%
5%
 The European institutions should adopt one single
language to communicate with European citizens
55%
40%
5%
 Everyone in the EU should be able to speak two AL
50%
44%
6%
Statements
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
31
Arguments in favour of
community language teaching (CLT)
for minority children
• From a cultural perspective: CLT contributes
to maintaining and advancing a pluriform
society, in line with the fact that many IM
groups consider their own language as a
core value of their cultural identity
• From an economic perspective: CLT leads to
an important pool of professional knowledge
in societies with an increasingly international
orientation
• From a legal perspective: CLT meets the
internationally recognised right to language
transmission and language maintenance
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
32
Beyond integration:
principles for the enhancement of
trilingualism at primary schools
for all children
1 In th e prim a ry sch o o l cu rricu lu m , thre e la ng u ag e s a re in tro d u ce d fo r a ll ch ild re n :
•
th e officia l sta nd a rd la ng u ag e of th e p articu la r n a tio n -state (or in so m e ca se s a
reg io n ) a s a m ajo r sch o ol su b je ct a n d th e m ajo r la n g u ag e of co m m u n icatio n fo r th e
te a c h in g of oth e r sch o o l su b je cts;
•
E n g lish a s lin g u a fra nca fo r in te rn atio n a l co m m u nica tio n ;
•
a n a d d itio n a l th ird la ng u a g e se le cte d from a va ria b le a n d va rie d se t of p r iority
la n g u ag e s at th e n a tio n al, reg io n a l a n d/o r lo ca l le ve l o f th e m u lticu ltura l soc ie ty.
2 T h e te a ch ing of a ll th e se la n g u ag e s is p a rt of th e reg u la r sch o o l curricu lum a n d su bje ct
to e d u c atio n a l in sp e ctio n.
3 R e g u la r p rim ary sch o o l re p o rts co nta in in form a tio n o n th e ch ild re n ’s p rof icie n cy in
e a ch of th ese la ng u ag e s.
4 N a tio n a l w o rk ing p rog ram m e s are e sta b lish e d fo r th e p rio rity la n g u ag es r efe rre d to
u n d e r (1) in o rd er to d e ve lo p cu rricu la , te ach in g m e th o ds a n d te ach e r tra in in g
p rog ram m e s.
5 S o m e of th e se prio rity lan g u ag e s m a y b e ta ug ht a t sp e cia lise d la ng u ag e sch o o ls.
BABYLO N
C EN TRE
FOR
S T U D IE S
OF THE
M U L T IC U L T U R A L S O C IE T Y
T ilb u rg U n iv ersity , th e N eth erlan d s
w w w .tilbu rgu n iversity.n l/babylon
Sources of inspiration
for the above-mentioned principles
• The European Commission as agent of
trilingualism for all European citizens
• The Victorian School of Languages in
Melbourne/Australia as role model
• The UNESCO Universal Declaration of Cultural
Diversity (updated in 2002)
• “If India can do this, why wouldn’t Europe be able
to do so?”
Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence (2006)
The above-mentioned principles would recognise plurilingualism in
an increasingly multicultural environment as an asset for all
youngsters and for society at large. The EU, the Council of Europe,
and UNESCO could function as leading transnational agencies in
promoting such concepts. The UNESCO Universal Declaration of
Cultural Diversity (updated in 2002) is very much in line with the
views expressed here, in particular in its plea to encourage
linguistic diversity, to respect the mother tongue at all levels of
education, and to foster the learning of more than one language
from a very early age.
33
Descargar

Document