Linguistic Diversity in Europe: Current Trends and Discourses 9783110270884, 9783110270839

This book, which emerges in the context of the European research network LINEE (Languages in a Network of European Excel

159 76 2MB

English Pages 349 [350] Year 2012

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Linguistic Diversity in Europe: Current Trends and Discourses
 9783110270884, 9783110270839

Table of contents :
Chapter 1. Introduction
Part I: Language, Identity and Culture
Chapter 2. European multilingualism: A highly fragmented and challenging field of research
Chapter 3. European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)
Chapter 4. Language standardization and language identity issues in European language minority settings: Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins
Chapter 5. Language ideological debates: The case of Croatia
Part II: Language Policy and Planning
Chapter 6. Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism
Chapter 7. The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration: Contrasting case studies of “new” migration in Spain and the UK
Chapter 8. Social actors and the language policy and planning process: A case study from German-speaking Lorraine (France)
Part III: Multilingualism and Education
Chapter 9. English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?
Chapter 10. European multilingualism, “multicompetence” and foreign language education
Chapter 11. “French is French, English is English”: Standard language ideology in ELF debates
Part IV: Language and Economy
Chapter 12. Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe (An analysis of legal discourse)
Chapter 13. Language use in multinational companies in Europe: A theoretical and methodological reframing
Chapter 14. Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management: The case of the Vietnamese migrant community in the Czech Republic

Citation preview

Linguistic Diversity in Europe

Contributions to the Sociology of Language 97


Joshua A. Fishman Ofelia Garcia

De Gruyter Mouton

Linguistic Diversity in Europe Current Trends and Discourses edited by

Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-027083-9 e-ISBN 978-3-11-027088-4 ISSN 1861-0676 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at © 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston Cover image: sculpies/shutterstock Typesetting: Apex CoVantage, LLC Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Go¨ttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper s Printed in Germany


Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen Part I: Language, Identity and Culture Chapter 2 European multilingualism: A highly fragmented and challenging field of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter Chapter 3 European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria) . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic Chapter 4 Language standardization and language identity issues in European language minority settings: Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Jeroen Darquennes Chapter 5 Language ideological debates: The case of Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat Part II: Language Policy and Planning Chapter 6 Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism . . . . . . . . . 115 Patrick Studer



Chapter 7 The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration: Contrasting case studies of “new” migration in Spain and the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero Chapter 8 Social actors and the language policy and planning process: A case study from German-speaking Lorraine (France) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Daniela Dorner Part III: Multilingualism and Education Chapter 9 English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman Chapter 10 European multilingualism, “multicompetence” and foreign language education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou Chapter 11 “French is French, English is English”: Standard language ideology in ELF debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Alessia Cogo Part IV: Language and Economy Chapter 12 Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 (An analysis of legal discourse) Vı´t Dovalil



Chapter 13 Language use in multinational companies in Europe: A theoretical and methodological reframing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil Chapter 14 Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management: The case of the Vietnamese migrant community in the Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Chapter 1 Introduction

Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen

The present book appears at an appropriate time of European history: Economic and political barriers have been removed and European citizens can move freely across a vastly expanding social and cultural space in pursuit of their personal and economic fulfilment. New economic and cultural centres are emerging in Europe attracting European and overseas citizens regardless of origin or nationality. While, on the outside, Europe today appears more united politically and economically than ever before, its inside is undergoing fundamental socio-cultural and linguistic diversification that challenges nation-state conceptions and structures. And it is precisely this internal diversification, linguistic and otherwise, that impacts on the way citizens perceive the world around them: European integration not only means more and greater opportunities for the individual but brings along fear of displacement, fear of choice, and fear of loss of identity. As a result, diversification has become a perceptible social reality for all societies in Europe and has entered political and medial spheres of public life and debate. Regions, member states, and the EU itself, have recognised diversification as a challenge that merits public attention and which calls for scientifically-based, yet pragmatic, answers. Against this background, policy labels are invented and re-invented so as to provide adequate forums for public debate and regulations. It is against this background that one can understand the recent rise in attention given to language policy, both at European and member state levels. The European Union responded to this trend in 2007 by establishing the common policy domain of multilingualism which was to address emerging issues relating to linguistic and cultural diversity. The key problems of this new policy domain, however, are both historical and structural. Europe’s linguistic diversity is a heritage of the ideology of nation states which implied and promoted linguistic homogeneity within state borders (see Wright 2004). The EU founds its principles on this heritage, automatically adding member states’ languages to the official languages of the Union. The EU’s approach of dealing with this heritage has led, among other things, to two problems: firstly, a growing number of translators and interpreters are

2 Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen needed to ensure the needs of the Union and, secondly, a small number of so-called working languages are adopted, which finally seem to lead to English as a Lingua Franca of European communication. While legislating and regulating the use of languages at the supranational level, however, the EU has no right to intervene at the level of member states. According to the so-called principle of subsidiarity, member states themselves are entirely responsible for their own linguistic policy-making. Many of the members pursue a monolingual language policy by promoting only one official language. Thus, the only European instrument to protect and promote other, unofficial, languages is the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages of the Council of Europe, ratified by 24 members of the Council (but, for example, not by France and Italy). The same Council of Europe hosts a Language Policy Division which promotes multilingual educational measures in order to further European multilingualism, recommending that every European citizen should at least learn two foreign languages. In the attempt to establish multilingualism as a policy area within the European Union, this recommendation was adopted by Leonard Orban, the first European Commissioner for Multilingualism (2007–2009). During his term of office, Leonard Orban sought to differentiate the established policy concept of linguistic diversity, aimed at national linguistic integrity and the promotion of official languages, from a more pragmatic understanding of language as an economic asset. Under Orban’s office, multilingualism as a policy concept came to be associated with young urban mobile openness and European integration. Orban’s promotion of this new multilingualism reflects, to some extent, the dilemma the European Union is facing, caught between member states’ interests in their own languages and the European Union’s effort towards economic and political integration and mutual understanding. Against this background, the present volume continues in the vein of previous publications in Contributions to the Sociology of Language (e.g. Coulmas 1991; Coulmas 2007) by offering new ideas and ways of exploring linguistic diversity and multilingualism as European concepts with multiple faces, facets, functions and socio-political implications beyond the nation state. It emerges in the context of the European Network of Excellence, LINEE, which has been supported by the European Commission under the sixth European framework programme in the years 2007 to 2010.1 LINEE, or Languages in a Network of European Excellence, is 1 LINEE – Languages in a Network of European Excellence, Project no. CIT4–2006–28388 co-funded by the European Commission in the Sixth Framework Programme (2002–2006).



concerned with current issues in linguistic diversity and multilingualism in European societies. The idea of LINEE goes back to 2005 when the first project outlines were drafted in response to a call aimed at integrating and strengthening the European research area for the period 2002–2006. LINEE subsequently derived and conceptualised its ideas from the theme of linguistic diversity in a European knowledge-based society and its overarching topic “Citizens and Governance.” LINEE’s general aim was, according to its annex, “to investigate linguistic diversity in Europe in a coherent and interdisciplinary way, by developing an innovative, visible and durable scientific Network that can overcome fragmentation and serve as a world-wide quality and knowledge-based reference framework.” The building of a network culture proved to become as big a challenge as the development of a research consensus in the study of linguistic diversity in Europe. It soon became clear that the study of linguistic diversity within the scope of such a network is a continuous endeavour which cannot be completed in the course of a four-year period. The call for tender of the European Commission contained three distinct aims which networks of excellence were to pursue. The intention of the European Commission was, firstly, to integrate the European research area and to strengthen it. Integration, in this context, could be understood as an attempt to free research traditions, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, from their national bias, so as to enable the development of commonalities between them. Secondly, the European Commission sought to encourage research into the “knowledge society”, which was to constitute the paradigm on whose background linguistic diversity was to be defined. Such research should raise the following questions: how can linguistic diversity contribute to the distribution and acquisition of knowledge? Does the knowledge society prevent or promote linguistic diversification? How is it possible to include linguistic aspects into our techno-economic concept of knowledge? The third intention of the European Commission was, finally, to draw attention to the role of citizens and good governance of Europe by asking about ways in which linguistic diversity could be seen to mediate between these social realities. In the context of the three concerns of the European Commission, a network of excellence such as LINEE was challenged to offer ways of overcoming defragmentation, that is, to find ways research could emancipate itself from traditional conceptions and develop joint approaches to overarching social phenomena (cf., Rindler Schjerve and Vetter, this volume, also Schierve-Rindler and Vetter 2012). One of the first steps undertaken in this direction was the search for an appropriate methodological frame. The common denominator was found in discourse analysis, which, in a

4 Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen broad sense of the term, represents a diversity of conceptual principles and standards that encompass conversations or dialogical exchanges between speakers as well as the objects of discourses that are encoded, constructed and transformed within and through such interactions. It was believed that such a dynamic framework was needed to study a social phenomenon that is neither homogenous nor static but most vulnerable to change. When LINEE was incepted, nobody foresaw the economic crisis of the years 2008 and 2009. The new member states of the European Union seemed to be expecting their economic boom then, which, however, resulted in the opposite. Nationalistic tendencies in the new and old member states did not seem to present themselves as a research topic in 2006; they are a topic today. The financial collapse of European member states, which currently fills newspaper columns, was unimaginable at the time; it today questions the idea of European economic integration. New migratory tendencies were hardly visible in national statistics; they constitute social reality today. Leonard Orban was the first Commissioner for Multilingualism; in 2009, this policy area was merged with Education and Culture into Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth. These examples show that a reorientation has taken place – multilingualism and linguistic diversity are losing their position as an independent policy domain and are absorbed by policy areas in which their basic function may well be lost. As a consequence, the question of linguistic diversity and multilingualism is referred back to the member states which hold complete authority over this topic. Today, LINEE might be asking different questions and looking for different answers – precisely for this reason, LINEE is intended as a durable and sustainable network so as to be able to monitor and accompany change and development in this sensitive socio-political field of study. The essays collected in this volume mark a perceptive milestone in this direction as they single out tangible aspects of linguistic diversity and multilingualism against the background of a complex and rapidly changing political and scientific environment. In doing so, the studies presented in this volume must be understood as indicative of a larger picture, whose scope we may guess but never fully comprehend. Yet, they draw lines of investigation that may well occupy the research community for years to come. The outline of this book follows the structure of LINEE in which linguistic diversity and multilingualism as European concepts are understood as paradigms that are characterised by their cross-cutting potential and functions across key themes. The key themes proposed by LINEE are identity, language policy, education and economy. They were chosen as thematic areas essential for the study of linguistic diversity dealing with who we are, how we can



organize and cultivate linguistic diversity, how we organise language knowledge transmission, and how we use the linguistic capital of Europe in economic settings. These themes have been studied across different organisational levels, such as the region, the nation state and Europe (see figure 1). European Level

National Level

Language, Identity and Culture

Language Policy and Planning

Multilingualism and Education

Language and Economy

Regional Level

Figure 1. Thematic areas and vertical levels

The four key themes of identity, policy, education and economy are closely interconnected. The first theme, identity, is a multifaceted concept with many layers. In the context of the present book, we are dealing essentially with social and European identity. Social identity is relevant in that individuals perceive themselves as belonging to social groups and, eventually, as members of a particular linguistic community (Le Page, Tabouret-Keller 1985; more recently, Auer 2007; Pavlenko, Blackledge 2004). European identity, however, can not be founded on linguistic membership but relies precisely on the idea of linguistic diversity as one of its constitutive principles. Local, regional and national identities, therefore, exist in direct opposition to a European identity, which presents a challenge to policy-makers at all levels and which calls for a radical re-assessment of the role of language in society beyond the nation state (e.g., Joseph 2004; NicCraith 2006). While the study of social identity is strongly interconnected with implicit and explicit language policy and planning, it is precisely language policy and planning processes that are difficult to grasp, or to predict, as they are often by-products of other fields of activity. In the European context, the fuzziness of language policy-making seems particularly marked since stakeholders pursue different aims at different levels and points in time, using different means, and thus run the risk of initiating contrary developments. At the same time, nation states put precautionary measures in place so as to tackle their own specific linguistic needs arising from migration and

6 Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen mobility. One case in point that presented itself to our own network was the language situation of the Baltic States vis-a`-vis European language policy (e.g., Hogan-Brun 2003). While the European Union followed the course of promoting linguistic rights of Russian as a new minority language in Estonia and Latvia, the policy of the Baltic States emphasised quite the opposite: the newly gained official status of their member state languages which had been violently neglected under former Soviet occupation. Both identity and policy can only be understood properly in relation to educational opportunities and policies, that is, in relation to the broader educational framework within which language use can be located. Indeed, education, both obligatory and post-obligatory, has always played a central role in language planning research (Ferguson 2006), traditionally focusing on (foreign) language learning (Kaplan, Baldauf 2005). However, research has also shown that teaching and learning processes are understood differently across different nations and cultures, which can lead to different policy or learning outcomes. More recently, research has shifted its attention to the question of English as a Lingua Franca, which increasingly tends to replace the so-called languages of wider communication promoted by the Council of Europe and which gradually seems to be developing into a proper language of identification (Jenkins 2007). The interface of language and economy, finally, constitutes a thematic area of research that warrants particular attention in the future. Sociolinguistics, until now, has been very reluctant towards empirical studies in this area, which is particularly due to methodological problems involved with analysing language at the workplace, but which also reflects an underdeveloped understanding of economic aspects of language use in general. The focus on the language-economy interface requires more interdisciplinary work that permits the study of economically viable factors. While in theory the importance and benefit of le marche´ linguistique (Bourdieu 1982) is acknowledged, linguistic and business needs clearly diverge in practice. Here, too, the focus lies on the interconnection between action and talk, between production and communication, at the interface of globalisation and local, regional and national business activity. Early research on labour migrant populations, for example, showed that allophone migrants acquired so-called “Gastarbeiter”-pidgins in a non-institutional setting; today migrants working in higher positions tend not to accommodate to their linguistic environment, forcing natives to change to their language (e.g. English). Thus, the four key thematic areas of LINEE encompass a comprehensive thematic spectrum, ranging from language(s), society, to state and economy, as well as across three vertical levels of perspective, the regional,



national and European levels. From the perspective of the EU structure it seems, at first glance, that regions constitute the least salient variable. However, a closer analysis reveals that regions, in varying degrees of organisation and quality, present a challenge to political actors at the levels of the nation and of Europe. This shows, in turn, how heterogeneous the region can be, and how it contributes, both linguistically and otherwise, to European diversity in substantial ways. The multiple perspectives, angles and theories with which these themes are approached in this book are offered as a contribution to a theory of European linguistic diversity and multilingualism, taking account of the socio-cultural specificity of linguistic diversity in Europe. The strength of the collection of essays in this volume springs from the recognition of a need to join research efforts across languages and cultures in Europe, which clearly sets a new trend in European sociolinguistics. European sociolinguistics so far has been marked by a type of national bias. Researchers have tended to refer to their own subjective experiences in their study and tended to neglect other areas of research and traditions. LINEE has been established precisely to counter research fragmentation by putting together teams of researchers from different partner universities across Europe. In these teams, researchers are confronted with points of view other than their own, which enables them to develop a more coherent but also more complex perspective of European linguistic diversity. The strength of the essays in this volume is also demonstrated in their contribution to a comprehensive multifunctional and multidisciplinary framework for multilingualism and linguistic diversity as a field of linguistic study. Rindler Schjerve and Vetter (this volume) set out to show that the combined research effort, as conducted in LINEE, reveals key research concepts that cut across all thematic areas and levels of social organisation. These interconnected concepts, notably culture, discourse, identity, ideology, knowledge, language policy and planning, multi competence, and power and conflict, may form the baseline on which the fragmented field of research into multilingualism and linguistic diversity may be fruitfully theorised. Thus, the collection of essays in this volume can be understood as a typical, yet original, sample of LINEE work. It can be located within the broad field of sociolinguistic analysis, perceiving language as a mediator of societies, institutions and social processes that are held together by unequally distributed social forces. The essays of this book share the assumption that European discourses of linguistic diversity are constituted by social situations, social actors and by key themes, which, in turn, are seen to relate to various discursive and social practices. While this focus permits the study of a wide range of linguistic

8 Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen and other symbolic forms of communication and interaction, the research presented in this volume accentuates the role of the individual social actor, as well as the individual as social actor. It thus emphasises the construction and perception of social realities, using empirical, often micro-interactive and qualitative, instances of language and speech as a resource for analysis. The empirical data used for such analysis have been collected in various sites in Europe through comprehensive fieldwork activities taking account of the specificity of the local environments. Figure 2 presents a detailed map of the various research sites where fieldwork, such as observation, interviews and surveys, was undertaken by the contributors to this volume.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Southampton London Bruxelles Luxembourg Straßbourg Bolzano Praha ˇ Ceské Budejovice ˇ Szeged Pula Barcelona Castellón





7 5

8 9 6 10

11 12

Figure 2. Field research sites

The particular focus of this book on the voice of individuals as members of social and institutional communities is seen in a collection of case studies emphasising situations where controversial debates on language and language use may arise. There are a number of chapters which foreground



the autochthonous minority context as a classical case in point. Members of minority communities from regions such as Lorraine, South Tyrol and Istria provide the focus for authors to study how European and national integration efforts are perceived in educational, policy-making, and informal social contexts. A similar approach is taken to the study of more recent migratory phenomena, such as Romanians in the United Kingdom and Spain, or Vietnamese in the Czech Republic, where perspectives of individuals from minority contexts are discussed which are typically connected to economic motivations. Other chapters are concerned with perceptions and coping strategies of individuals negotiating their space within transnational communities of practice in Europe, as in the example of employees of multinational companies or European institutions, or of secondary school or university students in various educational contexts of Europe. These chapters, for example, are devoted to the question of how English as a lingua franca is conceptualised by Erasmus students while they spend time abroad, or they are concerned with the concepts of “nativeness” and cultural heritage as markers of language identity from the perspective of native English school leavers. Yet other contributions deal with conceptualisations of language from the point of view of European policy-makers as guardians of linguistic human rights or from the point of view of employees of multinational companies foregrounding economic advancement. The strong focus of this volume on individualised behaviour towards language is complemented by two text-based studies foregrounding the broader nature of the management of language issues at national, i.e. Croatian, and supranational, i.e. European, levels, as well as by one case study using survey methods in the analysis of identity formation processes of the Ladin community. The book takes a critical stance in two ways: Criticism or a critical attitude towards social conditions is not only inherently reflected in the choice of topics for analysis but also in the approach taken by the individual authors to study them. This criticism manifests itself in the consistent attempt of the authors at re-interpreting individuals’ behaviour in a sociopolitical and historical sense, anchoring statements and subjective expressions in the various socio-political discourses surrounding language as an object and subject of debate. This discourse analytic focus makes the book fundamentally critical across vertical and horizontal lines of social organisation. The “outcome” of such analytic attempts is a collection of representations which subsume insider attitudes, opinions, perceptions and beliefs of members from different communities. Instances of such representations, situated in their socio-political contexts, are taken as representative of typical cases and examples – examples of how ideologies are constructed

10 Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen and reflected, how meaning is negotiated, how disagreement is managed, and so on. These representations may be closely embedded in the rhetoric of interaction or they may include contributions as free-standing statements singled out by the author to underline a specific observation. In adopting such a broad focus, this book does not rely on a single analytic method or theory but brings to bear the multitude of perspectives that underlie discourse analytic work, which are capable of revealing the complex forms of expression and representation of the phenomenon studied. One of the theoretical concepts cutting across the key themes of this book is language ideology. Language ideologies are visible in the ways citizens, students, migrant workers and policy-makers perceive and respond to linguistic diversity in European societies. Ideology is reflected in people’s feelings of belonging, their reasoning about concepts as well as in their attitude towards and their evaluation of politics, policies and multilingual interaction. Ideologies can be explained and understood in part by social and discursive practices people engage in every day when negotiating or constructing their positions with others. A number of contributions to this volume examine the “undesired” outcome of such discursive activity, when ambiguities, discrepancies, controversies or contradictions arise from the clash of language ideologies, or of language ideologies and practices. Discrepancies are explored, for example, between the social reality of English as a lingua franca and the political concept of multilingualism, or between feelings of belonging to a region and the forces of the European single market. Or contradictions arise between policy-makers and policy-making institutions across different societal levels of organisation (supranational, national and regional) as they pursue opposing or conflicting interests. Conceptual contradiction, in fact, appears as a cognitive phenomenon underlying much of language policy-making activity. Notions of power are closely linked to ideologies and societal organisation. In this book, power in a Bourdieuan sense (1982) appears as a strong variable in the theorisation of hegemonic and asymmetric processes, perceptions and constellations that interrelates with access to knowledge, discursive resources, participation and social status. As a theoretical concept, power is shown to possess explanatory potential in the analysis of the role of language at the interface of the European Union, the nation state and the region. Power, however, is also seen to be connected to individual social actors’ contributions in the ways they exert control over interaction, or to the gate-keeping function of the media in the mediation of policy as well as to individual languages themselves as legal and economic resources. The dynamics that unfolds through the interplay of language, ideology,



conflict of interest and power, as is presented in the various contributions to this volume, and the constellations of these factors across key thematic areas of European society, are shown to play a critical role in the linguistic behaviour and mechanisms of control in a transnational society beyond the nation state. The three chapters of part I of the book analyse language-related aspects of identity, (re-)constructing and discussing socio-political situations that bear on people’s identification behaviour towards language in regional, national or supranational contexts. Bertosa et al. (this volume) study the phenomenon of power, ideology and conflict of interest in the context of the debate surrounding national identity in Croatia. Applying the concept of ideology as inspired by Woolard (1998) and language ideological debates by Blommaert (1999) to a corpus of text documents from various print and internet media, the authors seek to reveal the role of language in the construction of national identity. While present in various contributions in the book, the focus on identification as a marker of identity is most clearly theorised and analysed by Bozic et al. and Darquennes (this volume). Bozic et al. focus on the interplay of power, ideology or conflict of interest as reflected in varying degrees of identification with a language or linguistic community of practice. These languages or linguistic communities can be of national, regional impact or point beyond political boundaries. Identification, in this context, is understood as a process of becoming rather than being (Hall 1996), while policies, with reference to the work of Laclau and Zizek, are seen as instruments used to construct social reality rather than public support. In their ethnographic case study of the regional minority community in Istria (Croatia), Bozic et al. apply Laclau’s (2007) theory of nodal points and the concept of identifications to reveal spontaneous perceptions of Istrian citizens when solicited to elaborate on the differences and convergences between the European and Istrian understanding of diversity. As Bozic et al. show, European cultural values are utilised in these spontaneous exchanges as identification markers with reference to stereotypical evaluative constructions of Istria vis-a`-vis their neighbouring regions and states. Darquennes (this volume), on the other hand, singles out the converse example of Bozic et al., that is, speakers’ identification with their local variety of Ladin in the context of standardisation efforts, and their perception of Ladin identity vis-a`-vis their dominant surrounding linguistic communities (German, Italian, European). In his essay, Darquennes illustrates the complexity of, and, possibly, reluctance towards establishing political solidarity even in contexts where a language is clearly endangered. Unlike Bozic

12 Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen et al., Darquennes uses quantitative survey methods to analyse speakers’ identification with Ladin at the collective rather than the individual level, proposing quantifiable criteria with which collective phenomena can be measured. In operationalising identity and identification, Darquennes makes reference to Haarmann (1995, 1996), classifying people’s linguistic identity on the basis of positive/negative attributes that involve demarcation and solidarity processes. Policy-making appears as a focus in part II of the book which identifies and discusses problem areas that emerge as general and recent phenomena when the subject of negotiation is language. These chapters highlight distinctive perspectives that equally impact on political decision-making processes, such as the role of policy-makers themselves, the views of new migrants when confronted with regional and national policies, and the role of language policy as part of a broader socio-historical rationality of a region. Identification with cultural or status objects connected to languages equally leads to efforts towards dealing with contradictory representations at the level of language policy-making, and to potential dilemmas of social actors involved when they are confronted with conflicting personal or social interests. This is seen, for example, in Studer (this volume) who analyses ways in which policy-makers deal with conceptual inconsistencies or contradictions when they engage in rational language policy-planning at European level. Embedding the policy concept of multilingualism in Social Representation Theory (Moscovici 1988; Markova´ 2003), Studer uses a discursive conceptual approach (e.g. Skinner 1989) to analyse coping and coherence strategies of policy-makers as revealed through interviews. Language asymmetries in Bourdieu’s sense of power are further seen to guide migrants’ perceptions of citizenship in a minority setting. Paffey et al. (this volume) study the interface of perceptions of citizenship and notions of power in a case study of the Romanian community in three different sites: the autonomous provinces of Valencia and Catalonia in Spain, and in the City of Southampton (United Kingdom). Against the background of research questioning the interconnections made between language and citizenship in language policy contexts (e.g. MacNamara and Shohamy 2008; Cameron 2002), Paffey et al. present case examples from ethnographic fieldwork with Romanians at the three research sites to contextualise the views of migrants at the receiving end of these implicit and explicit language policies. Dorner (this volume), in her study of the German-speaking minority in the Lorraine region of France, views the issue of language asymmetries and differentials as the result of a language policy and planning process which is rooted in complex interactions between micro- and macro-levels



of social analysis and which can be accessed through historical-sociological re-constructive activity. In the absence of a comprehensive integrative language policy and planning framework, Dorner proposes a sociological descriptive perspective which foregrounds the role of the individual as a social actor at the micro-level in the construction of language policy and planning discourses (Haugen 1987; also Cooper 1989). Referring to studies arguing for the integration of micro- and macro-processes into analysis (e.g. Giddens 2006, Johnson 2008), Dorner situates people’s perceptions within a broader historical-sociological context. Part III of this book is devoted to challenges arising from attributions of ownership of language, notably English, to specific groups and communities. Focusing on English as a Lingua Franca, Peckham et al. (this volume) take the issue of English native speaker ideology as the basis for their investigation to discuss critically the effects of the native speaker paradigm among European Erasmus students, a typical European tertiary study environment. Peckham et al.’s approach is embedded in the scientific position that native ideologies associated with English, such as the perceived superiority of the native speaker paradigm and the notion of nativeness as a teaching or learning ideal, presents a perceptive challenge to successful ELF interaction, both for native and non-native speakers. This position, which is largely compatible with English as a Lingua Franca research (e.g. Jenkins 2005, Seidelhofer 2005), as well as with a language ecological perspective (Phillipson 1992, 2003), is put forward as a pedagogical alternative to widely established language practice in educational contexts. Cogo (this volume) shifts focus on the nature and complexity of English native speaker ideologies in a national educational context, looking more closely at attitudes of young school leavers in the UK towards language differentiation, historical and grammatical relevance. Basing her argumentation mainly on conceptual work carried out in the context of English as a Lingua Franca research (Cogo 2008, Jenkins 2009), the author, while arguing against the notion of deficiency of non-native varieties of English, demonstrates that spontaneously occurring language ideologies among young native speakers reinforce stereotypical concepts of language as a powerful marker of personal identity and otherisation. Mitchell et al. (this volume) complete the ideological discussion of standard and native language ideologies addressed in Peckham et al. and Cogo, elaborating on the question whether the concept of multicompetence can be seen as a potential asset in the cognitive development of pupils. Mitchell et al.’s argumentation is based on the notion of multicompetence within the conceptual work done in psycholinguistics (notably De Angelis 2007;


Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen

Cook 1991 and later) and sociolinguistics (Hall, Cheng and Carlson 2006). The chapter proposes and applies a definition of multicompetence that takes account of theoretical considerations as well as language education policies and traditions, thus arguing for a definition of multicompetence that subsumes both a reference to the state of a multilingual individual as well as to the concept as a policy tool that can be implemented in an educational context. Part IV addresses the interface between economic pressures and the formation of language policies in national, supranational and transnational contexts. Dovalil (this volume) takes a detailed look at the interplay of language, law and economy, demonstrating that language ideological discourses play a critical role in the decision-making processes of the European Court of Justice, despite its function as a protector of linguistic human rights. Dovalil uses Language Management Theory as the basis for analysis (e.g. Jernudd, Neustupny´ 1987, Neustupny´, Nekvapil 2003), which is proposed as a suitable apparatus for studying the decision-making process in highly normative and formalised contexts. Sherman et al. (this volume) set out to assess the role of multilingualism in an increasingly internationalised business context. The authors tackle the theoretical challenges of the topic by reviewing the much-cited applied studies – ELAN and Talking Sense – and reframing the findings in a more qualitative, linguistic and ethnographic manner. Sherman et al. propose a theoretical reformulation of ELAN and Talking Sense, taking into account the regional nature of companies’ practices, the inclusion of a language ideological dimension and inclusion of established practices of dealing with language problems. The proposed framework is Language Management Theory, which takes account of both simple language management of individuals as well as organised forms encompassing ideological dimensions of language use (e.g. Nekvapil and Sherman 2009). The final chapter in this book by Vasiljev and Nekvapil attempts to point out limitations in the application of Bourdieu’s notion of “linguistic capital” as an operationalisable analytical tool. Bourdieu’s concepts, the authors argue, were based on the idea of linguistically coherent societies in which class or region were key variables, whereas the example of the Vietnamese community in the Czech Republic clearly shows that this ideal scenario does not always occur. Vasiljev and Nekvapil set out demonstrate that the readiness to learn foreign languages can be related to economic opportunities requiring flexibility along vertical and horizontal axes which depend on locally varying conditions. In local migrant communities, as is the case with the Vietnamese in the Czech Republic, this readiness can



be organised into (unspoken) “policy,” which reflects the attempt to manage language issues in coherent ways. The chapters of this volume are intended to open up new avenues of thought in a field of research that will doubtlessly be gaining importance in decades to come. In times when Europe is attempting to unite its diverse cultures, a socio-political awareness of language plays an ever greater role in intercultural exchange and understanding. While the importance of language is superficially acknowledged by many institutions, it is hoped that the chapters collected in this volume offer some guidance and make a perceptive contribution to increasing the awareness of the complexity of language as a policy object, an identity marker, a commodity and, of course, a means of communication. The editors finally wish to acknowledge the financial support of the European Commission without whose support neither LINEE, nor this book project, would exist. Bern, 1 January 2012 The editors

References Auer, Peter 2007

Style and Social Identities. Alternative Approaches to Linguistic Heterogeneity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter Blommaert, Jan (ed.) 1999 Language Ideological Debates. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bourdieu, Pierre 1982 Ce que parler veut dire. L’e´conomie des e´changes linguistiques. Fayard. Cameron, Deborah 2002 “Language: it’s just not cricket.” Critical Quarterly 44(2): 69–72. Cogo, Alessia 2009 Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: a study of pragmatic strategies. In: Anna Mauranen and Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings, 254–273. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Cook, Vivian 1991 The poverty of the stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research 7: 103–117. Cooper, Robert L. 1989 Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16 Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen Coulmas, Florian (ed.) 2007 Language Regimes in Transformation. Future Prospects for German and Japanese in Science, Economy, and Politics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 93). Coulmas, Florian (ed.) 1991 A Language Policy for the European Community. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 61). De Angelis, Gessica 2007 Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ferguson, Gibson R. 2006 Language Planning in Education. Edingburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Giddens, Anthony 2006 Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fifth fully revised and updated edition. First published in Cambridge (Polity Press) 1989. Haarmann, Harald 1995 Europeanness, European identity and the role of language – Giving profile to an anthropological infrastructure. In: Sociolinguistica 9: 1–55 Tu¨bingen, Niemeyer. Haarmann, Harald 1996 Identita¨t. In: Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Wolfgang Wo¨lck and Zdenek Stary (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Band I, 218–233. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Hall, Stuart 1996 Introduction: Who Needs ‘Identity’? In: Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay (eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity, 1–17. London, Sage. Hall, Joan K., An Cheng and Matthew T Carlson 2006 Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27: 220–240. Haugen, Einar 1987 Blessings of Babel. Bilingualism and Language Planning. Problems and Pleasures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle 2003 Baltic National Minorities in a Transitional Setting, In: Gabrielle Hogan-Brun and Stefan Wolff (eds.), Minority Languages in Europe: Frameworks, Status, Prospects. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 120–137. Jenkins, Jennifer 2005 Teaching pronunciation for English as a Lingua Franca: a sociopolitical perspective. In: Claus Gnutzmann and Frauke Intemann (eds.), The globalisation of English and the English language classroom, 145–158. Go¨ttingen/Tu¨bingen: Gu¨nter Narr.



Jenkins, Jennifer 2007 English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, Jennifer 2009 Misinterpretation, bias, and resistance to change: The case of the Lingua Franca Core. In: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kolaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds), English Pronunciation Models: A changing scene, 199–210. Berlin: Peter Lang. Second edition. First published in Bern (Lang) 2005. Jernudd, Bjo¨rn H. and Jirˇ´ı V. Neustupny´ 1987 Language planning: for whom? In: Lorne Laforge (ed.), Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning, 69–84. Que´bec: Les Presses de L’Universite´ Laval. Johnson, Doyle Paul 2008 Contemporary Sociological Theory. An Integrated Multi-Level Approach. New York: Springer. Joseph, John Earl 2004 Language and Identity. National, ethnic, religious. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Kaplan, Robert B., and Baldauf Richard B., Jr. 2005 Language-in-Education Policy and Planning, In: Eli Hinkel and N. J. Mahwah (eds.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1013–1034. Laclau, Ernesto 2007 On Populist Reason. London: Verso. Le Page, Robert, and Andre´e Tabouret-Keller 1985 Acts of Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McNamara, Tim and Elana Shohamy 2008 “Viewpoint: Language tests and human rights.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1): 89–95. Markova´, Ivana 2003 Dialogicality and Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jirˇi, Nekvapil and Tamah Sherman 2009 Language Management in Contact Situations. Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Neustupny´, Jirˇ´ı V. and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil 2003 Language management in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 4: 181–366. [Reprinted in: Richard B. Baldauf and Robert B. Kaplan (eds.), Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 2: The Czech Republic, The European Union and Northen Ireland, 16–201. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters]. NicCraith, Ma´ire´ad 2006 Europe and the Politics of Language. Citizens, Migrants and Outsiders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

18 Patrick Studer and Iwar Werlen Pavlenko, Aneta and Adrian Blackledge 2004 Negotiation of identities in multilingual context. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Phillipson, Robert 1992 Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, Robert 2003 English-only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. Routledge: London. Rindler Schjerve, Rosita and Eva Vetter 2012 European Multilingualism: Current Perspectives and Challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Seidlhofer, Barbara 2005 English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59(4): 339–341. Skinner, Quentin 1989 Language and political change. In: Terence Ball, James Farr, Russell L. Hanson (eds.), Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, 6–23. Cambridge: University Press. Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998 Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In: Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, 3–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, Sue 2004 Language Policy and Language Planning. From Nationalism to Globalisation. Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Part I: Language, Identity and Culture

Chapter 2 European multilingualism: A highly fragmented and challenging field of research

Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter

1 Multilingualism as a field of policy-making Nowadays and within the European integration process, multilingualism appears to be an established field of policy-making. The appointment of Leonard Orban as the commissioner for multilingualism in 2007 was an important step in institutionalising multilingualism as an official policy area within the EU. The process started in April 1958 when the EC declared all languages of the member states official languages and working languages of the European institutions. In the 1970es, multilingualism appeared as a plea for intensified foreign language teaching (Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers of Education 19761), while from the 1980es onwards it became a field of increased political action that focused on language learning (Erasmus2, Lingua3) and on regional minority languages (Arfe´4 and de Kuijpers5 Reports, EBLUL6, Mercator Network7). These activities prepared the ground for most noteworthy actions in the 1990es (White Paper on Education and Training 19958, Socrates9, the CoE’s European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages10 in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

cf. OJ 1976 C 38. cf. OJ 1987 L 166. cf. OJ 1989 L 239. cf. OJ 1981 C 287 & OJ 1983 C 68. cf. OJ 1987 C 318. cf. European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, more information: cf. EBLUL. See cf. COM(95)590. cf. OJ 1995 L 87. cf. Charter RML 1992.

22 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter collaboration with the EU, Euromosaic11; Eurobarometer12). After the millennium, multilingualism has become an important issue on the EU’s political agenda, starting with the Lisbon Strategy13, the European Year of Languages14 and the EU’s enlargement, which have given rise to more recent political action (Action Plan 2004–200615, the New Framework Strategy16, Multilingualism an asset17, Recommendations of the High Level Group 200718 and of the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue 200819). Against the background of these activities it can be argued that there are three major stages which characterise the development of multilingualism as a field of policy-making. From its first regulation in the 1950es, which was followed by an implicit laissez-faire policy with French as the ultimate EC’s institutional working language well into the 1970es, the question of multilingualism in Europe was taken up in the 1980es and 1990es through increased reporting activities and recommendations which aimed at fostering foreign language learning and which entailed the promotion of the regional minority languages. This scope was associated with the need for ensuring social cohesion while it was at the same time a means to encompass the effects of the growing globalisation. Moreover, the second developmental stage can be seen as a preparatory phase for the third stage, in which after Maastricht and in view of the ongoing integration process multilingualism has been emerging as an ever important topic in the EU’s cultural and linguistic policy. Since 2000 and the Lisbon strategy, it is obvious that the promotion of multilingualism is seen as one of the prerequisites for Europe’s “becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy and society in the world”20. Beyond this wider scope it cannot be ignored that immigration is yet another aspect which has been challenging the policy-making in the last years, although, and as yet, the new minorities lack being explicitly integrated into the EU’s official language policy. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

More information: cf. Euromosaic. More information: cf. Eurobarometer. cf. Lisbon Conclusions 2000. cf. OJ 2002 C 50. cf. COM(2003)449 final. cf. COM(2005)596 final. cf. COM(2008)566 final. cf. High Level Group 2007. cf. Maalouf 2008. Lisbon Conclusions 2000.

European multilingualism


Following the prominent legal EU documents, multilingualism is to be subsumed under the principle of cultural diversity. We know that the plea for cultural diversity, which linguistic diversity is an important part of, has emerged from three fundamental claims that constitute the major principles on which the EU is founded, namely firstly democracy associated with equality and human rights, secondly the requirements of the New Economy and the Single Market, and thirdly the subsidiarity principle, which is a cornerstone of the EU’s architecture. Against this background, multilingualism was devised as a multi-faceted cover term which should ensure the political implementation of cultural diversity. In the context of European multilingualism in general, three major areas emerge as fields of scientific investigation and of language policy and planning: 1. ELF and the position of the official languages in Europe, 2. the official European languages and the old and new minority languages, and 3. the request for multilingual proficiency and cultural cohesion within the European knowledge-based society. As the EU lacks the legal competence of interfering into the linguistic affairs of the member states, it has been engaging in these three areas since the 1990es by drafting recommendations and action plans and by taking stock of the key data concerning language use in education, economy, minorities and the EU institutions. The LINEE project (Languages in a Network of European Excellence 2006–2010), which was commissioned by the EU under the 6th Framework Program, covers all these areas to a certain degree and can eventually be seen as one of the outcomes of the EU’s engagement in language policy and planning.

2 Multilingualism – a fragmented research area Research on bi- and multilingualism in Western Europe started under the impact of the North-American paradigm of languages in contact in the 1970es with studies on language conflicts between regional minority- and national languages in different member states of the EC.21 In the 1980es, 21 At the same time it cannot be ignored that in Eastern Europe and under the impact of the Soviet research on bilingualism the former socialist countries came to form a multilingual paradigm of their own, which, however, due to language- and ideology-driven discrepancies between Eastern and Western research, lacks, as yet, integration into a larger scale European scope of research.

24 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter the scope of European multilingualism research was broadened by research in second language learning, in acquisition planning and in language policy. These studies were particularly fostered through initiatives by the Commission and the Council of Europe. In the 1990es, a first stock-taking of multilingual research in Europe (Goebl et al. 1996) showed that theory building and methodology in this field appeared to be rather fragmented (Rindler Schjerve 2006). On the one hand this fragmentation was due to isolated attempts at describing and explaining the manifold problems that multilingualism and diversity in Europe gave rise to. As such it could be elaborated on highly sophisticated levels in one research area but not in others. On the other hand this research very often focused on specific phenomena which mostly lacked a common theoretical background or perspective. And a third point is that research in this field appeared to be strongly rooted in the different scholarly traditions of the European study of “language in society”, which from the beginning of the 1990es were determined by the discrepant political and ideological orientations of the old and the new member or candidate states. These discrepancies became particularly evident at the time when the EU was headed towards its 2004 enlargement and immediately after the new member states had joined the Union. Hence, it comes as no surprise that different perspectives are also reflected in the EU’s official discourse on multilingualism, as exemplified in the Recommendations of the High Level Group22 (Commission of the European Communities 2007) on the one hand, and in the Recommendations formulated by the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue23 on the other. Both address multilingualism, although from two different perspectives and with different outcomes. At present, it is not only a question for scholars in the field of learning more about multilingualism, but also of bringing together already established knowledge and integrating it into a comprehensive framework. It was in this perspective that LINEE was commissioned, as it was expected that research in this network would contribute to restructuring the scientific space and assist in overcoming the existing disciplinary fragmentation of knowledge about multilingualism in Europe. At the same time, coherent and innovative views on multilingualism should help to inform language policy and planning within the EU.

22 cf. High Level Group 2007. 23 cf. Maalouf 2008.

European multilingualism


In what follows we will draw upon theoretical and methodological aspects that combine with the major findings of the research within LINEE. The primary task of this research was to investigate how linguistic diversity (LD) interacts with the EU’s integration process and how it impacts on the promotion of the European knowledge-based society. In order to assess the highly complex and intricate nature of European multilingualism, the whole project was devised against the analytical background of four thematic areas, namely language in interaction with respectively identity and culture, language policy and planning, education, and economy. These four areas constituted, as it were, the reference framework from which – as it was hypothesised – the major components of linguistic diversity in the European context would have emerged. Moreover, it was argued that research conducted within this framework yields information about the specific problems the EU and the member states envisage 1. when they identify with LD, 2. when they plan and implement LD, 3. when they provide the educational prerequisites for LD, and 4. when they attempt to meet the multilingual requirements of the Single Market. Moreover, it was expected that the knowledge about the dynamics within this framework would eventually allow for theoretically coherent and innovative views on multilingualism.

3 Assessing multilingualism From the very beginning of LINEE it was evident that multilingualism in the EU was to be assessed on a multidisciplinary basis which would draw upon quite different theoretical and methodological concepts. While in view of the wide range of research methods available, the methodological profile of the LINEE project appeared to match by and large the qualitative paradigm, the theoretical profile emerged on the grounds of a set of recurrent categories which due to their saliency in the different thematic areas were to be taken into further account as key variables of European multilingualism. These variables are “culture”, “discourse”, “identity”, “ideology”, “knowledge”, “language policy & planning” (LPP), “multi-competence”, and “power & conflict”. Although the former categories seem to represent a tailor-made selection of European multilingualism, it should be stressed, at this point, that they are far from covering the entire range of this process. At present it can be assumed that the LINEE key variables provide a basic foundation for conceptualising European multilingualism. At the same time it cannot be ignored, however, that we are still far from theorising European multilingualism in comprehensive terms, all the more as

26 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter major difficulties appear to arise in the process of formulating theory- and evidence-based assumptions about the quality and interaction types of the single categories. On the one hand it is evident that these categories stem from quite different ontological and epistemological settings. Taking for example “knowledge” or “language policy & planning”, it cannot be ignored that “knowledge”refers to specific levels of abstraction which are quite different from those on which LPP as a mainly pragmatic category is founded. Another point is that some categories, as for example “identity” or “language policy & planning”, relate strongly with specific thematic areas while they remain of a rather vague and implicit nature in others. Other categories, however, as e.g. “power” or “discourse”, impact on the shaping of multilingualism in all areas only implicitly. Moreover, some categories combine very closely with others, e.g. “identity” and “ideology”, so that it is difficult to draw the line or to assess the dynamics which define their specific interrelationship, whereas at the same time there are categories the interaction of which remains blurred or vague, e.g. “identity” and “multi-competence” or even “identity” and “knowledge”. Finally, there are further salient components involved in shaping multilingualism in Europe, such as attitudes, which appear to connect very intimately with variables like “knowledge” or “ideology”, although it remains unclear how to define their intersecting nature. In the following, we will in a first step concentrate on the theoretical dimension of European multilingualism as it is displayed by the key variables, while in a second step we will focus on the methodological profile as it emerges from the empirical assessment of the multilingual scenarios in Europe.

3.1 Theoretical dimension 3.1.1 Culture Within multilingualism research, “culture” is given a wide range of meanings which may be related to Appadurai’s distinction between primordialist and constructionist concepts of culture (Appadurai 1996). Within the LINEE research, “culture” tends to be approached from a fairly constructionist angle, whereas in those cases where “culture” is treated in an implicit manner it happens to be associated with rather primordialist views. According to the primordialist approach, “culture” and its impact, i.e. in terms of underlying values and preferences or in terms of knowledge, are taken for given. From a constructionist perspective, however, people mutually construct “culture” through interaction, when, for example, they agree upon a given element of cultural knowledge in a specific situation. It goes

European multilingualism


without saying that in this scope the assumption of “culture” as an entity that is defined by fixity, unity and coherence is being essentially challenged. Despite these conceptional differences there is, nevertheless, common agreement that “culture” combines intimately with other variables, and particularly with language. Unfortunately, the intersection between “culture” and language has not been clearly enough elaborated as yet. The findings from the LINEE research indicate, however, that “culture” impacts on the shaping of multilingualism in different forms and guises, i.e. in terms of linguistic resources, as value or capital, as predisposition or as competence, and even as a prerequisite for citizenship in the various migration contexts. Still, speaking a language does not necessarily position one’s membership in a given culture and vice versa, since language diversity and cultural diversity are not coextensive concepts. Here, the LINEE findings point to the dominant EU discourse on cultural diversity, which appears to rest, as yet, on the assumption that the adoption of languages automatically entails the adoption of other aspects of cultural practices. This example shows that research on multilingualism has to take into due account the intersection between “culture” and language, although – and notwithstanding their very close relationship – “culture” and language cannot be equated. Moreover, and in agreement with the LINEE findings, “culture” is also to be seen in a very close relationship with “identity” and “ideology”, since dominant linguistic ideologies as for example the so-called standardlanguage ideology are generally based upon the unity of language, identity and nation. The linkage between “culture”, “identity” and “ideology” appears to be particularly relevant when it comes to multilingualism in connection with old and new minorities, when the teaching and learning of languages is concerned, or when the questions of multilingual speakers’ access to power and mobility are addressed. Examples would be contexts such as Catalonia, where regional minorities are not sufficiently sensitised towards the new social reality as it emerges from immigration and the mixture of cultures; or educational contexts in which “culture” constitutes a content of the teaching and learning of intercultural competences, or economic contexts in which “culture” in terms of cultural capital impacts on the access to power and mobility of migrant groups. When talking about “culture” as a salient category it can be concluded that “culture” intersects with the different phenomena and dimensions connected with multilingualism. The LINEE findings underline that “culture” is a cross-cutting category which interacts with all the other key variables in different ways and measures and that it is a component which is very closely linked with “ideology” and “identity”. Beyond this, “culture” is a

28 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter variable that has to be taken into account in a number of contexts: when investigating the identification potentials associated with multilingualism, when multilingual management and planning is at stake, when it comes to developing the required multilingual competences within the field of education, or even when multicultural competences are adopted in terms of capital in the market place.

3.1.2 Discourse Discourse is a category which pertains to all dimensions and phenomena connected with multilingualism; therefore, investigating multilingualism relates to discursive manifestations in one way or another. For example, multilingualism within the European political scope is a primarily discourse-based manifestation, since it is planned and implemented through discursive action. Since “discourse” pertains to all phenomena connected with multilingualism, it goes without saying that “discourse” is a salient category which is intrinsically intertwined with “knowledge”, “culture”, “identity”, “ideology”, “language policy and planning”, “multi-competence”, and also with “power and conflict” – all the more, as these categories are by and large discourse-based variables. Therefore, focusing upon multilingualism from a comprehensive perspective implicates that different kinds of “discourse” have to be taken into account. Within the LINEE scope there are two different and, in fact, complementary strands of approaching “discourse”, i.e. “discourse” as “language in use”, which refers to the way meaning is produced when a language is used in particular contexts for particular purposes, and “discourse” as a “set of presuppositions in circulation about a particular phenomenon” (Cameron and Kulick 2003). There are, however, two central characteristics which combine with all discourse approaches. On the one hand “discourse” is seen as a multilevel concept in terms of social practice that is shaped by its context while, at the same time, it shapes this context. On the other hand “discourse” is conceived as social practice which has an ideological function. Against the background of the LINEE findings, the link between “ideology” and “discourse” is particularly salient when it comes to language ideologies that are discursively shaped or when questions of power asymmetries and conflicts are raised. Thus, it comes as no surprise that approaching “discourse” in connection with “ideology”, “power and conflict” very often relates to Critical Discourse Analysis although there may be other options as well. The conceptualisation of “discourse” as a producer and carrier of meaning and as a multi-level concept connected with social practice gives rise to

European multilingualism


the assumption that a discursive approach to multilingualism and linguistic diversity will shed light on how multilingualism and linguistic diversity interrelate. Since multilingualism was devised as a multi-faceted cover term which should ensure the political implementation of cultural diversity, a discursive approach may be most promising in clarifying how multilingualism in interaction with linguistic diversity can be assessed and explained in more detail.

3.1.3 Identity Similar to “culture” and “discourse”, “identity” also appears to be a salient cross-cutting variable for defining multilingualism. In terms of conceptualisation there has been a notable shift from conceiving of “identity” as a stable and unitary category towards a more dynamic and flexible process focusing on identification rather than identity. Identifications emerge through the relation to the “other”; they are socially constructed phenomena which are dynamic, fluid and subject to change. Moreover, “identity” is a discourse-based formation, i.e. a relational, contextually embedded and power laden phenomenon articulated trough the interplay of not only oppositions and differences, but also through collective experiences of shared spaces of belonging. Within the LINEE perspective, belonging may be expressed through a “multi-layered citizenship” in which individuals accommodate their multiple identifications in positioning each layer (local, ethnic, national, etc.) in relation to the other. The result may be a kind of hierarchy where a specific layer comes first, or a dialectic sense of belonging in which, for example, migrants may associate their sense of belonging with the citizenship of their country of origin and at the same time with their identity as immigrants into a host country. The LINEE findings suggest that “identity” is highly important in connection with multilingualism policies, since policy manoeuvres of this kind appear to be heavily involved in the management of multiple identities. This applies in particular to minority language policies where in the case of the old minorities, territorial and descent based forms of identity and belonging are taken for granted, whereas it remains to be seen on what grounds and against what reference points the integration of the migrant minorities can be tackled. As to the interplay of “identity” and multilingualism in educational contexts, it remains, as yet, an open question how exactly “identity” relates with foreign language learning. Since “identity” appears to combine with

30 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter the competence model, it can be hypothesised that linguistically multicompetent persons have a particular type of identity that also comes to bear on their intercultural awareness, which eventually forms a part of this identity. When it comes to the management of multilingualism in the economic sphere, it goes without saying that the New Economy calls for identities which suit the characteristics of the market. Multilingualism is one of the major prerequisites for moving and being flexible within this market. Thus, economic managers and employees have to assume flexible identities while they meet the multilingual demands associated with their business activities. With respect to the languages used in these activities, it can be observed that English is generally perceived as a language ridded of national identity symbolism, whereas the use of other languages continues to symbolise national identities. Concerning the various intersections between “identity” and the other key variables of multilingualism, it can be said that “identity” is very intimately associated with “culture”. This is particularly evident in the context of European identity where – as we see – cultural and linguistic differences can co-exist peacefully, neutralising important histories of antagonism and struggle. Therefore, attitudes towards the EU and European identity remain quite ambivalent – all the more as the EU, whose demand for strong identity has been primarily determined by economic interest, has as yet not succeeded in creating an effective identity bond. As far as the intersection of “identity” with other key variables is concerned, the LINEE findings show that it appears to be difficult to clearly discern “identity” from “ideology” since – as it seems – identity formation in multilingual contexts very often goes along with and is subject to ideologies that associate with the status and value of the languages in question. As to the role of “identity” within multilingualism research, the LINEE findings underline that “identity” is a category which intimately connects with the multi-faceted phenomena of multilingualism, and that conceiving of “identity” as a multi-layered and at the same time fluid process may shed light on how multilingualism comes to reflect the individual and collective awareness of status and belonging.

3.1.4 Ideology It has already been pointed out that “ideology” is a variable that associates with different aspects and conceptual strands of multilingualism; here, two dimensions of “ideology” appear to be generally merged, however, namely

European multilingualism


language ideologies which guide communicative behaviour and larger scale ideologies connected with harder relations of social power. Language ideologies are cultural conceptualisations of language which are ideological as they are politically and morally loaded ideas about social experience, social relationships and group membership. The most prominent language ideologies are ideas of what counts as a language, i.e. the notion that there are distinctly identifiable languages, objects that can be named, counted, and singled out. Larger scale ideologies relate e.g. to market-driven freedom, to modernisation and to nation-building. Moreover, larger scale ideologies pertain to the wider economic and political spheres in society. They go far beyond language and linguistic behaviour; therefore language ideologies are to be considered as part of larger scale ideologies. As “ideology” can be understood in the ideational terms of consciousness, subjective representations, beliefs, ideas or discursive reports of the world, there appears to be a strong connection between ideologies, and in particular between language ideologies, and attitudes. Attitudes can be seen as part of meta-linguistic awareness or as responses made by people to social situations and to members of ethnic and social groups (Fasold 1984). More specifically, language attitudes have been shown to be closely linked with issues of intelligibility and communicative success, i.e. certain varieties and speakers are perceived to be more or less intelligible / successful than others, which in turn has potential effects on language learning, policy and education, as well as on speakers’ identities. From the research conducted within LINEE it remains, however, unclear how and to what degree attitudes interact with the different ideological stances and whether attitudes anticipate specific ideological stances rather than being their result. Beyond the ideological implications, attitudes appear to be intimately connected with “knowledge”, since it cannot be ignored that conceiving of attitudes in terms of beliefs, representations or awareness implies a relationship between attitudes and “knowledge”. Therefore, attitudes constitute so-to-speak a link through which “ideology” and “knowledge” are interconnected, although the intersection between the two remains rather vague. Concerning the interaction between “ideology” and the other key variables of multilingualism, it can be concluded that a dialectical relationship appears to exist between “ideology” and “identity”, since ideologically charged representations and assumptions impact on the shaping of identites. Thus, dominant linguistic ideologies where language, identity and nation are inextricably linked in a naturalised primordial unity give rise to a specific type of identity underlying the construction of national identities.

32 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter Generally, “ideology” may remain rather covert when educational or economic aspects are addressed within multilingual research. Following the LINEE findings, it cannot be ignored, though, that “ideology” impacts heavily on foreign language educational policies, i.e. a context in which, to date, monolingual native language competence still proves to be a widely assumed goal. “Ideology” emerges, however, more clearly and explicitly when the influence of attitudes on language learning and teaching is concerned. As the learning of languages involves, to a certain extent, identification with the group of its speakers, attitudes may affect learners’ motivation as well as the proficiency they attain. As to “ideology” within the economic context, it can be said that “ideology” appears to be less salient when it comes to language issues. Here, English generally figures as an emotionally neutral variety which is used in particular formal contexts of the multilingual communication, whereas the other languages charged with national symbolism are reserved for less formal business contexts. Besides, “ideology” appears to be more explicitly displayed in politically shaped discourses on multilingualism since it generally informs language policies and has effects on political decision-making although it does not determine the latter. It can be assumed that there exists a close relationship between “ideology” and political discourse or decision-making, and that beyond this, “ideology” is strongly interconnected with “discourse”. In the political context, “ideology” is always at play since political choices relate to particular value sets which privilege the goals and interests of specific social groups. These choices are explicitly or implicitly displayed in discursive practices, and this again explains why “ideology” is intimately connected with “discourse”. in connection with European multilingualism, it appears that this discourse, which has been strongly informed by market driven ideologies, is actually being shaped through and intermingled with ideologies referring to social cohesion and linguistic human rights. A last point is that “ideology” is closely linked with “power” since it provides for the specific meanings and assumptions explicitly or implicitly directed at the production or maintenance of power relations in society. For example, ideologically loaded assumptions concerning minorities very often happen to be associated with the socio-culturally subordinate positions these groups hold in society. Integrating these groups as a constitutive part into the European framework of cultural and linguistic diversity implies, however, that the traditional power relations which underlie the mainstream majority discourse about minorities have to be thoroughly redefined. From what has been said, it can be concluded that “ideology” intersects strongly with multilingual phenomena. As yet, the findings in multilingualism

European multilingualism


research do not, however, allow for showing precisely enough how the different strands of “ideology” can be brought together in order to assess how “ideology” impacts on the shaping of European multilingualism.

3.1.5 Knowledge Within multilingualism research, “knowledge” figures as an umbrella category which pertains to all dimensions and phenomena of multilingualism. From a conceptual perspective, “knowledge” refers to three different levels of abstraction. On the one hand, it relates to the knowledge-based society (KBS) as it is referred to in the documents of the European Councils of Lisbon, Nice and Stockholm, and as it is accounted of in the objectives of the 6th and 7th EU Framework Programme. On the other hand, “knowledge” relates to a more general process that involves cognitive structures which assimilate information and put it into a wider context (cf. Howells 2000). Thirdly, “knowledge” may figure as a key category which includes explicit and implicit or tacit components (resulting from culturally diversified historical backgrounds, regionally stereotyped validations and attitudes, norms etc.) that impact on multilingualism. As to “knowledge” and its impact on multilingualism, the LINEE findings underline that knowledge of language(s) is an essential component within the KBS, although its strength appears to be strongly dependent on the identityspecific, ideological, political and economic aspects that form the respective KBS context. Thus, in a specific context such as tourism, a basic competence of formulaic phrases may represent knowledge with enormous value on the job market, whereas in another context, such as migrants participating in the job market, only “educated” bilingualism or multilingualism and a high level of language competence may enhance the individuals’ ability to integrate themselves into the knowledge-based economy. As to the discrepancy between implicit and explicit knowledge, the LINEE scope follows Polanyi (1966), who argues that tacit and explicit knowledge are not divided since explicit knowledge requires tacit knowledge for its interpretation. Explicit knowledge refers to transmittable know-how which does not require direct experience, whereas implicit knowledge concerns direct experience which cannot be communicated in any direct or codified way. From the LINEE findings it can be concluded that implicit knowledge apparently figures most prominently in connection with habituated practices or with Communities of Practice since these appear to be places where implicit knowledge is commonly transmitted.

34 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter In these contexts, implicit knowledge acts as a powerful means of inclusion and exclusion, which suggests that implicit knowledge should not be neglected when it comes to the planning of linguistic diversity. The LINEE findings suggest that “knowledge” – in particular implicit knowledge – is highly important in relation to culture and identity issues. In these contexts, “knowledge” may be defined as pertaining to the habitus in the sense of Bourdieu, since habitus is interpreted as the basic system of knowledge normally used by people in their daily lives, i.e. it thus refers to the habituated practices of individuals. In multilingual education, “knowledge” commonly associates with representations and attitudes. Attitudes derive from a form of categorisation of knowledge, the function of which is to make the empirical world recognisable and orderly. Here, the LINEE findings suggest they should be categorised as non-conceptualised forms of knowledge. As to the management of multilingualism in the economic sphere, it goes without saying that “knowledge” is crucial for the “New Economy”, which is defined as “one that encourages its organisations and people to acquire, create, disseminate and use (codified and tacit) knowledge more effectively for greater economic and social development” (Dahlman and Andersson 2000: 32). As to the highly diversified conceptualisation of “knowledge” within multilingualism research, the LINEE findings underline once more that “knowledge” is a category that both frames and at the same time intervenes into the engineering of multilingualism in the EU. “Knowledge”, it can be argued, relates very closely with “identity” in that it provides for the necessary preprequisites that individuals or groups have to have in order to construct their sense of belonging. “Knowledge” also relates to “ideology” since it constitutes the explicit and implicit components of beliefs, representions and attitudes which impact on the shaping of multilingualism. And yet another point is that “knowledge” in terms of knowledge of languages and multi-competence constitutes one of the major variables that define multilingualism.

3.1.6 Language policy & planning (LPP) LPP is a variable which pertains to all dimensions and processes multilingualism is associated with, although it relates most strongly to the pragmatic dimension of planning and managing European language diversity. Within multilingualism research, there is a wide range of different approaches to LPP, which may differ considerably as to their theoretical background and scope. Within the LINEE project, these different

European multilingualism


approaches to LPP are nevertheless based on a set of common assumptions which view LPP in terms of a discursive process, i.e. as 1. relating to different levels of societal aggregation and as 2. a variable that strongly connects with “ideology” and “power & conflict”. Against the background of conceiving of LPP as a discursive and, at the same time, multi-layered phenomenon, it is important to consider in particular the context that impacts on the planning and management of a specific language policy. In general, the working of LPP implicates different levels of societal aggregation in which LPP operates dialectically between macro-contexts and micro-policy events, as it were top-down and bottom-up phenomena and vice-versa. The top-down dimension may involve measures and activities which evolve at a highly aggregated macro-sociological level, while bottom-up relates to individual or small group interactions that are generally identified with the sociological meso- or micro-perspective. The LINEE findings suggest that various levels are negotiated differently and serve different goals. Beyond this, multilingualism research under LINEE also sustains a strong link between LPP, “ideology” and “power & conflict”. Here, the findings show in how far the prominent ideology of language equality is being undermined by political and socio-economic barriers, such as the unequal treatment of languages in the European institutions or the ultimate judgements of the European Court of Justice on language use within the EU. Conflicts also arise when the divergent linguistic and cultural needs of old and new minorities have to be accommodated at the same time, as for example in Catalonia or in Wales. In these contexts, the current LPP practices can be termed as one-sided integration efforts, i.e. assimilation of the migrant communities. The LINEE findings also underline that current language policies have great difficulty in adapting to the newly emerging patterns of migration. Hence, for the future management of multilingualism it will be crucial to develop adequate policies which are based upon the premise of bi-directionality and of mutual accommodation in order to meet the needs and interests of both the migrant and the host community. Furthermore, the LINEE research confirms that LPP is a highly important issue when it comes to the management of multiple identities. The findings seem to sustain the hypothesis that different identities are shaped in the bottom-up and top-down LPP processes. Thus, top-down identities such as the European identity would generally be shaped in interaction contexts, which differ from those in which the LPP target groups normally evolve their local identities. The separate sites of identity formation may be one

36 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter reason why the top-down policies are eventually perceived by the target groups as something that is imposed or ordained by the higher level state or EU power (Rindler Schjerve/Vetter 2008). It can be concluded that conceiving of LPP as a discursive and multilevel concept which intimately connects with “ideology”, “power & conflict” as well as “identity” may shed light on the pragmatic dimension of multilingualism and may eventually be helpful for designing an adequate LPP in the European context.

3.1.7 Multi-competence It goes without saying that “multi-competence” is a key variable in connection with multilingualismus as it pertains to all phenomena that define multilingualism. Moreover, “multi-competence” appears to be a variable that is particularly salient within the educational area whereas it remains rather implicit in other contexts related with multilingualism. It is commonplace that multilingualism implicates knowledge of languages which can be either conceived in terms of plurilingual repertoire or multi-competence. Plurilingual repertoire refers to the languages a multilingual person has at his or her disposal. Multi-competence, which was originally defined as the knowledge of more than one language in the same mind (Cook 2001: 12) was further elaborated within the LINEE research in that the initially psycholinguistically centred perspective became integrated into a wider sociolinguistic and educational scope. In this perspective, multi-competent individuals are seen as language users who have an extended and integrated linguistic repertoire at their disposal. Their multi-competence comprises both a state and a tool: while the state refers to the knowledge of languages, the notion of the tool relates to the processes of learning languages. From this conceptualisation it was obvious that “multi-competence” would be a salient theme within the education area while it should also apply to multilingualism in connection with identity formation, policy making and economic affairs. The LINEE findings largely confirm this hypothesis since they show that it is through their linguistic resources that speakers construct their transnational, national, or regional identities. Within the policy area, a plurilingual repertoire is so-to-speak a widely acknowledged and therefore more or less tacit prerequisite for the EU citizens’ multilingual achievement and for their participation in the knowledge-based society. When it comes to the requirements of the Single Market in general, and of specific economic settings in particular,

European multilingualism


“multi-competence” appears to be an issue since the demand for a flexible use of foreign languages implies the availability of multilingual competences which eventually constitute decisive factors for the success of economic integration. And from the investigation within the education area it can be concluded that multi-competent students seem to be well aware of how the languages they know may help them in the learning process, whereas teachers do not appear to be adequately informed about the impact that prior language knowledge may have on the learning process. Moreover, multicompetent individuals may be characterised in terms of a greater awareness of the sociolinguistic environment they participate in, and it can also be argued that they show an enhanced interest in learning languages. As to the intersection between “multi-competence” and the other key variables of multilingualism, the LINEE findings show that “multi-competence” represents a specific type of knowledge which can be successfully derived from communication within multilingual Communities of Practice since it is in these contexts where specific sets of cultural knowledge are displayed. Moreover, multi-competence is enhanced through the discursive practices which are in place in these specific contexts. The LINEE findings also point to the conflicts which may arise when “multi-competence” is subject to ideologically invested language policy and planning that is targeted towards e.g. equality of languages or towards maximising profit. Concluding we may say that “multi-competence” as developed within the LINEE research is to be seen as an important category which should not be ignored when it comes to theoretically framing multilingualism.

3.1.8 Power and conflict Within multilingualism research, “power & conflict” are relevant categories, in particular where multilingualism is concerned, as unequal power relations appear to be a common characteristic of multilingual societies. Power asymmetries in multilingual societies result from the diversified status assignments to which the different linguistic groups are subjected, while the different statuses themselves originate from the respective power of the different resources the linguistic groups have at their disposal (cf. Rindler Schjerve 2001). Within the LINEE research, “power” has been dealt with in a rather implicit way; in those cases where it emerged more explicitly from the specific research focus, it was frequently conceptualised following Bourdieu’s and Foucault’s power models. Beyond this, a promising attempt appears to be provided by adopting the governmental

38 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter approach following Nikolas Rose (1999) and Tony Bennett (2005), in which issues of power are integrated. The concept of governmentality focuses upon the question of how authority and rule are enacted (rather than why). Moreover, the governmental approach seeks to understand the forms of action and relations of power that aim to guide and shape (rather than enforce, control or dominate) the action of others or of oneself. Concerning the linkage between “power” and “conflict”, it can be argued that it is the asymmetrical distribution of power which gives rise to conflicts. Thus, conflicts can be conceptualised in terms of tensions which arise from social inequality, diverging group interests and the struggle over power in those contexts (cf. Rindler 2006, 2007). Following Critical Theory (cf. Habermas 1981, 1984), conflicts can also arise from communication within the life world dimension (“Lebenswelt”) of specific groups, since the cultural differences are communicated in a way that threatens or endangers the design and the functional operation of a group-specific life world (cf. Habermas 1981: 575–83). Here, it may occur that cultural peculiarities or specific symbolic orders of one group give rise to identities and lifestyles which clash with the identities and lifestyles of the other group(s). In this context, communication appears to form the main source of the conflict. At this point it has to be stressed that conflicts are not explicitly conceptualisedwithinLINEEresearch.Theyappearso-to-speak ascollateralby-products that more or less incidentally emerge from the specific research findings. Despite the more or less implicit nature of “power & conflict”, the LINEE findings suggest that these variables connect with all fields of interaction associated with multilingualism. Thus, power issues are at stake when identities change or when a specific identity, such as the European identity, is to be constructed. Power issues are also involved when it comes to language policy and planning, and particulary when the focus is on discourse that deals with diversity in terms of multilingualism on an equal footing. Here, the equality principle appears, however, to be frequently undermined by political pragmatism that continues to cling to the hierarchies the different European languages have traditionally been subject to. The problematic relationship between linguistic minorities and majorities is a good example for power asymmetries and conflicts of this kind. Power is also at stake in the educational and economic area when it comes to the question which languages are to be learned and what languages provide their speakers with what degree of power for their social advance or integration. Concerning the various intersections between “power & conflict” and the other key variables of multilingualism, it must not be ignored that there is a very clear link with “multi-competence” since multi-competence figures as one

European multilingualism


of the many resources of power. This is an issue which closely relates to the political debate on European diversity, where a clear ranking among the European languages, their actual use and their presumed utility can be identified at the supranational level (cf. Special Eurobarometer 243, 2006). Here, English as a supranational lingua franca comes first, followed by prestigious national languages such as French and German. Within this scope the LINEE findings suggest, however, that the power asymmetries that actually define the state of the art of European diversity may be changing, and particularly with regard to the conflict ladden relationships between the national and regional or minority languages which ultimately seem to change. Regional or minority languages are increasingly seen as resources of power although it remains as yet an open question whether the newly assigned status will eventually contribute to subverting the existing traditional power relations. It goes without saying that “power & conflict” also connects with “ideology” and “discourse”. Here, the so-called European law in books (laws, EC-regulations, directives, journals, etc.), which reflects the true political power in the EU, puts a strong emphasis on the ideology of language equality which – as we know – does not map onto the actual pragmatics of supranational and national language use. As to the traditional power relations and asymmetries relating to European multilingualism and linguistic diversity, we may conclude that some still continue to exist while others are about to change. New and more flexible fields of communication which result from the greater mobility within Europe call for a differentiation between the various languages in use. As a matter of fact, multilingualism appears to be a phenomenon which is not only restricted to traditionally powerful “big” languages but which also includes the regional and minority languages, the migrant languages as well as the newly emergent varieties, mainly ELF. The conflict potential which associates with the transformation of the power relations between the various languages manifests itself in conflicting discourses on multilingualism, linguistic diversity and citizenship, which, again, relate to divergent expectations and visions of the actors involved at the different levels of the multilingual European society. The LINEE findings suggest that issues of power impact on the shaping of European multilingualism and that “power & conflict” are to be considered as key variables within a theoretical framework of multilingualism. 3.2 Methodological dimension The disciplinary fragmentation which characterises the theoretical dimension of multilingualism research is also reflected within its methodology.

40 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter In bringing together researchers from different scholarly traditions and disciplinary backgrounds, the LINEE project set out to develop a methodological framework that should map the diversified scenarios of multilingualism. The LINEE research design started out from the question whether European multilingualism would call for a research design proper. Another question was whether the huge variety of different methods resulting from the multidisciplinary LINEE approaches to multilingualism could be integrated into a common framework. Following influential scholarly publications in the field, research designs commonly comprise core components such as research questions, theoretical framework and methods, which are closely interrelated. Research designs may e.g. be understood as “plans and the procedures for research that span the decisions from broad assumptions to detailed methods of data collection and analysis” (Creswell 2009: 4) or – within a more qualitative frame – research designs may be seen as an ongoing reflective process comprising components such as goals, conceptual framework, research questions, methods and validity, which are in close interaction (Maxwell 2005). In other words, the research design appears to constitute the frame from which the specific methodological profile emerges. Within the LINEE perspective, it is the research questions, the type of studies, the macro-micro dimensions and the degree of openness that appear to constitute the primary common grounds from which the whole methodological framework originates. When talking about the research questions, it must be stressed that these constitute an initial point of orientation since they mark the very outset of the research process. A central point is that the research questions of all projects realised under LINEE do not seek an answer to pre-formulated hypotheses but are posed as open-ended questions. Against the background of Creswell’s distinction between qualitative and quantitative paradigms, the LINEE project is clearly situated within a qualitative framework, since qualitative research “is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Creswell 2009: 4). This, however, does not exclude the application of quantitative methods within the overall qualitative frame. As to the questions raised within LINEE research, one can say that they basically relate to the four categories of questions singled out in the German sociology of knowledge (Lu¨ders and Reichertz 1986, Reichertz and Schro¨er 1994, Reichertz 2007), namely questions about 1. the subjective sense worlds of actions, 2. the description of social action and social milieus, 3. the reconstruction of structures generating interpretation and action, and 4. the (re)

European multilingualism


construction of historically and socially pre-typified interpretation (Reichertz 2007: 199). Engaging in this perspective reveals the very broad scope of the scientific endeavours which LINEE research is eventually involved in. Concerning the type of studies as they emerge from the LINEE approaches, it can be concluded that LINEE research is best characterised by the comparative type. Although the comparability issue is a central topic, the emerging approaches exhibit considerable variation in this regard. Comparability may be ensured through the binding character of mutually agreed research questions, which, however, does not imply that all research groups are to adhere to exactly the same set of questions. Moreover, comparability is also devised through shared interview guidelines, which are nevertheless flexible enough to accommodate the specific contextual constraints applicable in the respective study. Another point to be raised is the question concerning the connection between individual action and social structure, which triggers the debate on micro-meso-macro issues. These issues are quite controversially discussed in the social sciences (e.g. Kelle 2001), although there appears to be some general agreement on the dialectic character that defines the interaction of these levels. LINEE research constitutes a good example for raising the question about macro-micro since its studies take into account quite different levels of social action and structure. To integrate the macro-micro debate into the methodological concerns of LINEE appeared to be indispensible for two reasons: On the one hand, no research project was restricted exclusively to one single level. Individual behaviour under study always appeared to be integrated into social structure while social structure was at the same time forged by individual action. Therefore, the LINEE studies sought to grasp the dialectics between individual behaviour and social structure in more detail. On the other hand, the LINEE findings should be accessible to the EU, namely to its policy makers and stakeholders, and thus had to be aggregated so as to allow for larger-scale policies and actions. A last and nevertheless important criterion for the research design was the degree of openness of the research process: An open research strategy implies dispensing with standardised instruments or predetermined categories. Researchers would distance themselves from any pre-fixed knowledge and would eventually change the mode of procedure in the course of investigation. A reverse strategy relating to the quantitative social research paradigm would, however, comprise setting up and testing hypotheses. Although the research strategies cannot do without assumptions in which the disciplinary background and the previous knowledge about the object of research are

42 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter clearly reflected, the open-scope research questions appear to be frequently revised, reformulated and partly rejected. This degree of openness implicates continuous reflection and modifications since reformulating a specific component of the research design will solicit changes regarding all the other components. As open strategy projects are frequently subject to changes of this kind, it appears all the more important to precisely document the ongoing research process. Taking this into account it can be said that from an overall perspective, the LINEE research strategy is to be considered as fairly open. Now, returning to the question about integrating a huge variety of different methods into a common framework, it appears to be of major interest how the different methods are combined. At this point, it seems appropriate to refer to Kelle (2007: 39–40), who, in focusing on the relationship of qualitative and quantitative methods, identifies three types of discourse which currently coexist within the methodological debate without being substantially interlinked: namely the paradigm model (Guba and Lincoln 1994), in which a fundamental incompatibility of qualitative and quantitative methods is postulated; then the Mixed Methods Design, which figures under the heading of “third paradigm” within Anglo-American research (cf. Journal of Mixed Methods Research), and thirdly Triangulation. As to LINEE, it can be said that its research adheres to the combinability of different methods. Moreover, the combination of diverse scholarly traditions contributes to strengthening the multidisciplinary methodological approach of research. Another point is that research under LINEE tends to adopt the complementarity rather than the validity model of triangulation, since different forms of triangulation (data, investigator, methods) are applied in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of reality, and not so much in order to validate the results obtained with one method by means of those from another method. Beyond this, the specific type of method combination also appears to be important. Different methods can e.g. be applied in temporal sequence or they can be “integrated” from the outset. In this context, it may be assumed that the critical reflection about the use and the combination of methods is a necessary process which prevents researchers from taking naı¨ve-pragmatic or exclusively research-pragmatic decisions. Concluding it can be said that a wide range of concrete decisions are to be taken in developing a multidisciplinary methodological framework when it comes to assessing multilingualism as a complex and multi-faceted phenomenon. The profile as it emerged from LINEE research might serve as a first orientation.

European multilingualism


4 Conclusion Investigating European multilingualism involves taking into consideration two dialectically interwoven strands, namely the political discourse on linguistic diversity and the knowledge-based society on the one hand, and the scientific discourse on multilingualism on the other. Against this background, multilingualism can be devised as a multi-faceted cover term which calls for a very broad multifunctional and multidisciplinary framework. At the same time, such a comprehensive framework should also allow for restructuring the currently fragmented research area of multilingualism. It has to be stressed, though, that the LINEE research, while accounting for some major dimensions and aspects of multilingualism, cannot, however, provide for a coherent methodological and theoretical framework. As to a theoretical account of LINEE, it can be concluded that linguistic diversity in Europe appears to be interrelated with a set of influential categories which strongly impact on European multilingualism. It is true that until recently, multilingual studies have generally pointed to these variables in various measures and degrees. However, in putting these variables together and in focusing on their clustering and intersections, the LINEE perspective takes a different stance as it opens up to a more comprehensive view on multilingualism that sheds light on the complex and intersecting nature of its dynamics. In doing so, the LINEE research also contributes to restructuring the scientific space. Although a huge variety of multidisciplinary approaches were adopted in four different thematically focused areas, it turned out that the single key variables such as “culture”, “discourse”, “identity”, “ideology”, “knowledge”, “language policy&planning”, “multi-competence” and “power & conflict” recurrently applied to all phenomena related to multilingualism studied within LINEE. Therefore, it can be concluded that the traditional approaches to multilingualism, which hitherto have been concentrating on rather isolated intersections of the multilingual phenomena, should be revised in the light of these findings. At the same time, attention should be solicited towards the question to what extent the LINEE key variables actually cover the wide range of phenomena and processes that constitute multilingualism at large. Here, it has to be underlined again that the particular stance, with an emphasis upon the key variables, is but a reflection of the specific thematic, theoretical and methodological choices the LINEE project had adhered to. Therefore, it might be subsumed that the set of variables, as it was elaborated by the LINEE research, would be first and foremost a LINEE-specific, tailor-made selection in relation to

44 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter European multilingualism which might eventually not cover the entire range of this process. It was also thanks to the broad LINEE scope that the necessary comparative dimension of European multilingualism could further evolve and that in this perspective some covert facets concerning the intersection of the mentioned key variables could be identified in a more comprehensive way. A notable example is provided by “knowledge” or “multi-competence”, which turned out to be highly differentiated and context driven variables. Beyond this, it can be said that the broad LINEE scope on multilingualism allows for integrating both theoretical and methodological concerns into a framework which might serve as an orientation for assessing multilingualism at large. Consequently, and from a LINEE perspective, we may conclude that at this stage of research European multilingualism can be approached through further elaborating upon the evidence and the dynamics of influential categories which, as yet, have not been identified precisely enough. It can be assumed that more detailed knowledge about the multi-layered and intersecting nature of the major variables that define multilingualism will enhance our understanding of how European multilingualism actually operates and of how it can be planned and promoted.

References Appadurai, Arjun 1996 Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bennett, Tony 2005 Civic Laboratories: Museums, Cultural Objecthood and the Governance of the Social. Cultural Studies 19(5): 521–547. Cameron, Deborah and Don Kulick 2003 Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, Vivian 2001 Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Third edition. First published in London (Arnold) 1991. Creswell, John W. 2009 Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Third edition. First published in Thousand Oaks (Sage) 1994. Dahlman, Carl and Thomas Andersson 2000 Korea and the Knowledge-Based Economy: Making the Transition. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, OECD.

European multilingualism Fasold, Ralph 1984


Language attitudes. In: Ralph Fasold (ed.), The sociolinguistics of society, 147–179. Oxford: Blackwell. Guba, Egon G. and Yvonna S. Lincoln 1994 Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 105–117. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Goebl, Hans, Peter H. Nelde, Stary Zdeneˇk and Wolfgang Wo¨lck (eds.) 1996 Kontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgeno¨ssischer Forschung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Habermas, Ju¨rgen 1984/1989 Theory of Communicative Action, vol.1/vol.2. Boston: Beacon Press. Howells, Jeremy 2000 Knowledge, innovation and location. In: John R. Bryson, Peter W. Daniels, Nick Henry and Jane Pollard (eds.), Knowledge, Space, Economy. London: Routledge, 50–62. Kelle, Udo 2001 Sociological Explanations between Micro and Macro and the Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods [43 Absa¨tze]. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2(1): Art.5. Kelle, Udo 2007 Die Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden in der empirischen Sozialforschung. Theoretische Grundlagen und methodologische Konzepte. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fu¨r Sozialwissenschaften. Lu¨ders, Christian and Jo Reichertz 1986 Wissenschaftliche Praxis ist, wenn alles funktioniert und keiner weiß warum – Bemerkungen zur Entwicklung qualitativer Sozialforschung. Sozialwissenschaftliche Literaturrundschau 12: 90–102. Maxwell, Joseph A. 2005 Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Second edition. First published in Thousand Oaks (Sage) 1996. Polanyi, Michael 1966 The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co. Reichertz, Jo 2007 Qualitative Sozialforschung – Anspru¨che – Pra¨missen – Probleme. In: EWE 18/2, 195–208. Reichertz, Jo and Norbert Schro¨er 1994 Erheben, Auswerten, Darstellen. Konturen einer hermeneutischen Wissenssoziologie. In: Norbert Schro¨er (ed.) Interpretative Sozialforschung. Auf dem Weg zu einer hermeneutischen Wissenssoziologie, 24–55. Opladen: Westdt. Verlag. Rindler Schjerve, Rosita 2001 Languages in contact and competition: Lessons from diglossia. In: Cees De Bot, Sjaak Kroon, Peter H. Nelde and Hans Van der

46 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter Velde (eds.), Institutional Status and Use of National Languages in Europe (=Plurilingua XXIII), 77–90. St. Augustin: Asgard. Rindler Schjerve, Rosita 2006 Regional minority language research in Europe – a call for a change in perspectives. In: Ulrich Ammon, Klaus J. Mattheier and Peter H. Nelde (eds.), Perspektiven der europa¨ischen Soziolinguistik (=Sociolinguistica 20), 105–120. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Rindler Schjerve, Rosita 2007 Language conflict revisited. In: Jeroen Darquennes (ed.), Contact Linguistics and Language Minorities. Kontaktlinguistik und Sprachminderheiten. Linguistique de Contact et Minorite´s Linguistiques (Plurilingua XXX), 37–50. St. Augustin: Asgard. Rindler Schjerve, Rosita and Eva Vetter 2003 Historical sociolinguistics and multilingualism: Theoretical and methodological issues in the development of a multifunctional framework. In: Rosita Rindler Schjerve(eds.): Diglossia and Power. Language Policies and Practice in the 19th Century Habsburg Empire, 35–66. Mouton: De Gruyter. Rindler Schjerve, Rosita and Eva Vetter 2008 Language Policy and Social Power. Some open questions. Presentation at the 17th Sociolinguistics Symposium Amsterdam (April 2008) within the section “Language Policy, Planning and Management: From Micro to Macro and Vice Versa”. Rose, Nikolas 2002 Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second edition. First published in Cambridge (Cambridge University Press) 1999.

Other cited documents Charter RML 1992: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages – Strasbourg, 5.XI.1992. COM(2003)449 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004–2006. (2003) COM(2005)596 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the committee of the Regions. A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism (2005) COM(2008)566 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment (2008) COM(95)590: White Paper on Education and Training. Teaching and Learning. Towards the Learning Society. (1995)

European multilingualism


EBLUL: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. – Information online: (14.02.2012) Eurobarometer: Europeans and their Languages. Special Eurobarometer 243 (February 2006) Euromosaic: en.htm (14.02.2012) High Level Group 2007: Final Report. High Level Group on Multilingualism (2007) Lisbon Conclusions 2000: Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. Presidency conclusions (2000) Maalouf 2008: A rewarding challenge. How the multiplicity of languages could strengthen Europe. Proposals from the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue set up at the initiative of the European Commission (2008) OJ 1976 C 38: Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers of Education, meeting within the Council, of 9 February 1976 comprising an action programme in the field of education. In OJ C 38, 19.02.1976, 1–5. OJ 1981 C 287: Resolution on a Community charter of regional languages and cultures and on a charter of rights of ethnic minorities. Resolution prepared by Mr Gaetano Arfe´ and adopted by the European Parliament on 16 October 1981. In OJ C 287, 09.11.1981, 106. OJ 1983 C 68: Resolution on measures in favour of minority languages and cultures. Resolution prepared by Mr. Gaetano Arfe´ and adopted by the European Parliament on 11 February 1983. In OJ C 68, 14.03.1983, 103. OJ 1987 C 318: European Parliament Resolution on the languages and cultures of regional and ethnic minorities in the European Community (Resolution prepared by Willy Kuijpers, and adopted by the European Parliament on 30 October 1987). In OJ C 318, 30.11.1987, 160. OJ 1987 L 166: Council Decision of 15 June 1987 adopting the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (Erasmus). In OJ L 166, 25.06.1987, 20-24. OJ 1989 L 239: Council decision of 28 July 1989 establishing an action programme to promote foreign language competence in the European Community (Lingua) (89/489/EEC) In OJ L 239, 16.8.1989, 24-32. OJ 1995 L 87: Decision No 819/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 1995 establishing the Community action programme ‘Socrates’. In OJ L 87, 20.4.1995, 10-24. OJ 2002 C 50: Council Resolution of 14 February 2002 on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of the objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001. In OJ C 50, 23.2.2002, 1-2.

Chapter 3 European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)

Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic

Over the last two decades questions on identity, language, difference, diversity, hybridity, multilingualism, multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism have been strongly debated. In the case of the European Union this interest is evident across a wide range of disciplines including political science, policy studies, language studies, cultural geography, anthropology, sociology, history and cultural and film studies. Influenced by “cultural turn”, many of these studies see identities as processes of becoming rather than being, and in this context it is rather misleading to speak of identities, it is more appropriate to speak about identifications (Hall 1996). “Being European” is seen as just one of many identifications, which can exist alongside others. However, these identifications are not equal, or a free choice, they are constructed by the interplay of different discourses (political, economic, cultural etc.). Questions of what it means to speak of “local identities”, “regional identities”, “national identities” and supra-national identity (as well as hybridity) in the context of contemporary Europe, have become paramount in many of these projects. In this article, we consider the development of cultural policy in the European Union and how policy can serve as an instrument for the construction of identities. Influenced by Cris Shore and Susan Wright’s (1997) argument that public policies affect the lives of citizens – that is, they actively constitute social reality, they give shape and meaning to what we call reality, they are often designed not so much to generate public support but to construct what they propose – we question “naturalised” assumptions which often frame public policy, or, to put it simply, we examine “what policies actually set out to do”. In addition to this approach, mostly inspired by the work of Ernesto Laclau (2007; Laclau and Mouffe 1985) and Slavoj Zizek (1989, 1996, 2000) we also explore the complexity of processes of identification. We ask what it means to talk about Europe as “unity in diversity”. We ask what makes

50 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic it possible to talk about the so-called “European level” of cultural policy and what is the difference between this level and the “national level” or “regional level”. How does the “European level”, then, connect to these two other levels? Does it consider local or national antagonisms? How is power exercised through cultural policies and what types of identifications or identities are constructed and contested within the interstices of European, national and regional identities? In order to answer these questions, in the first part of the article we examine the development of the European level of cultural policy and its relation to the construction of European identity. In the second part we analyse European identification in Istria, one of the regions in Croatia, which actively participates in the Council of Europe’s Assembly of European Regions. Istria, one of the many regions, which also actively participate in the European cultural network, serves as a case study. It reflects the complex interplay of local/regional/national and European power relations, the interplay which shows that European policy, even though it presents itself in neutral terms, creates different forms of the fantasy of belonging, contradictions and ambivalences in specific localities.

1 The European Union: Culture/identity/policy Culture was formally recognized as one of the responsibilities of the European Community in 1992, when the European Union was created through the Treaty on European Union, known as the Maastricht Treaty. The beginning of the European Union goes back to 1950 when Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, presented his proposal on the creation of a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which brought together France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries with the aim of organising free movement of coal and steel and establishing a common High Authority in order to supervise the market. In 1957 these six countries decided with the Treaty of Rome to build a European Economic Community (ECC) based on a wider common market. In 1973 Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined the Community. At the time the dominant approach to integration was “neofunctionalist”, which means that integration was based on free trade and human rights and did not entail the creation of a new European identity. It was believed that economic integration would harmonise different national policies and eventually create social and cultural integration (Sassatelli 2008; Shore 2000, 2004, 2006). During the 1980s, when another three countries joined the Community – Greece,

European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)


Spain and Portugal, it was recognised that the Community’s actions failed to create “European consciousnesses” and that the lack of any sense of belonging to Europe could undermine the evolution of a single European market. “The People’s Europe” campaign was launched in 1985, when the European Commission was under the authority of President Jacques Delors who believed that Europe had to be more than simply an economic association. But this “more” was not easy to establish. It was during this time that an additional element started to play an important role in relation to the construction of European identity. As Delors famously said: “You don’t fall in love with a common market; you need something else” (Delors, quoted in Stavrakakis 2005) and this “something else” was recognised as “culture”. In this context, new symbols of Europeanness were created: these included the flag – a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background – a symbol of unity and perfection; the European anthem – Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”; and a common design for passports. In addition, many different initiatives which promoted cultural and educational cooperation between Member States were established, for example the “European City of Culture” project which started in 1985 in Athens and is still going on today under the new name “European Capital of Culture”. It was during this time that the concept of European culture as unity in diversity appeared, which is now the motto of the European Union. In 1992 the Maastricht Treaty legitimized the Community’s intervention into the cultural sphere. As article 151 states: “The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore” (The Treaty on the European Union, Art. 151.1).1 Since then the creation of European culture has been stressed in a variety of official documents, declarations, reports and politicians’ speeches (for example the speech by Romano Prodi in 2002 appointed a group of intellectuals to look into the shared spiritual, religious and cultural values that would continue to drive the process of European integration).2 New symbols, in addition to European symbols such as the flag and the anthem, were created, and new cultural initiatives introduced (for example “Active European Remembrance”, “Euroimages”, “European Film Awards”, “Europe:

1 European Community, 1992, Treaty on European Union. Official Journal C (191). 2 Reflection Group on the Spiritual and Cultural Dimension of Europe.

52 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic a common heritage”3, etc.) These initiatives intensified after 2004 (Accession of the Eastern European States), creating more and more European cultural symbols and projects, which represent at the same time European “sameness” and European “diversity” (see for example the projects “Enlargement of Minds”4, “Born in Europe”5, “Culture and Neighbourhoods”6, “Mosaic”7). So, how we can understand these projects? Some critics argue that European Union politicians and policy-makers who seek to build a common European culture and a European supra-national identity are using practices similar to those that influenced the rise of the nineteenth-century nation state (Sassatelli 2002; Shore 2000). These critics are influenced by Anderson’s (1991) argument that all ideas of community are “imaginary” and that two forms of imagining a community flowered in Europe in the eighteenth

3 The Campaign, which was promoting the cultural and natural heritage under the banner of “Europe, a common heritage”, started in 1999. One aim of the Campaign was to highlight that heritage consists not only of tangible assets, monuments, archaeological remains, moveable items, cultural landscapes, rural or industrial ensembles, but also of values of a spiritual, ethical and intellectual nature. 4 The project was launched in 2004 when ten new member states entered the European Union. The goal of the project was to create in Europe a sense of belonging to an open and diverse community and to achieve “an enlargement of minds which will not only counteract the kind of preconceptions which lead to prejudice, but which will build on the emergence of a renewed European civic society”. 5 The aim of the project “Born in Europe” is to examine what it means to be born in Europe, especially with regard to the children of immigrants. 6 Project “Culture and Neighbourhoods” was launched in order to establish the relevance of the neighbourhood as an entity in cultural policies, especially in regard to multicultural relations. The project involved 24 neighbourhoods from 11 European cities. 7 MOSAIC was launched by the Cultural Policy and Action Department of the Council of Europe in 1998. Its aim was to create a framework for exchanges and co-operation amongst countries in South-East Europe and to assist them in the transition of their cultural policies. The first phase of MOSAIC was evaluated in 2001 and MOSAIC II was launched in 2002 in order to complete the objectives of MOSAIC I. See also the final paper produced by the ‘Reflection Group on the Spiritual and Cultural Dimension of Europe’ in October 2004 and Eurobarometer statistical data.

European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)


century: the novel and the newspaper, both contributing directly to the rise of national consciousness. They argue that European cultural initiatives and various projects do for the European Union what the novel and the newspaper once achieved for the nation state. Clearly, Anderson’s theory of the phenomenon of identification through text or image can be applied to an analysis of identification through European cultural initiatives. However, as some scholars note (Brah 1996, 2000; Laclau and Zac 1994; Stavrakakis 2005; Zizek 1989, 1999), what is not recognized by Anderson is the reason for such identification. The creation of “European culture” is important for the process of building a collective identity but does not automatically “identify” the European citizen with the subject positions they may prefer; the European cultural symbols and their positions are objects to be interpreted. Indeed, Eurobarometer surveys show that European citizens are sceptical with regard to the European Union and its cultural policy (Beck and Grande 2007; Pagden 2002).8 In 2006, a qualitative Eurobarometer study on cultural values of Europeans helped to learn more about how Europeans view culture and its contribution to developing a sense of European citizenship. For the study, about 25 participants in each Member State were asked about their perceptions on aspects linked with ‘culture’ and ‘European culture’… A slight majority (53%) said that their views correspond well with the statement that European countries are too diverse to speak of a common continental culture (Qualitative Eurobarometer on the importance of culture in European values, 2006).9

According to Stavrakakis (2005, 2007), the main reason for the relative failure of a common European identity is an inability of European politicians, administrators and policy makers to make an affective appeal to its citizens. By focusing on institutional arrangements, different cultural and educational policies as well as actions (financing different projects), Europe is failing to construct affective libidinal bonds, which are necessary in the constitution of any (totalizing) identity. At one level we agree with

8 See also the final paper produced by the ‘Reflection Group on the Spiritual and Cultural Dimension of Europe’ in October 2004 and Eurobarometer statistical data. 9 European Commission, 2006, Qualitative Eurobarometer on the Importance of Culture in European Values. Quoted in Official Journal of the European Communities, 1993. No C 304/23, page 63.

54 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic Stavrakakis’s argument that there is no collective identity without libidinal bonds, and certainly when we talk about nations (or regions), the feeling of belonging is crucial for the construction of national (or regional) identity. However, we argue that the cultural programs initiated or supported by various European institutions propose a different kind of belonging, one which does not propose a similar kind of emotional attachment to nation (or region). Rather, it proposes a new imaginary, or fantasy scenario, which corresponds with “late capitalism”; it is no longer based on the idea of fixed and stable identities but instead proposes a frame which opens up the possibility of endless association, and therefore identification, which can be seen as European. Let us explain this point through the analysis of the development of the European Union cultural policy (or cultural action), which is based on the concept of “unity in diversity”. The concept of “unity in diversity” was initially based on the view that there are European “core values” which are “located in the Graeco-Roman ethics, Renaissance humanism and individualism, Enlightenment rationalism and science, traditions of civil rights, democracy, the rule of law and so on” (Shore 2000: 225). These core values were seen as underlying the “sameness” of different European cultures, rooted in the European past. The critics of these core values (Said 2001; Modood 2001; Phillips 1999; Delanty 1995; Guerrina 2002), point out that their selection essentialises European culture and leads to Eurocentrism, marginalisation of nonEuropean immigrants and exclusionary policies. For example, Delanty (1995: 154) argues that due to this view new forms of racism are growing, racism not based on the idea of “race” but “culture”, and as a such excludes non-European immigrants and helps to strengthen the process known as Fortress Europe. This argument is similar to Etienne Balibar’s thesis about racism without races, neo-racism or differentialist racism. Balibar (1991: 22) outlines this neo-racism as an attempt to essentialise and naturalise differences in culture rather than in biology and race. The European concept of “unity in diversity” which is based on “core cultural values” quilts the inversion between nature and culture by naturalising culture, in the sense that culture functions like a previous racial classification based on nature as a way of locking individuals and groups a priori into a genealogy, into a determination that is immutable and intangible in origin. At one level, European Union officials and politicians appear to acknowledge this criticism. Whereas during the 1980s they stressed the need to create or identify a common European culture which corresponded with the common European market, during the 1990s they focused more on

European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)


the establishment (and financing) of cultural networks which promoted “European added value” to each individual culture, be it national or regional: “The European ‘cultural model’ is not all exclusive, still less a ‘melting pot’, but rather a multivarious, multy-ethnical plurality of culture, the sum total of which enriches each individual culture” (European Parliament 1990, 28–29). Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty strictly prohibits and excludes any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States, which means that variety of national cultures, as well as regional and local cultures, are taken as core units which in sum should create European culture.10 The assumption that a sum of individual cultures can go beyond itself and in turn enrich each individual culture (added European value) implies also the possibility of endless association: “why not add something else?” and so on. In that context, the projects initiated or supported by the European Union in the field of culture (the cultural sector covers artistic creativity, literature, language policy, heritage, cultural tourism and the performing arts) suggest the productivity of desire rather than fullness, they suggest an emptiness, a gap in a signified Europe. Through abundance of meaning we come to a desire revolving around objects, that is, culture could signify different things at the same time: it could be used as an instrument for the creation of a sense of European belonging, but it could also be used to boost regional or national feelings of belonging, and most importantly, it could be used to boost economy and create new possibilities. In other words, since the 1990s European officials, politicians and policy experts have refused to give a clear definition of culture: it could be this … and could be that … Most importantly however, it must promote core values which are identified as human rights, democracy and the rule of law.11 Under its Culture Programme (2007–2013) the European Union focuses more than ever before on its role in encouraging exchange and co-operation

10 “Action at European Union level is to be undertaken in full respect of the principle of subsidiarity, with the role of the European Union being to support and complement, rather than to replace, the actions of the Member States, by respecting their diversity and stimulating exchanges, dialogue and mutual understanding” (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European agenda for culture in a globalizing world {SEC(2007) 570}). 11 [Accessed last 04 February 2012].

56 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic between different organizations, regions and Member States in order to create “the added European value”: The originality and success of the European Union is in its ability to respect Member States’ varied and intertwined history, languages and cultures, while forging common understanding and rules which have guaranteed peace, stability, prosperity and solidarity – and with them, a huge richness of cultural heritage and creativity to which successive enlargements have added more and more. Through this unity in diversity, respect for cultural and linguistic diversity and promotion of a common cultural heritage lies at the very heart of the European project. (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European agenda for culture in a globalizing world {SEC(2007) 570}).

In our view, what we have here is an attempt to make the articulation between universality and particularity, between what Laclau calls the chain of equivalence and difference which is constitutively inherent to the construction of a ‘people’ (Laclau 2007). According to Laclau, the logic of difference tends to expand political or cultural space, enabling a proliferation of different meanings and positions. By contrast, the logic of equivalence creates a second meaning by subverting each differential position. In the social there is always a complex interaction between the logic of difference and equivalence. Clearly, in contemporary Europe there is interplay of these two logics: through the logic of equivalence, which European politicians and administrators are attempting to establish, “Culture” is taken as a signifier of a wider universality. Culture embraces through the equivalent links concepts such as civil freedoms and free economy. It produces empty signifiers (for example European heritage or European film) which refer to the equivalent chain as a totality, the European Union as a coexistence of different national cultures, “unity in diversity”, freed from all problems. So we can say that in contemporary European Union discourses, through the parallel interplay of the logic of equivalence and difference “cultural differences” are assumed as something that can co-exist peacefully, free of contradictions. Different cultural (or national) styles mark the diversity of Europe, and at the same time it is stressed that there is something that underlines all of these differences as the same – that is, the notion that all of them are assimilable into the body of the supra-nation, they do not threaten the European “we” of the supra-national being, on the contrary they construct European identity as essentially diverse, based on the possibility of multiple belonging.

European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)


In short, European culture is an empty signifier that floats around different “national things”. The hegemonic signifiers which totalize the chain of equivalences in the case of national identity or regional/local identity are also empty. But the emptiness of European hegemonic signifiers such as European Culture serves as a frame, as a container which can relate to different antagonisms (national or local) in order to stage social imaginary which besets these antagonisms and creates ideological identifications which are seen at the same time as local/national and European. Therefore, our argument is that the question very often posed to European citizens in Eurobarometer surveys about their identifications is the wrong one. The very fact that the majority of citizens identify more strongly with their regions or nations than with the European Union does not mean that European identifications are not operating on local or national levels. In the next section we will analyse how European values are incorporated into regionalist identifications of people in Istria.

2 European identifications and the Istrian cultural space Istria is a small region in Croatia, a peninsula on the northern Coast of the Adriatic Sea. Even though Croatia has the status of a European Union Candidate State, the Istrian region has already forged strong ties with European institutions. It was the first Croatian region to enter the Council of Europe’s Assembly of European Regions. Today Istria presents itself as a multicultural region with official bilingualism (Croatian and Italian). We conducted research in Istria in May and June 2007. The research involved semi-structured interviews, small group interviews and focus groups. Subsequent interviews were conducted in September 2007. A total of 70 women and men were interviewed. The interviewees included students of Italian and Croatian language in the city of Pula, curators in different museums (Pazin and Rovinj), journalists, teachers, lecturers, farmers … We interviewed different individuals in order to avoid a univocal picture and in order to be able to compare in our future research generational and gender differences. Each interview lasted approximately 1.5 hours. Interviews were conducted in our informants’ homes, in their offices, in restaurants or cafe´s, or in university classrooms. To facilitate a conversational style of interview we recorded the meetings and transcribed them later. We began all interviews by explaining our interest in language, culture and identity. We were interested in everyday life experiences of our informants, their cultural values, their perception of Europe as “unity in diversity” in their specific localised

58 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic contexts. We were guided by the following questions: Does the Istrian multicultural regionalist model have points of convergence with the European model “Unity in Diversity”? If so, what does it mean for Istrians to think about themselves as Europeans? We also organised some group interviews where informants knew each other – the aim was to analyse conflicting ideas about European culture and identity as well as the role of language in identity constructions and how specific meaning was created in the group due to the exchange of these conflicting ideas. To summarise, we brought together different methodological techniques in order to understand different identity constructions. The rationale behind this flexible methodology was to try to get sense of contradictory identifications (local, regional, national, supra-national) and complexity involved in such identifications. At the beginning of our interviews we were immediately struck by the number of our informants who had a strong need to explain that Istria is a multicultural region, very tolerant and peaceful and culturally belonging to Europe (1–3): (1) I do not think about Istrian culture, I rather think about Istrian cultures. Everyone who comes here to stay can identify with Istria because of the plurality of cultures here. If people want to take the rest from the nationalistic ideologies, they can do it here … (Pula 2007) (2) Traditionally Istrians are open, they show respect for other cultures … we are absolutely more European than the rest of Croatia, I mean our politicians always stress that, but I agree with them … (Pazin 2007) (3) Our culture is European culture, we are very open and tolerant, we are multicultural … (Rovinj 2007)

Laclau’s (2007; Laclau and Mouffe 1985) theory of nodal points and the concept of “identity”, or rather of different identifications, can be useful in the analysis of these perceptions of Istrians as being very tolerant and European. Laclau argues that identities and the social do not exist as givens at any moment in time, but are always processes, always incomplete. All societies and identities are constructed within specific discursive formations, and they are the results of articulatory practices. The practice of articulation consists of different discursive attempts to fix the meaning of the social. Laclau calls these partial fixations of the social “nodal points”.

European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)


Hence we can say that European discourse of “unity in diversity” and “tolerance” functions as a nodal point in Istrian narratives. According to Laclau, the full closure of society is impossible, but it is exactly the idea of closure that functions as an ideal. It is a fantasy that emerges in support of this ideal, and it is a fantasy that covers over the impossibility of any closed system. In Slavoj Zizek’s (1996) words, it is through fantasy that we experience our world as a wholly consistent and transparently meaningful order. Zizek stresses that fantasy has a stabilising dimension, “the dream of the state without disturbances out of reach of human depravity” (1996: 24). But at the same time, he reminds us of fantasy’s destabilising dimension that creates images that “irritate us”. In other words, the obverse of a harmonious community always produces some disconnected fragments, some stereotypes that try to conceal the lack in the “reality” itself. Indeed, in the course of our interviews it has become quite clear that the way a number of Istrians think about themselves as tolerant and European is far from being free of stereotyping and essentializations. The self perceptions that Istrians are Europeans are usually constructed on the idea that Istrians are different from the rest of the Balkans, particularly from the rest of Croatia, “the uncivilised region” whose “mythic monocultural history” is seen as the cause of ethnic hatred, criminality and male dominance. (4) Wherever you go in Istria or in Kvarner, wherever you want to build something, you start to dig and you find archaeological sites. Istria is very rich … culturally … and that is the fact which is promoting Istria … we have had civilizations here from the Antic time … Roman time … hard to name them all … Istria was highly civilised a long time ago and in the rest of Croatia it is nothing like that … we had a highly developed civilization but the rest of Croatia had nothing … (Pula 2007). (5) We are very tolerant in Istria, we take everyone, and we didn’t fight here during the last war in the Balkans … (Pula 2007). (6) In Istria when I look to the West I see Europe, when I look to the East I can hardly see anything…. (Pula 2007). (7) There is the saying, when you are in Rijeka (the city which is on border with the Istrian region) the only good thing is the view of Istria (Pazin 2007).

60 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic Here we can notice an intermingling of stereotypes: on the one side there is the Western perception of those from the Balkans as people who were caught in the turmoil of history and on the other side we have an idealised picture of Europe as being tolerant and civilised. Wolff (1994) argues that contemporary constructions of the Balkans as “uncivilised” possess a good deal in common with earlier classifications of the Balkans as “inferior” which emerged during the Enlightenment time and created a boundary dividing “Western superior civilization” from “inferior Eastern barbarism”. Bakic-Hyden (1995) explains that this discourse about the civilised West and the primitive East has been accepted by many of the indigenous peoples of the Balkans and she labels this new discourse as contemporary “nesting orientalism”. In the countries which emerged after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, “nesting orientalism” has often been used as a concept by many groups and individuals. But, we have to be careful not to read all “nesting orientalist” discourses in the same way, given that their meanings and effects are contextual. In the case of Istria, the desire to believe that “Istria was civilised a long time ago”, as stated by one of our informants, is based on the imagined sense of belonging to the Graeco-Roman tradition, which helps Istrians to categorise themselves as more European than other Croats. What is seen as undesirable is actually uncivilised space, which does not belong to Europe. At the same time, this discourse about Europeanness plays a crucial empowering role in a national struggle that has not been limited to the legitimisation of European culture; on the contrary, the notion of Europeanness has been instrumentalised against centralised power, which emerged in Croatia after the first democratic election in 1990. The regional party Istrian Democratic Assembly (IDS-DDI, Istarski demokratski sabor or Dieta democratica istriana) has played an important role in the construction of the regional Istrian/European identity which is seen as multicultural in opposition to what was seen as monocultural Croatian identity. Narratives of “old Istrian civilization”, which was inherently multicultural, feed on the history of Istria, a region which was ruled by Venetians from 1267 then by Habsburgs from the second decade of the nineteenth century until the First World War when it became part of Italy. In 1945, after the Second World War, Istria became part of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, which was part of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. It was an ethnically mixed region: Italians, Croats, Slovens, Istro-Romanians, Montenegrians … Since 1954, due to the post-war exodus of Italians, Croatians have been the majority of the population. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia a sense of multiculturalism emerged in Istria in opposition to what was seen as

European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)


Croatian monoculturalism imposed by the Croatian government elected in 1990. Istria’s multicultural view rested on the belief that some individuals could be Italian by origin, or Croat by origin, or any kind of ethnicity by origin, but in general they were seen and saw themselves as Istrians. This view was propagated by the regional party which won the support of the Istrian people and in this context Istrian politicians saw the opportunity in joining the Council of Europe’s Assembly of European Regions. The politics of culture in the European Union stress that cultural diversity is framed as a territorially embedded sum of different cultures (local/regional/ national) where “every local culture helps to enhance culture in the wider, more general sense” (Committee of the Regions of the European Union 1997: 6). This allowed the opportunity to utilise strategically European identification in local/national antagonism. We can say that in Istria, since the 1990s, due to the opportunity to enter the Council of Europe’s Assembly of European Regions, a new social imaginary has been created, an imaginary that emphasizes the cultural superiority of Istria, which is seen as European, vis-a`-vis the rest of Croatia. The fantasies of this European cultural superiority have been included in everyday life. In the language of psychoanalysis, “Fantasy gives meaning and purpose to the subject’s life” but this meaning by itself is a part of the fantasy. In other words, “People don’t have fantasies. They inhabit fantasy spaces of which they are part” (Hage 1998: 70). Different images of civilised Istria, an area seen as much more European than the rest of Croatia, have been articulated around various themes, but all of them find reference in “European values”. One of these themes is “multilingualism” given the fact that contemporary Istria is officially bilingual (Croatian/Italian): (8) I want my kids to speak both languages Italian and Croatian. It is crucial. It shows where we are and who we are. And then they will need to learn English, because of Europe…. (Pazin 2007). (9) I don’t think that in the rest of Croatia there is official bilingualism. That tells you something about us … and then we can speak in Istrian dialect … and there are many local dialects … very rich, very multicultural (Pula 2007).

Another theme appears prominently through our conversation with Istrians and that is gender equality. Many of our informants mentioned that Istria is

62 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic certainly more European than the rest of the Balkans because of the way women are treated: (10) When you meet somebody from Slavonia or Bosnia you realise that they have a very specific view of women: a woman’s job is to do housework, to cook, to clean … to do everything for her man … my boyfriend is Istrian and I can tell you he is different. He tells me: ‘The most important thing for a woman is to be educated … so I want you to have a university degree … that’s the most important …, and then we will see …’ (Pula 2007). (11) Once I travelled to Zagreb … and somewhere in Lika I saw women working in the field … and men were just standing there … you cannot see something like that in Istria, certainly we have much more European values than people in Lika … (Pazin 2007).

The theme of “individualism” is also seen as one which corresponds with “core European values”: (12) For example my neighbours are from Vukovar … arrived during the war … they say that we, Istrains, we are OK people, but we are very reserved … distanced … very individualistic…. We like to socialise, but we also like our privacy … that’s how it is in Istria … like in Europe … everyone wants to have his/her privacy … we want to know about each other, but we … we mind our business … (Pula 2007).

Zizek finds explanation for such attitudes in the works of Lacan. According to Lacan there are two types of identification, both based on the relation between imaginary and symbolic identification, between the ideal ego and the ego-ideal. The ideal ego (imaginary) emerges when we “appear likeable to ourselves”, when we identify with the image representing “what we would like to be”. The ego-ideal (symbolic) is the point “from where we look at ourselves”, it is identification “with the very place from where we are being observed” (1989: 105). The European discourse in Istria acts as the ego-ideal, a nodal point that has emerged during the 1990s, quilting “heterogeneous material into a unified ideological field”. Hence the classification of Others arises from this identification of Istrians with the ego-ideal (symbolic), that is, they perceive themselves as belonging to a tolerant hybrid multicultural society and their “othering” practices

European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)


are justified by their concern for the future of Istria, the protection of heritage, the protection of languages etc. (13) We are a very tolerant society, very multicultural … When people come to Istria, like for example refugees during the last war, they stay … Sometimes people stay here for a long time but they do not identify as Istraians, they identify as Slavonians, or Bosnians, but not Istrians … They do not accept our way of life, so, why would we accept them … They refuse to learn Italian … We learn it together in schools, so we learn it but they cannot, so the only explanation is that they do not want to learn it … (Pula 2007).

According to Zizek (1993) the community (nation, region) is a fantasy space, and such a space always appears to members of a given community as their “thing”, as something accessible only to members of that particular community, but nevertheless at risk of being “stolen” by others. For Lacan, the thing is at the same time desired by the subject and it is the cause of that desire. So, the community as a thing is a fantasy space but at the same time it stages that fantasy. Clearly, when our informants talk about “our way of life” they believe that they posses this Istrian thing. But this “Istrian thing” “is not reducible to the so-called set of values [in this case European values + specifically Istrian values] that offer support to [collective] identity” (1993: 201). According to Zizek there is “something more there”, something that is “present” in these values, something that “appears through them”, something that people see as if it is in them, that defines their being. However when they are asked to describe the presence of this Thing, they usually “enumerate disconnected fragments of the way [their] community organises its feasts, its rituals of mating, its initiation ceremonies, in short, all the details by which is made visible the unique way a community organizes its enjoyment” (1993: 203). But paradoxically, even though Istria appears to a number of Istrians as “their thing”, as something accessible only to them, as something the others cannot grasp, nonetheless they believe that it is something constantly threatened by “others”, they believe that the “others” want to “steal their enjoyment” (by ruining their way of life). (14) I live in [one small village] … there are many new residents in my village … they are from everywhere but not Istria. They are from Croatia and you see … we do not see them as our people … they are strangers … they are from Croatia, behind the mountain (Ucka) … You can see that they

64 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic are different from us … their houses are different … they look different … I always think that we are above, we are better than the rest of Croatia, and when they say something bad about us … they are simply jealous. That’s how I think … We are told that we are Croats and we accept that … but nothing more, no emotions involved … When I need to say or write down my nationality, I always write Croatia, but I know I am Istraian … no emotions involved for Croatia … nothing … but when I say that we are more European … I mean I mostly think about Italy … not about England … Italy has been the symbol of civilisation … and we are linked to Italy … (Pazin 2007).

What is interesting here is that the set of values seen as Istrian/European is constructed against a unified Croatian identity, but in itself is perceived as partly Croatian, a hybrid between Croatian and Italian culture. Ballinger (2002) argues that the notion of hybridity in Istria rests on the myth of pure wholes whose intersections generate intermixture. “This rather exclusive understanding of hybridity does not contradict the Istrian stress on Europenism; rather it follows out of a sense of Istria’s inherent European history and character” (Ballinger 2002: 252). Even though Croatia also makes claims to European culture on the basis of its history (its long political subjection to Austria-Hungary and some other parts of Croatia such as Dalmatia were under Venetians for a long time) Istrians stress their autochthonous “Italian” heritage, a proof of their “real” European identity, of their “essential Europeanness”. (15) Look at the city of Porec. The main street is Dekumanova. After the exodus of Italians Croatians moved in … like my grandparents, then Albanians arrived and took it over … Some of them are Muslims and some are Catholics. I can talk about the difference because of the way they look and of course because of their businesses. Muslims are involved in cake businesses … ice cream and sweets in general … and Catholics usually own jewellery shops … They speak in Albanian but they can speak in our dialect too. From the moment Istria happened to us we see them as Istrians … we see them as our Albanians … They are different from these new Albanians who moved to Istria recently … they also do not like these new Albanians … and we Istrians intermarry regardless of our background … Unfortunately we have less and less ‘real Italians’… I feel like we are losing our real value … but I love my Istria, I have my Istria … (Pazin 2007).

Here we see that differentiation exists between categories of Istrians as well: Croatian, Italian and Albanian backgrounds in this case are

European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria)


distinguished in their own ways (the priority given to Italians, to the “real value”), and, in addition, differentiation is also based according to class, religion and gender. However, in the new political context, through the established chain of equivalence and a fantasy frame of Istria being more European than the rest of Croatia, these differences are subverted to create a homogeneous notion of the whole. In other words, the meaning of “real Istrian” cannot be fully symbolised, hence our informant cannot specify what it means exactly to be a real Istrian but through the feeling of belonging she perceives Croatians, Albanians and Italians as a homogeneous entity in the particular context, an essentialised hybrid with a European flavour, with “European added value”.

3 Concluding remarks In this article we have analysed the role of the European Union and its cultural policy in the processes of the creation of European identity. Rather than seeing cultural policy as a solution to certain problems we see it as a mechanism that attempts to contribute to the construction of European culture which will in turn result in the feeling of belonging to Europe, in other words, with the construction of European identity. Different cultural projects supported by various European institutions are all part of the big network of projects governed by European cultural policy experts that produce European culture. Culture is seen as a sum of different local/regional or national practices, which could in general, enrich each particular culture with “European added value”. We have shown that this “European added value” can be articulated or interrelated with very specific local/regional/ national antagonisms and how the experience of local/regional/national antagonism can operate within the European imaginary and create new identity boundaries and division, as in our case study of Istria. European Union officials, politicians and policy experts stress that cultural diversity “gives rise to other specific values such as tolerance and open-mindedness” (Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels SEC (2007) 570), and plays an indirect role in promoting social integration and social cohesion. However, what they do not consider is the fact that each national or regional culture masks the plurality of positions that exist behind each “identity”, it masks power relations which operate in the construction of various internal and external others, as it is shown in our research in Istria. Narratives of “becoming European” or “being European” in Istria involve fantasies about what “Europeans” are (civilised people, gender equality, tolerance

66 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic and so on). “Being European” here means re-inventing the Istrian subject, a transformation which highlights hybridisation which in one way is (re)presenting itself as authentic (Ballinger’s argument about authenticity of Istrian hybridity) using Italianness to confirm Europeanness. It also masks the fear of being identified as non-European, and, in another way, using “Europeanness” in a regional/national struggle creating new antagonisms organised around identity issues. In short, by refusing to confront the complexity of the particular situations, power relations, and local investment in notions of European identity, the European Union is trying to neutralize its cultural politics, which opens the space for the interplay of exclusionary and inclusionary practices within its cultural space bounded by so called “European added value”. References Anderson, Benedict 1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Bakic-Hayden, Milica 1995 Nesting Orientalisms: the Case of the Former Yugoslavia. Slavic Review 54(4): 917–931. Balibar, Etienne 1991 Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities. London: Verso. Ballinger, Pamela 2002 History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Beck, Ulrich and Edgar Grande 2007 Cosmopolitanism: Europe’s Way Out of Crisis. European Journal of Social Theory 10(1): 67–85. Brah, Avtar 1996 Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London: Routledge. Brah, Avtar 2000 The Scent of Memory: Strangers, Our Own and Others. In: Avtar Brah and Annie E. Coombes (eds.), Hybridity and its Discontents: Politics, Science, Culture, 272–291. London: Routledge. Delanty, Gerard 1995 Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality. London: Macmillan. Guerrina, Roberta 2002 Europe: History, Ideas, Ideologies. London: Arnold. Hage, Ghassan 1998 White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Annandale: Pluto Press.

European cultural contesting identities (the case of Istria) Hall, Stuart 1996


Introduction: Who Needs ‘Identity’? In: Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay (eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity, 1–17. London, Sage.

Laclau, Ernesto 2007 On Populist Reason. London: Verso. Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe 1985 Hegemony & Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso. Laclau, Ernesto and Lilian Zac 1994 Minding the Gap: The Subject of Politics. In: Ernesto Laclau (ed.), The Making of Political Identities, 11–39. London: Verso. Modood, Tariq 2001 Muslims in the West. Observer 30 September . Padgen, Anthony (ed.) 2002 The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, Caryl 1999 The European Tribe. London: Faber & Faber. Said, Edward 2001 We All Swim Together. New Statesman 15 October . Sassatelli, Monica 2002 Imagined Europe: The Shaping of a European Cultural Identity Through EU Cultural Policy. European Journal of Social Theory 5(4): 435–451. Sassatelli, Monica 2008 European Cultural Space in the European Cities of Culture: Europeanization and Cultural Policy. European Societies 10(2): 225–245. Shore, Chris and Susan Wright, eds. 1997 Anthropology of Policy. Critical perspective on Governance and Power. London: Routledge. Shore, Chris 2000 Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration. London: Routledge. Shore, Chris 2004 Whither European Citizenship? Eros and Civilization Revisited. European Journal of Social Theory 7(1): 27–44. Shore, Chris 2006 ‘Government Without Statehood’, Anthropological Perspectives on Governance and Sovereignty in the European Union. European Law Journal 12(6): 709–724. Stavrakakis, Yannis 2005 Passions of Identification: Discourse, Enjoyment, and European Identity. In: David R. Howarth and Jacob Torfing (eds.), Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity Policy and Governance, 68–92. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

68 Senka Bozic, Mario Vrbancic and Olga Orlic Stavrakakis, Yannis 2007 Lack of Passion: European Identity Revisited. The Lacanian Left: Psychoanalysis, Theory, Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wolff, Larry 1994 Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford: University of California Press. Zizek, Slavoj 1989 The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso. Zizek, Slavoj 1993 Enjoy Your Nation as Yourself. In: Slavoj Zizek, Tarrying with the Negative: Kant Hegel and the Critique of Ideology, 201–286. Durham: Duke University Press. Zizek, Slavoj 1996 ‘Re-visioning ‘Lacanian’ Social Criticism: The Law and Its Obscene Double.’ Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture & Society 1(1): 15–27. Zizek, Slavoj 1999 Ticklish Subject: An Essay in Political Ontology. London: Verso. Zizek, Slavoj 2000 Da Capo senza Fine. In: Judith P. Butler, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Zizek (eds.), Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, 213–263. London: Verso.

Chapter 4 Language standardization and language identity issues in European language minority settings: Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins

Jeroen Darquennes

1 Introduction In the last 50 years the autochthonous European minority language communities received systematic attention in sociolinguistics and contact linguistics. The study of various aspects of language contact and language conflict in minority settings has largely contributed to the development of such – now booming – fields as multilingualism and language policy and planning (cf. Rindler Schjerve and Vetter 2010). As far as the European research on language policy and planning is concerned it is, however, somewhat striking that corpus planning and/or the interplay of corpus planning with other sorts of language planning plays a rather minor role in language policy and planning research in general (cf. Darquennes and Nelde 2005; Fishman 2006: x). By focusing on language standardization (debates) in the Ladin communities in the Italian Dolomites this contribution wants to highlight the importance of corpus planning issues in language policy and planning initiatives aiming at language maintenance and/or language shift reversal in language minority settings. At the same time it wants to shed light on the interplay between language standardization processes and identity formation processes at the regional level in the EU. To frame the Ladin case in a European context, the contribution starts with a general overview of (supranational) language policy in the European Union and then briefly turns to the role of language in identity formation processes. After a discussion of the problems related to language standardization in the Ladin communities on the basis of empirical data from the Survey Ladins (Dell’Aquila and Ianna`ccaro 2006) the contribution closes with some general remarks on possible future directions in European language planning research.

70 Jeroen Darquennes 2 Language policy in the context of autochthonous European language minorities The present European Union counts about 500 million inhabitants that are asymmetrically divided over 27 member states. With the exception of Luxembourgish, all the national languages of the member states have the status of an official language at the level of the EU. Next to the official EU-languages, also immigrant languages (cf. Extra and Gorter 2009) and autochthonous minority languages color the European Union’s language mosaic. Taking into account the existence of different definitions for a “language” and different sources to determine the size of a language community, the European Commission (2008: 7) rather carefully estimates the number of autochthonous minority languages (or: regional or minority languages) in the EU-27 at “more than 60” and the number of minority language users at “up to 50 million people.” The language contact situations which the minority language communities find themselves in are characterized as situations of asymmetrical rather than symmetrical multilingualism since the differences in social power, prestige and status as they exist between the minority and the majority community are reflected in the lower prestige, the lower status and the less developed (in some cases: poorly developed or even non-existing) legitimization and institutionalization of the minority language vis-a`-vis the majority language (cf. Nelde, Strubell, and Williams 1996: 1–13). That explains why language minority members striving for upward social mobility tend to favour the use of the majority language over the use of the minority language and thus foster societal language shift. Surely, the extent to which a minority language community is subject to societal language shift differs from case to case as it depends on what Haugen (1972) has labeled the context-specific ‘ecology of language’. In general, however, most (if not: all) of the European language minorities at the beginning of the 21st century face the challenge to prevent their minority language from loosing ground vis-a`-vis the majority language in the process of intergenerational minority language transmission. In order to reach that goal, myriads of language policy and planning initiatives have been taken especially since the ethnic revival in the 1970s (cf. He´raud 1987) with the aim of increasing the vitality of the autochthonous minority languages. By the end of the 1970s initiatives at the local, regional and national level were increasingly backed up by initiatives at the supranational European level, i.e. the level of the Council of Europe and the European Commission. Shortly after its first direct election in 1979 the European

Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins


Parliament passed a series of resolutions on the need to preserve the language and culture of European autochthonous language minorities (cf. EBLUL 2003 for an overview). In 1984 the Council of Europe organized a public hearing on regional and minority languages in Strasbourg. In 1995 that same Council published the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities. This convention entered into force in 1998. It grants individual rights to members of national minorities, including a relatively small number of language rights. A document that, however, solely focuses on languages and more specifically on the preservation of minority languages in most of the aspects of the life of its speakers is the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It was published in 1992 and entered into force in 1998. The Charter holds an important position as a frame of reference in European discussions on the preservation of linguistic diversity. The Charter also is a clear example of the fact that decision makers increasingly make use of (carefully selected parts of) language planning theory to draft language policy and planning documents and/or to give shape to actual language planning measures. Especially Part III of the Charter (i.e. the part that contains measures to promote the use of regional or minority languages in public life) broadly corresponds to the state of the art of language planning theory at the beginning of the 1990s. Part III proposes measures in the three common branches of language planning: – In the field of status planning (i.e. that part of language planning that aims at changing the status and the functional range of a given language without necessarily aiming at an increase of the people actually using the language) the Charter promotes measures in a number of domains of language use: the legal domain (Art. 9), the domain of public administration and services (Art. 10), the domain of the media (Art. 11), the domain of cultural activities and facilities (Art. 12), the domain of economy and social life (Art. 13) and the domain of transfrontier exchanges (Art. 14). – In the field of acquisition planning (i.e. that part of language planning that aims at an increase of the number of users of a given language) the Charter recommends the availability of education in the regional or minority language on all levels of education ranging from kindergarten to adult education (Art. 8). – In the field of corpus planning (i.e. that part of language planning aiming at the standardization and/or elaboration of the lexicon, the grammar and the orthography of a given language) the Charter is mainly related to translation and terminological activities (1) supporting the role of the

72 Jeroen Darquennes language in the media and the courts and (2) aiming at the maintenance and development of administrative, commercial, economic, social, technical or legal terminology (cf. Art. 9 and 12). Those measures directed at the training of minority language teachers and the availability of minority language education also imply a concern for corpus planning issues. Yet, the fact that corpus planning issues are not explicitly mentioned in this context illustrates that the Charter attaches less importance to corpus planning issues than to issues of status and acquisition planning. By leaving the choice of appropriate measures for each of the selected minority languages in their territory to the member states themselves, the Charter acknowledges the necessity of tailor-made approaches in language planning (cf. Haugen 1972; Fishman 1991). By forcing the member states who ratified the charter to select three measures from each of the articles 8 and 12 and one from each of the articles 9, 10, 11 and 13 the Charter can be linked to Haugen and Fishman’s plea for the development of complementary and mutually reinforcing language planning measures in different domains of language use (cf. also Cooper 1989). Worth mentioning in relation to the Charter also is that it – as Baetens Beardsmore (2009: 203–204) rightly mentions – does not want to create complete equality between the regional or minority language and the state’s official language. Nor does it want to create “linguistic ghettos”. It merely wants to give the regional or minority language communities enough support to guarantee their non-discrimination and – as a whole – fits the supranational European discourse that aims at institutionalizing and normalizing a trend that induces individuals to adopt more or less stable multiple (regional, national and supranational) identities (cf. also Laitin 1997 on this issue).

3 On identity and the role of language in identity The concept of identity can be characterized with Haarmann (1995: 8) as “a generic term covering a variety of different experiences”. This does, however, not imply that it would be impossible to approach identity or the process of identification in a systematic way. Following Haarmann (1996: 222), who takes an anthropocentric point of view as a starting point, the mechanism of identification mainly implies that a person tries to categorize the world in a binary way according to what that person is and/or would like to be and according to what that person is not and/or would not like to be. The process of identification on the individual as well as on the collective

Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins


level is characterized by a complex interplay of strategies aiming at demarcation, on the one hand, and a quest for solidarity, on the other hand (cf. also Tajfel 1978; Giles and Johnson 1987). One of the (many) factors that play a role in the dynamic process of demarcation and the quest for solidarity is language. The role of language as a symbol that is used to mark boundaries between groups is rather prominent in situations of language contact accompanied by asymmetrical societal multilingualism, i.e. in situations that are typical for all of the European autochthonous language minorities. Here, language helps to demarcate the (language) minority from the (language) majority. Language also helps to create group solidarity at the level of majorities and minorities. It needs to be stressed, however, that in some language minority contexts the group solidarity on the basis of language is under (quite some) strain due to the absence of a consensus on which variety is supposed to be the standard (written) variety. That is, for example, the case in Sardinia where any discussion on the future of Sardinian and the need for a development of a Sardinian ‘standard variety’ runs the risk of degenerating into a verbal showdown of advocates of ‘competing’ local varieties of Sardinian. One of the negative side-effects of these discussions is that they hamper the development of language policy and planning initiatives aiming at the status upgrade not only of the minority language but of the language minority as a whole (cf. Wo¨lck 2006: 319–320). That also is the case in the Ladin valleys on which the focus will be in the next paragraphs.

4 Language standardization and identity formation processes: The Ladin case In 1998 the members of the Centre d’Etudes Linguistiques pour l’Europe (Milano), partly in collaboration with the Research Centre on Multilingualism (Brussels), conducted an empirical survey in the Ladin valleys. Fieldworkers distributed 3200 written questionnaires containing a total of 92 questions. The respondents received three language versions to choose from: an Italian, a Ladin and a German version. After the person who distributed the questionnaires gave some background information on the questionnaires the respondents were given a couple of days to complete their questionnaire at their own pace in one of the three languages. The questionnaires were collected a few days later and were centralized for statistical analysis. The results were brought together in Survey Ladins. Usi linguistici nelle Valli Ladine (Dell’Aquila and Ianna`ccaro 2006) and were

74 Jeroen Darquennes commented upon during a conference in September 2006 (cf. Ianna`ccarro and Dell’Aquila 2007). Next to questions on language competences, language use and language attitudes in general the Survey Ladins contains a number of specific questions that allow to comment on the way in which language standardization interferes with regional identity formation processes. After a sketch of the history of language policy and standardization in the Ladin valleys a selection of these questions will be discussed. 4.1 History and politics The Ladin population (the total number of which is estimated at approx. 30.000) lives scattered over five valleys in the Italian Dolomites: Badia, Gherde¨ina, Fascia, Fodom and Anpezo.1 After having belonged to Austria for centuries these valleys were divided between Bavaria (Badia and Gherde¨ina) and Italy (Fascia, Fodom and Anpezo) in 1810 as a consequence of the Napoleonic wars and the division of Tyrol. Although this division lasted only three years (after which the Ladin valleys returned to Austria) it would inspire the Italian fascist regime after the Treaty of Saint-Germain (1919) to divide the five Ladin valleys over two regions and three provinces (the provinces of Bozen/Bolzano and Trento in the region of Trentino-Alto Adige and the province of Belluno in the region of Veneto). This political act marked the beginning of an asymmetrical (language political) development of the provinces that turned out to be … – most favorable for the Ladins in the valleys of Badia and Gherde¨ina in the province of Bozen/Bolzano where the Ladins were granted linguistic rights as soon as 1948, where more active measures were taken to promote Ladin since the 1970s and where Ladin became an official language in 1989; – slightly less favorable for the Ladins in the valley of Fascia in the province of Trento where it would take until the 1990s before the Ladins were given more or less the same rights as the Ladins in the province of Bozen/Bolzano; and – not so favorable at all for the Ladins in the valleys of Fodom and Anpezo in the province of Belluno where a law was launched in 1983 that guaranteed the funding of cultural activities of the Ladins but has not been of much help in the maintenance of the Ladin language and culture. 1 The orthography used here is taken from Dell’Aquila and Ianna`ccarro 2006.

Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins


Perhaps the situation in Belluno will improve in the (near) future now that Italy (since the state law 482 of 1999) recognizes 12 languages as minority languages (among them Ladin) that are to be protected by means of special measures. There seems to be a general agreement in Italian political circles that the fact that one belongs to a language minority should not be to the detriment of this person. That could also be the reason why Italy is close to the ratification of the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages (cf. Parayre 2008: 126).

4.2 The Ladin language: The quest for a koine´ Ladin is considered to constitute the central group of the Rhaeto-Romanic languages, the other groups being a western group in Switzerland (Bu¨ndnerromanisch), and an eastern group in Italy (Friulan). Philological debates tend to concentrate on (1) the (dis)unity of the language groups belonging to Rhaeto-Romance, (2) the related question whether the criteria of linguistic distance (i.e. “Abstand” in the sense of Heinz Kloss) are fulfilled to distinguish Ladin/Friulan/Bu¨nerromanisch as separate languages from each other and/or other Romance languages, (3) the autochthonousness of the Ladins, Friulans and Bu¨ndnerromans, and (4) the question of a Ladin koine´ especially for written communication (cf. Born 1992: 19–24 for each of the four points mentioned; and especially Goebl 1982 for a discussion of the questione ladina). Here, the focus will be on the last point. The quest for a standard variety of Ladin dates back to the 19th century. In the first part of the 19th century the Badian priest Micura` de Ru¨ finished a manuscript entitled Versuch einer Deu¨tsch-Ladinischen Sprachlehre (1833). That manuscript was, however, not published until 1995 when it appeared in issue XIX of Ladinia (a series published by the Istitut Ladin Micura` de Ru¨). Between 1833 and 1995, however, numerous other attempts were made in the valleys to develop a written standard for local varieties of Ladin, especially in the (second half of) the 20th century. Kattenbusch (1989: 713–714) lists a number of attempts to standardize Ladin during the 20th century that clearly illustrate the fact that initiatives to standardize local varieties outweigh initiatives to aim for a “pan-Ladin” standard written variety. Attempts have been made, though, to develop a “pan-Ladin” unified written standard variety. In 1984 the Union Generela di Ladins dles Dolomites brought representatives from all valleys together in a Comisciun por l’unificazion dla grafia

76 Jeroen Darquennes to work on a unification of the Ladin orthography (cf. Kattenbusch 1996). The orthographic findings of this commission were made public on 11 March 1987 but did not close the debate on the standardization of written Ladin. In the 1990s the persons responsible for the Ladin cultural institutions decided to develop a Ladin koine in the form of a so-called Ausgleichssprache that would enable the speakers of the different valley varieties to identify with the koine´ and would thus recognize the geoand psycholinguistic relations in the Ladin valleys. Starting from the Wegleitung zum Aufbau einer gemeinsamen Schriftsprache der Dolomitenladiner (1994) as developed by the Swiss professor Heinrich Schmid the SPELL-team (SPELL stands for Servisc de Planificazion y Elaborazion dl Lingaz Ladin) developed a grammar for and a dictionary in standard Ladin (cf. Valentini 2001, 15–16). Hope existed that SPELL’s endeavors would lead to a general acceptance of “Ladin Dolomitan” as a unified written variety of Ladin. That this hope was in vain hardly comes as a surprise when looking at the results of the following questions of the Survey Ladins addressing the issue of a unified written variety of Ladin.

4.3 Results from the Survey Ladins Regarding the use of a written standard variety of Ladin, the Survey Ladins contains the following questions: – Question 69 addresses the way in which the respondents assess the existence of a unified written variety of Ladin for the future of Ladin; – Question 70 addresses the way in which the respondents assess the existence of a unified written variety of Ladin for the various Ladin varieties; – Question 71 asks the respondents which variety they would evaluate to be the best unified written variety of Ladin; – Question 72 asks the respondents whether they would consider to take a course in Ladin Dolomitan. When dealing with the results of question 69 (cf. table 1 below2) and when adding the results for “useful” and “partly useful” it seems that a majority of the people in Badia (63,5%) and Fascia (58%) are in favor of a unified 2 Although the survey gives a detailed account for every community in the Ladin valleys, the decision was made to restructure the results per valley. This was done by calculating the mean of the results for the communities belonging to

Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins


written variety of Ladin. In Gherde¨ina (48%) and Fodom (48%) almost half of the respondents are in favor of it. In Anpezo the combined result of “useful” and “partly useful” drops to 36,5%. Table 1. Usefulness of a unified written variety of Ladin % of respondents who – for the future of Ladin – consider a unified written variety of Ladin to be useful

partly useful

neither useful, nor harmful



























The results of question 69 seem to be in line with an observation made by Kattenbusch (1996: 705) who – based on field research in the Dolomites and with reference to the complicated political situation that according to some observers would make a unified written standard impossible – writes that a large part of the people he interviewed considered the creation of a standard written variety of Ladin as necessary, yet hard to realize. Kattenbusch (id.) adds that in each of the Ladin valleys the interest in the creation of such a standard written variety is more or less in line with the degree of legal protection of the Ladin language and the degree of Ladinness. In view of the results of the Survey Ladins, however, this observation needs to be questioned for Gherde¨ina. The results for Gherde¨ina – where the legal status of Ladin is secured, Ladin is available at school and in the media and the sense of Ladinness is rather strong – are lower than the results for Fascia and comparable to the results for Fodom. The same tendency is visible when looking at the results for question 70:

each of the valleys. For Anpezo there was no necessity to calculate a mean since the survey only displayed single results for Anpezo.

78 Jeroen Darquennes Table 2. Influence of a unified written variety of Ladin on the existing varieties % of respondents who consider the influence of a unified written variety of Ladin on the existing varieties as … enrichment

without meaning






















In neither of the valleys there is a majority that considers a unified written variety of Ladin to be an enrichment for the Ladin varieties. Badia and Fascia come closest to 50%. Gherde¨ina, Fodom and Anpezo circle around 30%. In Gherde¨ina the respondents who consider a unified written variety to be an enrichment are on a par with the respondents who consider it to be a danger. Clearly, the results for Gherde¨ina show a somewhat strange behavior in comparison to the ones for Badia where the same legal status applies and where the sense of Ladinness is equally strong. A possible explanation could be that in Gherde¨ina an official orthography has been in use since 1948 (cf. Kattenbusch 1989: 713–714) and that it is therefore not considered useful to give up this orthography in favor of another one. The reluctancy vis-a`-vis a unified written variety of Ladin is, however, not limited to Gherde¨ina. When swapping the rather abstract question on the usefulness of a unified variety (i.e. question 70) for the more concrete question on which variety could be considered best as a unified written variety the results are as follows: Table 3. Which would be the best unified written variety of Ladin? LD

one of the idioms



don’t know

Val Badia






























LD = Ladin Dolomitan

Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins


Around one quarter of the respondents in Badia, Gherde¨ina and Fascia and one third of the respondents in Fodom and Anpezo do not have an opinion on which variety should be considered as the best possible unified written variety of Ladin. Other striking results are that 43% of the respondents living in Gherde¨ina would like none of the idioms to be the unified written variety. Most of the adherents of Ladin Dolomitan seem to live in Badia and Fascia but there too there is no (clear-cut) majority in favor of Ladin Dolomitan. Question 72 (i.e. the question on the willingness of the respondents to enroll for a course in Ladin Dolomitan) was answered as follows: 25% of the respondents in Badia were willing and 50% were not willing to enroll for such a course. For the other valleys the percentage for those willing vs. those not willing to enroll for a course on Ladin Dolomitan are as follows: 11% vs. 72% (Gherde¨ina), 37% vs. 39% (Fascia), 27% vs. 39% (Fodom) and 20% vs. 55% (Anpezo). Based on these results it is not hard to see why attempts to introduce Ladin Dolomitan as a pan-Ladin standard variety at the beginning of the millennium stranded. The future of a unified written variety of Ladin further remains rather insecure. And the emotions that surround this discussion remain one of the biggest challenges for future pan-Ladin policy and planning initiatives.

4.4 Language policy and planning in the Ladin valleys: Some general considerations In the mid 1980s Lois Craffonara formulated a series of Ladin language policy demands (cf. Kattenbusch 1996: 330). The main demands can be summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

the presence of Ladin is needed in all domains Ladin has to be present at all levels of education there is a strong need for Ladin mass media there is a need for an extensive cultural network the Ladin communities need a solid economic basis (linked to the Ladin language) there is a need for a clear demarcation of the Ladin language area there is a strong need for unified written variety of Ladin Ladins need to unite and to ally (which means avoiding parish-pump politics)

The demands made by Craffonara closely resemble thoughts that feature prominently in recent literature on language revitalization. Linguists like

80 Jeroen Darquennes Bereznak and Campbell (1996: 663–665), Baldauf and Kaplan (1997: 9), Campbell (2000: 252–268), Gruffudd (2000: 176–204), Nelde (2002: 2) and Strubell (1999) all consider a comprehensive, multidisciplinary and multidimensional total concept that is intertwined with social reality as a prerequisite for successful language revitalization. Such a concept means that based upon an interplay between political, legislative and grassroots initiatives a careful balance is sought between elements related to language competence, language use and attitudes towards the language. The results of the Survey Ladins make it clear that Ladin at least in Badia, Gherdeı¨na and also in Fascia has profited from positive political, legislative and grassroots initiatives during the last twenty years. The elements mentioned in points 1 to 5 of Craffonara’s demands have been realized in Badia and Gherde¨ina. Since the mid 1990s Fascia is on its way to catch up and will hopefully succeed in smoothening away weaker points such as the continuity of Ladin at all school levels and the development of Ladin media in the near future. From a point of view of legal guarantees for the use of Ladin and the political willingness to act on behalf of Ladin the Ladin valleys of the province of Belluno clearly lag behind the valleys in Trento and Bozen/Bolzano. As far as points 6 to 8 of Craffonara’s demands are concerned, the balance for the whole of the Ladin valleys is, however, not that favorable. The Survey Ladins shows that for the great majority of the Ladins Ladin still refers to the local variety of Ladin. Apparently, the parish-pump politics to which Craffonara in the mid 1980s referred has still not disappeared from the scene. That probably is one of the reasons why no pressure is exerted to clearly demarcate the Ladin linguistic area. And it also helps to explain why – despite of the rather successful example of Romantsch Grischun in Switzerland (cf. Dazzi-Gros 2006) – the efforts to spread Ladin Dolomitan were put down before the Ladin population had the chance to get familiar with the koine. Looking back at the description of identity formation as a process involving strategies of demarcation and a quest for solidarity, one can – at least as far as the role of language in identity formation in the Ladin valleys is concerned – conclude that the parish-pump politics seems to incite the Ladin population to favour the demarcation of and a quest for solidarity within their own valley over a quest for pan-Ladin solidarity and the demarcation of the Ladin valleys from the surrounding majority. This is especially regrettable because without necessarily infringing upon the cultivation of local varieties of Ladin that are constitutive of local Ladin identities the acceptance and the spread of Ladin Dolomitan would contribute to the

Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins


sense of a pan-Ladin identity, would considerably simplify the maintenance of Ladin and would give the Ladin community more language political weight in a regional, national and European context. That is the rationale behind the eleven theses on a pan-Ladin language policy as they were developed by the SPELL team. The full version is available on the website of SPELL ( Here it suffices to highlight some parts of thesis 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5:3 – Thesis 1: Sharing a common culture and a common identity, the Ladins of the Italian Dolomites only have a chance of safeguarding their future existence if they manage to safeguard the vitality of their language. More than ever before, there is a need to develop a uniform and an effective language policy for the whole of the historically Ladin territory. – Thesis 2: All historical varieties are to be considered as lively and original expressions of the Ladin language. These varieties represent the indispensable patrimony of the whole of the Ladin people. Each variety should be treated with the same respect and should be recognized by the institutions at all levels. – Thesis 3: All the varieties are entitled to supportive and protective measures in order to enable them to further develop and to hold ground in the future. […] 3 The English translation of the theses is based on the Ladin, Italian and German version of the theses as they can be found on the website of SPELL. In Ladin Dolomitan, the theses read as follows: 1. La souravivenza di Ladins dles Dolomites sciche popul caraterise´ per cultura y identite´ e´ garantida deme´ da la souravivenza de sie lingaz. Per ti ester a les tendenzes dl’omologazion che carateriseia nosc temps e´l encueicondı` plu che zenza debujegn de na politica linguistica unitara y efizienta per dut l teritore storich olache i Ladins […]; 2. Dutes les variete´s linguistiches chersciudes su storicamenter te chest teritore e´ esprescion viventa y originala dl lingaz ladin: ales raprejenteia n patrimone essenzial per dut l popul ladin. A dutes ti ve´gnel reconesciu` la medema y valiva dignite´ y dutes dess ester reconesciudes a vigni livel da les istituzions; 3. Vigni variete´ ladina a` l dert de mesures de sostegn y protezion per podei se svilupe´ y se mantegnı` tl davegnı` […]; 4. La souravivenza y l svilup armonich di singui idioms ladins po` a la longia vegnı` garantis cotant plu saurı` tres l’elaborazion de n lingaz scrit unitar […]; 5. L lingaz scrit unifiche´, o Ladin Standard, e´ fondamental desche simbol dl’identite´ dl popul ladin y de sia unite´: al e´ tl medem temp na “ombrela de protezion” che permet ence a les variete´s locales de se mantegnı`, de se svilupe´ inant y de se defene da les interferenzes di lingac vejins.

82 Jeroen Darquennes – Thesis 4: In the long run, the survival and the harmonious development of each of the Ladin varieties can be guaranteed much better by means of the development of a standard written variety. […] – Thesis 5: The standard written variety, i.e. „Ladin Standard“ or „Ladin Dolomitan“, is a symbol of the identity of the Ladin people and of its unity. At the same time, the standard written variety functions as a “shield” that, on the one hand, protects the Ladin language against interferences from neighbouring languages and, on the other hand, allows for the further development of the varieties of the Ladin valleys.

5 Outlook In the European political discourse on language minorities issues of language standardization (or, in broader terms: issues of corpus planning) are hardly mentioned. As mentioned in section 2 of this contribution that even is the case for the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages that – if all goes well – should soon also apply to the Ladin community. It seems that corpus planning – on the European and other levels – is thought of as something that goes without saying. Nothing is, however, further from the truth. Corpus planning even poses a constant challenge to established institutions such as the Fryske Akademy (in Ljouwert/ Leeuwarden, the Netherlands), Euskaltzaindia (the Basque Language Academy in Bilbo/Bilbao, Spain) and the Sorbski Institut (in Budysˇin/Bautzen, Germany). Corpus planners working in these institutions do not only have to codify and elaborate their minority language in a setting that is characterized by intense language contact and subject to the pressure of English as a lingua franca. They also experience that their work is not purely linguistic but is heavily intertwined with the social context they work in. Corpus planners, certainly those involved in the standardization of minority languages, are doomed to experience how different forces in society attach emotional values to specific historically grown linguistic varieties and sometimes experience the rejection of specific features of their own variety almost as a denial of their linguistic identity. The emotional factor attached to codification explains why in the process of codification most often attempts are made to merge features of the existing varieties. Yet, this not always proves to be an ideal or an unquestioned solution as the Ladin example has shown. To better understand the processes guiding and interfering with corpus planning in general and language standardization issues in particular in the context of European language minorities, it would be welcome to aim

Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins


for more coherent research on corpus planning in European minority settings as Kloss already called for in his Research possibilities on group bilingualism (1969: 82). It would especially be favourable to aim for a comparative study of the sociology of corpus planning in the context of autochthonous European language minorities and/or to aim for a comparative study based on the approach in Michael Clyne’s volume on Undoing and Redoing Corpus Planning (1997) or Ana Deumert and Wim Vandenbussche’s volume on Germanic standardizations (2003). And it would also be welcome if the need for and the findings of corpus planning research would meet with some response at the level of networks and institutions that advocate the promotion of European minority languages. When screening European initiatives that call for a list of best practices in language planning (cf. Council of Europe 2001 and 2008 or the agenda of the practice-based Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity), one is overwhelmed with initiatives in the field of minority language education and status planning. A little more emphasis on the minority languages themselves would be welcome since, after all, Fishman (2006) has a strong point when claiming that we should not leave languages alone.

References Baetens Beardsmore, Hugo 2009 Language promotion by European supra-national institutions. In: Ofelia Garcia [with contributions by Hugo Baetens Beardsmore], Bilingual education in the 21st century. A global perspective, 197–217. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Baldauf, Richard B. and Robert Kaplan 1997 Language Planning. From Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bereznak, Catherine and Lyle Campbell 1996 Defense strategies for endangered languages. In: Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Wolfgang Wo¨lck and Zdenek Stary´ (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Band I, 659–666. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Born, Joachim 1992 Untersuchungen zur Mehrsprachigkeit in den ladinischen Dolomitenta¨lern. Ergebnisse einer soziolinguistischen Befragung. Heidelberg: Egert Verlag. Campbell, Cefin 2000 Menter Cmw Gwendraeth: A case-study in Community Language Planning. In: Colin H. Williams (ed.), Language Revitalization. Policy and Planning in Wales, 247–291. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

84 Jeroen Darquennes Clyne, Michael (ed.) 1997 Undoing and redoing corpus planning. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cooper, Robert L. 1989 Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (ed.) 2001 From Theory to Practice – The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe (ed.) 2008 The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: Legal Challenges and Opportunities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Craffonara, Lois 1997 Ladinien. In: Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Wolfgang Wo¨lck and Zdenek Stary´ (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Band II, 1383–1398. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Darquennes, Jeroen and Peter Nelde 2005 Multilingualism and language planning. In: Anita Sujoldzic (ed.), Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems Chapter 4. Social Sciences and Humanities, Theme 6.20B Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Eolss Publishers. Dazzi-Gross, Anna-Alice 2006 Corpus- und Status Planning in Graubu¨nden/Schweiz. Die Gestaltung des Rumantsch Grischun. In: Vittorio Dell’Aquila, Gabriele Ianna`ccaro and Matthias Stuflesser (eds.), Alpes Europa: Sociolinguistica Europaea 2, 54–65. Trento: Regione Autonoma Trentino-Alto Adige. Dell’Aquila, Vittorio and Gabriele Ianna`ccaro 2006 Survey Ladins. Usi linguistici nelle Valli Ladine. Trento: Regione Autonome Trentino-Alto Adige. Deumert, Ana and Wim Vandenbussche (eds.) 2003 Germanic standardizations. Past to present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. EBLUL/European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages 2003 Vade-Mecum. Textes officiels internationaux concernant les langues moins re´pandues en Europe. Bruxelles: EBLUL. European Commission 2008 Speaking for Europe. Languages in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. Extra, Guus and Durk Gorter 2009 Regional and immigrant minority languages in Europe. In: Marlis Hellinger and Anne Pauwels (eds.), Handbook of language and communication: Diversity and change, 15–52. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991 Reversing language shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Some general remarks in the light of the Survey Ladins


Fishman, Joshua A. 2006 DO NOT leave your language alone. The hidden status agendas within corpus planning in language policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Giles, Howard and Patricia Johnson 1987 Ethnolinguistic identity theory: a sociopsychological approach to language maintenance. In: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68: 69–99. Goebl, Hans 1982 Kulturgeschichtliche Bedingtheiten von Kontaktlinguistik. Bemerkungen zum gegenwa¨rtigen Stand der ‘Questione ladina’. In: P. Sture Ureland (ed.), Die Leistung der Strataforschung und der Kreolistik. Aspekte der europa¨ischen Ethnolinguistik und Ethnopolitik, 155–169. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Gruffudd, Heini 2000 Planning for the Use of Welsh by Young People. In: Colin H. Williams (ed.), Language Revitalization. Policy and Planning in Wales, 173–207. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Kloss, Heinz 1969 Research possibilities on group bilingualism. Laval: CIRB. Haarmann, Harald 1995 Europeanness, European identity and the role of language – Giving profile to an anthropological infrastructure. In: Sociolinguistica 9: 1–55. Tu¨bingen, Niemeyer. Haarmann, Harald 1996 Identita¨t. In: Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Wolfgang Wo¨lck and Zdenek Stary´ (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Band I, 218–233. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Haugen, Einar 1972 The ecology of language. In: Anwar S. Dil (ed.), The ecology of language, 325–339. Stanford: Stanford University Press. He´raud, Guy 1987 Renaissances ethniques. In: Sociolinguistica 1, 30–45. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Ianna`ccaro, Gabriele and Vittorio Dell’Aquila (eds.) 2007 Survey Ladins. Atti. Vich: Istitut Cultural Ladin. Kattenbusch, Dieter 1989 Ladinisch: Sprachnormierung und Standardsprache. In: Gu¨nter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band III, 704–720. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Kattenbusch, Dieter 1996 Ladinien. In: Robert Hinderling and Ludwig M. Eichinger (eds.), Handbuch der mitteleuropa¨ischen Sprachminderheiten, 311–333. Tu¨bingen: Narr. Laitin, David 1997 The cultural identities of a European state. In: Politics & Society, 25, 3: 277–302.

86 Jeroen Darquennes Nelde, Peter H. 2002 Vorwort. In: Peter H. Nelde, Peter J. Weber and Wolfgang Wo¨lck (eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit – Voraussetzung und Chance fu¨r das ¨ berleben kleiner Sprachgemeinschaften, 2–3. Bautzen: WITAJU Sprachzentrum. Nelde, Peter H., Miquel Strubell and Glyn Williams 1996 Euromosaic I. The production and reproduction of minority speech communities in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities. Parayre, Sonia 2008 The 10th anniversary of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In: Europa¨isches Journal fu¨r Minderheitenfragen 2: 125–130. Strubell, Miquel 1999 From language planning to language policies and language politics. In: Peter J. Weber (ed.), Contact + Confli(c)t. Language planning and minorities, 237–248. Bonn: Du¨mmler. Rindler Schjerve, Rosita and Eva Vetter 2010 Europa¨ische Mehrsprachigkeit zwischen politischer Gestaltung und wissenschaftlicher Erforschung. In: Uwe Hinrichs (ed.), Handbuch Eurolinguistik, 805–819. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Tajfel, Henri (ed.) 1978 Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press. Valentini, Erwin 2001 Vorwort. In: (ed.), Gramatica dl Ladin Standard. Union Generala di Ladins dles Dolomites/Istitut Cultural Ladin ‘majon di fascegn’/ Istitut Cultural Ladin ‘Micura` de Ru¨’/Institut Pedagogich Ladin. Wo¨lck, Wofgang 2006 Kontaktlinguistische Universalien und Sprachplanung. In: Vittorio Dell’Aquila, Gabriele Ianna`ccaro and Matthias Stuflesser (eds.), Alpes Europa: Sociolinguistica Europaea 2, 319–329. Trento: Regione Autonoma Trentino-Alto Adige.

Chapter 5 Language ideological debates: The case of Croatia

Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat

1 Introductory notes This paper aims to explore current language ideological debates taking place in Croatia. It is focused on the role of language as a marker of national identity and a medium of national homogenization in order to identify specific normative, theoretical and social practices that affect that role. Our principal aim is to analyse the interplay between: 1) language and national identity: What is the role of language in creation and maintenance of national identity? How does national identity affect language?; and 2) national identity policy and language policy: How does national identity policy affect linguistic and cultural identities? How may language policy affect national identity policy? In examining the role of language in the creation of national identity, we focus on language ideologies (Woolard 1998), specifically language ideological debates (Blommaert 1999), and consider the ways in which language policy may sometimes reinforce national identity or undermine the nation-state. Additionally, our aim is to determine language ideologies that are articulated in public debates and to examine what they represent. We observe how social actors discursively construct links between language, nation and national identity and how this micro perspective relates to macro social processes.

2 Theoretical framework The theoretical framework adopted in this paper is based on Bourdieu’s social theory combined with the discourse theory of power relations, anthropological and sociolinguistic approach to language ideologies and questions of identity.

88 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat 2.1 Bourdieu’s theory Bourdieu’s theory (e.g. Bourdieu 1991) offers a particularly suitable explanatory framework for both ways in which ideology is created from dominant groups, and the way it is promoted and legitimized. His theory of practice considers both language and culture to be embodied practices constructed in specific interactive contexts, and provides a model of symbolic domination based on unconscious dispositions. His key concepts of “habitus”, “capital”, “symbolic domination” and “linguistic market” are of particular interest in our research. Habitus refers to a set of dispositions internalized during socialization which generate practices, perceptions and attitudes which are routinized without being consciously coordinated. Being pre-reflective, they are highly durable and persist through life and are both the product of the history of habitus, and the resource of its continuous reproduction. Members within different groups are considered to share the same habitus which determines the social identity and behaviour of individuals. This approach enables the analysis of the variations in the respective persons’ dispositions towards other groups, based on language, gender, education and class. For Bourdieu, language exists as linguistic habitus, to be understood as a recurrent and habitual system of dispositions and a set of practices that imply not only a particular system of words and grammatical rules, but also a linguistic capital and a struggle over the symbolic power of a particular way of communicating (Bourdieu 1991). Linguistic capital is grounded in the assumption that the ability to create, organise and distribute meaning is an essential source of power and plays a crucial role in all dimensions of society. He emphasizes the importance of language as a system actively defined by socio-political processes, like nation-building or state formation that create the conditions for a unified linguistic market where linguistic varieties are perceived in terms of their cultural, economic, social and symbolic values (i.e. capitals), while one linguistic variety acquires the status of standard language. The perception of their respective values reflects the vested interests of particular social groupings, especially the elite classes, as the differential prestige of linguistic varieties is closely related to the relative social status of their speakers, with the highest prestige being awarded to those who control the standard language usage most proficiently. The question of power arises here as crucial: the process of imposing a standard language is a kind of symbolic domination in which non-standard varieties are suppressed, and those who speak them are excluded or repressed. The processes of standardisation give rise to something Bourdieu calls legitimation and authorization, concepts that explain the processes of social evaluation of language.

Language ideological debates


When standard language is connected with an elite national group (by different symbolic and discursive processes), its hegemonic position and differential prestige over other varieties is granted, and it obtains high symbolic value. Under the influence of a restrictive education system and other powerful institutions, people accept its high value as being legitimate and view the control of its norms as essential to attaining high status, and in this way, the state institutions naturalize the dominance of the standard language. Therefore, the hegemonic effect of national standard languages and its linguistic power can be suitably examined in terms of its symbolic status and analysis of the economics of linguistic exchange in particular countries as well as through empirical studies of attitudes towards the perceived power of language varieties in use.

2.2 Language ideological debates and identity issues Anthropological and sociolinguistic views on language ideologies and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are complementary to Bourdieu’s theory. It is their common premise that discourse is a social practice, meaning a process which is both socially determined and has social effects. As Wodak (2001: 10) explains: “For CDA, language is not powerful on its own – it gains power by the use powerful people make of it. This explains why [one] often chooses the perspective of those who suffer, and critically analyses the language use of those in power, who are responsible for the existence of inequalities and who also have the means and opportunity to improve conditions”. From linguistic anthropology we take the similar notion that ideas about language are always invested with social, economic, political and moral values, and that they have implications for actual linguistic practices and policies (e.g. Schieffelin, Woolard and Kroskrity 1998; Blommaert 1999). Particularly useful in this complementation of our theoretical and methodological framework is the concept of socially situated and historically specific “language ideologies”, a term that refers to the ways in which languages carry or are invested with certain moral, social, and political values, as well as implicit assumptions that people have about a specific language or language in general. Our paper tries to analyse Croatian language ideological debates, which are particularly fertile ground for the investigation of language ideologies. Blommaert (1999) views language debates as being embedded in the broad historical and socio-political context of power relations, social engineering, nation-building etc. In the development of a debate participating actors and social groups attempt to indicate convincingly that there is a

90 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat “right” way of reading some texts (Silverstein and Urban 1996: 11). In this context the concept of power emerges as a crucial one – as Wodak (2001: 11) points out: Power is about relations of difference, and particularly about the effects of differences in social structures. The constant unity of language and other social matters ensures that language is entwined in social power in a number of ways: language indexes power, expresses power, is involved where there is contention over and challenge to power. Power does not derive from language, but language can be used to challenge power, to subvert it, to alter distributions of power on the short and long term.

In this sense, language debates can alter the (socio)linguistic reality, since actors represent linguistic reality as invested in their own system of ideas and values: whether debates are dominant or marginal, their actors can accommodate them according to their particular ideological systems. We cite Blommaert (1999: 435) on the importance of marginal debates: Regardless of whether debates “moved” sociolinguistic reality or left it untouched, the structure of the metadiscourse used in the debate is in itself telling. The tropes, associations, symbolisations used in discussing languages, their qualities or disadvantages and the way they ought to be used in society, all reveal a magnificent amount of insights into available ideological sources or traditions, their (lack of) power, their intertextuality with other cases, sources or traditions and so on. This is why inconsequential or marginal debates can be very informative: by showing us the failure of certain bids for power and authority, they might shed light on the historical conditions that made certain forms of power possible and others impossible.

According to this position, we choose to include marginalised and non-dominant language debates in our analysis as well. Within this framework we also draw on the sociolinguistic concept of identity as a social and cultural phenomenon. Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005) broad definition of identity as a “social positioning of self and others” which is a discursive construct and an emerging product, rather than some pre-existing source of linguistic and other semiotic practices, is particularly useful for our research. It demonstrates and confirms the multiple “nature” of identities, their constructive and discursive aspect, their variability, fluidness and context dependence. Finally, we also adopt the linguistic anthropologists’ commitment to the de-stigmatisation of linguistic varieties and their speakers, as well as the

Language ideological debates


main premises of CDA regarding a sort of political commitment: “CDA should make proposals for change and suggest corrections to particular discourses. CDA thus openly professes strong commitments to change, empowerment, and practice-orientedness” (Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000: 449; see also Van Dijk 2001a; Van Dijk 2001b).

3 Description of data The corpus consists of public debates that have been collected from newspapers and magazines about relations between language, nationality and identity. We have collected materials on different language issues such as linguistic purism, language policy and planning, orthography, question of language culture and the question of Croatian dialects and their position in relation with the standard language. We also included the question of history, with particular attention to language issues. All of these articles were published in newspapers and magazines of different political orientation in order to get more complete picture of language debates in Croatia. When we could not find the particular newspapers in their paper edition, we have searched for their identical web edition in the Internet. The corpus consists of more than 100 articles categorised according to genres, i.e. interviews with different language experts about their attitudes toward language questions, and also about their polemics with other experts that do not agree with them, opinion articles, and news items. Different academic papers (from authors that hold “opposite” sides in language questions) and the minutes from the meetings of the Council for the Croatian Standard Language Norm organized by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports (in May 2005) have been analysed in order to provide the context for the language debates. The complete list of used and cited newspapers and magazines includes the more conservative Focus, seven moderate central magazines and newspapers such as Nacional, Jutarnji list, Vjesnik, Novi list, Globus, Vecˇernji list and HINA as well as left-oriented Feral Tribune.

3.1 The public debate on language in Croatia The main part of the corpus is from 2007 (and mostly from the first half of the year) because the new Croatian orthography manual was published at that time. That caused a lot of reactions, not only from the public which had many questions about the new orthography and other current language

92 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat issues, but also the reactions of the language experts who took the opposing side and those experts that took the same side as the authors of the new manual. There are fewer contributions from the period between 2000 and 2007, and only a few from the 1990s. Although Croatia can be defined as the young state (Eriksen 2004: 172), contemporary Croatian language debates are deeply rooted in the 19th century ideas on language and national identity linked to so-called Illyrian movement (Ilirski pokret) that recognized and pleaded for the creation of the unique standard language (Vince 2002), although the aims of the participants of the Movement were quite different from today’s: they promoted the union of all the South Slavic nations (Vince 2002: 235). The question of orthography and linguistic purism has long and outstanding tradition and continues to be the object of very brisk debates between linguists, politicians and even “ordinary people”. Generally, in Croatia the orthography question is an important issue and there are two tendencies: one that pleads for the phonological orthography and another that demands the adoption of morphological or etymological orthography. This is still discussed in the media, public and academic spheres. When new orthography manual of the Croatian language was published in 2007, the old debates reappeared. There were many articles about the orthography in the newspapers which connected this question with politics and with “left” (phonological orthography) or “right” (morphological orthography) political ideologies, but also with the generational gap between younger and older language experts. The other question on linguistic purism today is mostly directed against the English language, its lexical and grammatical influence, but in the recent past was also oriented toward the Serbian language. In 2007 Croatian linguists were proposing to the government to pass a law that will protect the Croatian language as an official language in Croatia. With new social and political changes, the new language question arose: the position of Croatian as a possible official language in European Union. The debates on the question which language will be proclaimed official in the EU – Croatian as politically recognized as unique and “independent” language or so-called BCS language (Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian), same for the whole region also enhanced lively debates in the public sphere and in academic and political circles. Within the historical and recent socio-political contexts language debates in Croatia seem an odd mix of 19th century ideas and wider current problems, determined by ideological background of dominant social actors, as it will be shown in further analysis.

Language ideological debates


4 Analysis of the language debates In our analysis of language ideological debates we have decided to focus only on written texts, collected from newspapers and magazines, for the purpose of creating a homogeneous and coherent corpus of texts that would enable a more balanced and uniformed analysis. “Ideal” corpus for the analysis is always hard to achieve, because this process purports selection and rejection of certain sources and contents, and especially in the analysis of media texts problems of delimitation of the corpus and its wideness prove to be evident (Semprini 1997: 14). Nevertheless, we have tried to include different contents expressed in the debates of different social actors (not only nationalist voices, but also the alternative opinions and attitudes), and focused on written texts and not for instance visual ones, because these texts would demand different analytical instrumentary (Semprini 1997: 15). This analysis of language ideological debates has been articulated around several key points. We wanted to examine the main social actors participating in language debates, identify the main topics thereof. We have explored how these language issues were linked to the concept of national identity, and identified the notable dominant ideologies in these debates, the nature of language policies, and the various types of social discourses regarding language and national identity issues (academic/scholarly, political, popular, pragmatic etc.) that circulate and intersect in the public sphere. The different attitudes toward dialects and standard language and on linguistic purism expressed in these debates have been also included in this analysis, as well as the topos of history that appeared to be very important and frequent in debates. This analytical grid depends on our theoretical background and was sketched according to the characteristics, contents and features of the corpus itself.

4.1 Historical, political and sociolinguistic background The adoption of the label “national language” or “national identity” often assumes an equation of the nation with the state, in academic as well as in non-academic contexts. For example, Eriksen (2004: 172) determines the nation-state as a country in which one ethnic group prevails, and the main characteristics of its identity such as religion and language are integrated in symbolism and legislation. On the other side, these positions sometimes appear as highly problematic

94 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat and non-adequate. For example, Gellner (2006: 6) problematizes the state and the nation equation in this way: Nations and states are not the same contingency. Nationalism holds that they were destined for each other; that either without the other is incomplete, and constitutes a tragedy. But before they could become intended for each other each of them had to emerge, and their emergence was independent and contingent. The state has certainly emerged without the help of the nation. Some nations have certainly emerged without the help of their own state.

Croatia became an independent state with the break-up of Yugoslavia in the year of 1991. Although it can be considered a nation-state according to Eriksen’s (2004: 172) previously cited definition, it is important to stress that some of its regions are very heterogeneous both in a national and a linguistic sense, and that nation-states in general do not always represent nationally homogeneous countries, as the term “nation-state” implicitly suggests. The official language policy in Croatia – tentatively spoken, since linguists cannot agree on whether a systematic and organised language policy actually exists in Croatia – is prescriptive and directive (see Sˇkiljan 1988). After establishing the “new-state” it became of great importance to differentiate itself from other “new-states” of former Yugoslavia in terms of language, culture and history. In this sense, some of the most crucial parts of the Croatian ethnic identity have been actually established negatively, in an attempt to distinguish it from the other states of former Yugoslavia. The differences between Croatian and other nations that were part of Yugoslavia tended to grow especially in the regard of language and other aspects of culture that have symbolic value. During the transitional period in Croatia, language was a crucial factor in the construction of national identity. At the beginning of the 1990s, language issues became an important part of the nationalist ideology, and a lot of public language debates arose. In this period the most important language issues were the differences between Croatian and Serbian, and attempt to prove that these two languages are distinct and autonomous languages. After the political changes in the 1990s the language issues remained an important part of the Croatian public and academic life. Some of the topics changed and were replaced with the others.

4.2 The main social actors First of all, we were interested, in line with the language ideological work which adopts historical materialism (e.g. Blommaert 1999; Blommaert

Language ideological debates


2005; Heller 1994), in identifying the main social actors participating in the language debates. The participants in Croatian language ideological debates are mostly language experts (linguists and especially philologists) and journalists. Most of the articles are interviews with these language experts, or the polemics between the experts who take different positions in these language debates. So, the main social actors try to take the dominant position, and they already exercise power through the privilege of having access to this discourse and being participants in these language debates. They exercise power by presenting themselves as experts on language issues, thereby claiming professional and institutional power. Participants are university professors from different language departments, mostly from the Departments for the Croatian language from different universities in Croatia (from University of Zagreb, University of Split, University of Osijek, University of Rijeka), and also a few experts from universities abroad but of Croatian origin. Their power is associated with a specific social dimension of education and science. We can expect that the actions (i.e. participating in debates and giving interviews) of a powerful group of experts will influence the less powerful groups so that the members of less powerful groups will accept their arguments and opinions on the assumption that they are “the experts” and that “they know better”. The actors of the debates link language, nation and national identity to the 19th century idea that language is crucial for the construction of national identity and that there is no nation without a national language. Texts on language debates are discourses at a micro-level in the specific situation of a debate, but they are at the same time part of a macro-level because of their ability to influence the public, “ordinary” people and their minds. Experts, as members of a power group, act as individuals but at the same time they form a group of individuals with similar attitudes and similar argumentations. The discourse of nation, culture, and language is articulated through power-plays in newspaper texts by means of cognition; the power group tries to influence the “Others”, mostly groups without social power (in this situation, the groups of non-experts), by changing their opinions and attitudes toward language issues and influencing them to accept their attitudes.

4.3 Main topics and types of discourses One of the most frequent topics expressed in Croatian language debates concerns the problem of English as an international and global language.

96 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat Debates on the English language and its influence take place both in academic and non-academic contexts, and there is a substantial body of academic literature that expresses “concern” about the phenomenon of English as a global language, under the label of “linguistic imperialism” (Phillipson 1992). In these debates on the status of the national official language and English and its influence, the arguments are often underpinned by linguistic purism and almost always involve negative criticisms towards the use of English lexical items, syntax, idioms and code-mixing. In the following example the Croatian language is put in the passive position of a “victim” of “aggression” of the English language and the whole argumentation is transferred from the linguistic/academic field into the field of war and military discourse: the comparison of the relation between English and Croatian to armed conflict, and the metaphorical representation of Croatian words as soldiers in a losing battle creates an atmosphere of danger and threat: Croats should feel threatened by the English language and approach this “problem” with great attention, as if they were in war. (1) […] every Croatian word that disappears because of an Anglicism or which is not born, but could have been born, means the destruction of the Croatian language. It is just like soldiers in war. The loss of one soldier can seem to be of little importance, but every loss weakens our defensive might, and every individual loss brings us closer to a collapse, it is difficult to say where the limit will be.1 (Stjepan Babic´ in Focus, March 2007)

Other main topics covered in the Croatian articles are: the connection between national language and national identity, linguistic purism, language policy, the position of the standard language in Croatia and in European Union, the problem of having two different orthographies and the fact that both are used in schools and that they are connected to politics. Other topics included the fact that ordinary people are confused by such a situation and will become illiterate because of it, the question of language culture and the question of dialects and their position in relation to the standard language, and attitudes towards different foreign languages. The main differences in topics between the early period (1990s) and the current period (2007) are the following: in the 1990s the purist tendencies were directed against Serbian borrowings while today the purist attention is directed against the English

1 Please find the original text of the examples in Appendix.

Language ideological debates


language and the borrowings from English. This is connected to the specific political situation in the 1990s, since the language policy of that time was a reaction to earlier language policies which led to the unification of the Croatian and Serbian standard languages. So, the most important language issue during the 1990s was the language policy of “disunity” in order to show that Croatian is a distinct language, a language of Croats. New social and political changes brought new questions of language, such as the position of Croatian as a possible official language in the European Union. The analysis shows that the social actors involved drew on a wide range of types of discourses. Those types were identified from a perspective according to which every type of discourse has its own socially distinct topics, configurations, means of space-, time- and actor-use etc. So, we can distinguish the advertising discourse, political discourse, newspaper discourse, discourse of religion, scientific discourse, educational discourse etc. and they can be identified as different types of social discourses (Marrone 2001: xxiii–xxiv). This, of course, has to be taken strictly conditionally: many scholars stress openness as one of the most important features of discourse. A discourse is an open system in constant change and transformation in relation to other discourses. Even the boundaries between the different types of discourses are not fixed, stable and unchangeable (see Semprini 1997: 31–86). The types of social discourses emerging from the collected data have been identified as: political (conservative political), scholarly (philological and linguistic), legal, and pragmatic (or diplomatic). The political discourse is a discourse based on the principle that a specific orthography or a linguistic variety symbolises the validity or supremacy of the relevant national or other group and that their usage must reflect the nationalist position. Some key functions of a political discourse are: unification/differentiation, the preservation of language/culture/nation, and official/legal recognition. The political discourse also uses the military lexicon, stresses the justified need for the involvement of the state in the field of science (linguistics) in the name of a common higher cause, and creates a threatening climate. For these characteristics it is evident that this is a conservative and authoritative discourse par excellence, or, in stronger terms, a fascist type of discourse, even. (2) Without the help of the state philologists are helpless in their fight against “Serbo-Croatistics”. (Sanda Ham in Focus, June 2006)

98 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat By scholarly discourses we refer to the two similar, but different types of discourses: the more traditional philological discourse and the more liberal (socio)linguistic discourse. On the one hand, there is a philological discourse rooted in a language ideology that advocates the primacy of the standard variety as well as the primacy of the written language. It is characterised by an authoritative stance and it stresses the importance of history, tradition, cultural embodiment, and literary language. In this type of discourse the Croatian language is always referred to as Croatian Literary Language. (3) The proposal of the Council […] was based on a “long Croatian tradition”; in other words, on the fact that Croats have been writing this way for centuries […] (Nacional, February 2007)

On the other hand there is a (socio)linguistic type of discourse with its own perspective on language. This sociolinguistic approach is rooted in a language ideology of linguistic pluralism and the primacy of the spoken language. It stresses the importance of the linguistic reality, of the communicative function of language, language changes, and the influence of dynamic and transformable contexts. In this school of thought the Croatian language always is referred to as Croatian Standard Language. (4) Language is a living and dynamic entity and it is pointless to attempt to return it to the past. (Nacional, February 2007)

The legal discourse refers to the appeal to legal arguments based on specific legal texts (i.e. the constitution, laws, and regulations connected to language) with the aim of substantiating a position for or against the use of a dialect for official purposes, the right to change the orthography, obligatory text proofreading etc. (5) By adopting the Law on the Croatian language we would show that the Croatian language is a value that needs to be protected, and its enforcement would bring important improvements and linguistic clarity to public communication […] in four or five years significant improvements would be made in public and official communication. Besides, this would motivate

Language ideological debates


public personae to pay attention to the way they speak, and that would contribute to the clarity and grace of the Croatian language. (Marko Aleric´ in Nacional, February 2007)

The pragmatic (or diplomatic) discourse is characterised by an aspiration to establish a sort of balance between different tendencies: conservative and liberal, philological and (socio)linguistic, legal and authoritative, to find solutions that would be a middle ground between two opposite or extreme positions. This position takes a broader context and different (non-academic, “ordinary”) actors into account, and it establishes the primacy of consent and a functionalist view on language use. (6) So I suggest that we keep the current Croatian orthography […] but with several important supplement and rules. The same was done some ten years ago when the writing of points behind Roman numbers was introduced. People do not like abrupt and big changes in orthography, […] because it confuses them and creates chaos. (Marko Aleric´ in Nacional, February 2007)

4.4 Linguistic nationalism, elitism and alternative voices The premises of linguistic nationalism rooted in the 19th century German romanticism and the ideas of key figures such as the philosophers Herder, Humboldt and Fichte are the dominant ideologies in Croatian language debates. They have proven to be particularly resilient through time. The basic idea is that linguistic and national groups are co-terminus, and this establishes an essentialist link between language and national identity (see e.g. Mar-Molinero and Smith 1996; Barbour and Carmichael 2000). The most prominent idea is that language and national identity are closely related, and this is articulated in negatively and positively formed equations: 1) there is no nation without a national language and 2) one nation speaks one language. Two following examples show this: (7) The danger, in the form in which it existed before the formation of our state, is no longer present – today we have our state which protects our language […] that is, the claim that we are not a nation because we do not have a language […]. (Focus, June 2006)

100 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat (8) This is our way of marking the fifteen years since we have become the masters of our own language, fifteen years of not having to answer to anybody, because Croatian is the language of the Croatian people and Croatian citizens. (HINA, February 2007)

The social actors who have the position of power and who dominate the public discourse on language use elitist argumentations and consider themselves to be the only actors who are relevant in discussions about language issues and capable of bringing decisions about language issues. Primarily, they ascribe this competence to themselves, which enables them to figure as the only actors who are able to and who should make decisions on language and linguistic issues. This linguistic elitism includes a negative attitude against opposing actors and their arguments and positions – they are negatively marked as “Others”, in the context of symbolic struggles over power and domination. In their own argumentation dominant actors refer to “higher” causes (Croatian language culture and Croatian culture in general, in the following example) that possess great symbolic value – as objectives of great national interest – and link themselves to those objectives: in that light they appear to be the only competent “guardians of language and culture”. The presupposition of a need to take care of the Croatian culture and language reveals authoritative and conservative voices that usually accompany elitist standpoints. (9) Expresses his opinion that […] has hired inexperienced experts who need to develop professionally instead of doing the work which is, he believes, condemned in advance to cause an even bigger fuss and harm to the Croatian culture. […] It will harm the Croatian language culture quite a great deal. (Jutarnji list, January 2007)

Although the most dominant topic of Croatian language debates is that of affirming the validity of the 19th century idea “one nation – one language”, and although the language experts who represent such ideas are dominant in the public sphere and get more public space, there are experts and academics who disagree with these 19th century ideas. They are less visible and their opinions and interviews are published in alternative newspapers, but their voices testify to the existence of different systems of values and ideas. These counter-discourses, or in Bourdieuan terms heretical discourses (Bourdieu 1991), show that language debates in Croatia are not

Language ideological debates


homogeneous and unanimous, that there are clearly articulated opposite positions which create a space of pluralism and a dynamic exchange of ideas and theses. The prescriptive attitudes of the dominant group of experts, and the notion of “one nation – one language” are mostly criticised by these academics, trying to highlight the absurdity of certain parts of the opposing side’s argumentation. (10) […] it is unscientific to equate language with nation, which is what these academics are doing […] The example of the Croatian nation shows, doubly so, that nation does not correspond to language. If nation had to correspond to language, then a Croatian nation could never come to exist, because those that joined it spoke three different languages (Kajkavian, Cˇakavian and Sˇtokavian). (Snjezˇana Kordic´ 2007: 154)

Their insistence on the symbolic power of language and the consequent struggles over power and elitism are also criticised: (11) In situations where language is considered the greatest national symbol, […] language is used as the means of everyday political struggles. We come to the assumption that language is untouchable and that its standard form guarantees a cohesion which is so important that everyone who dares to interfere with it, interferes with the very essence of what is national and ethnical, so we are told to be careful about the way we speak and write, for otherwise we will not be good Croats […] Language is used here as a form of transmission of power; when you introduce the rules known only by yourself, you are the one holding the power. (Dubravko Sˇkiljan in Feral Tribune, 2005)

4.5 Linguistic purism and the nature of language policy Another ideology that has always been a part of Croatian tradition and Croatian language policy is linguistic purism. Motives for purism can be different and according to Thomas (1991: 39) they are non-rational, but do have rational explanations. Non-rational motives are different social, national, or other ideas such as nationalist aesthetic ideas of defining the characteristic features of a national culture and stressing those elements which distinguish the national culture from other cultures. The present

102 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat purism is a moderate form of purism with which linguists try to “protect” the Croatian language from the influences of other languages and their language policies, but also from influences of similar languages (e.g. Serbian). Nowadays, purism is directed mostly toward English language, mainly its lexical and syntactic influence. But there is also a negative attitude toward non-Slavic, i.e. Latin and Greek vocabulary. An interesting contradiction arises here: a very strong idea that Croatia belongs to the Western and European culture, tradition and history is expressed in Croatian language ideological debates. In this view it is something that enables Croatia to distance itself from the other republics of former Yugoslavia, especially from Serbia and from the Balkans in general (see Sˇkiljan 2002). But common European linguistic heritage – shaped in Greek and Latin terminology – is marked as “foreign”, while common Slavic terminology is seen as more appropriate for use both in academic and in non-academic writing. The long tradition of publishing of so-called foreign words dictionaries, composed mostly of terminology of Greek and Latin origin, fits well with this ideology. Language policy in Croatia is prescriptive in the sense that the members of the Croatian Academy propose to the Croatian government to pass a law on language issues which should accurately explain the official and correct use of Croatian language, and prescribe the consequences for those who do not obey the rules. In this argumentation the symbolic value of language is clearly stated: the national language is placed in the same sphere with the other symbols of Croatian national identity – the national anthem and national coat of arms. (12) Seeing how we have prescribed the anthem and national coat of arms by law, then we should do the same with the language. Language should be a bit more specific than the state borders. It is extremely important to know if it is more correct to use sport or sˇport, not in a communicative but in a symbolic sense. (Jutarnji list, February 2007)

This quotation directly expresses the idea of the superiority of the symbolic power of language over its communicative function in a language community, and the dominance of the prescriptive approach in Croatian linguistics, or, more specifically, philology. Also, language is placed here in the same sphere with the anthem and coat of arms – a sphere which is seen as an official political concern: it does not belong to the field of science or to the field of common concern, but is instead related to the state. This unambiguously reveals the authoritative and conservative (almost totalitarian) nature of these positions.

Language ideological debates


Those academics also demand that the parliament prescribe which orthography should be official, since there are two different orthographies in use in Croatia. The question of orthography has always been very important for the Croatian language because during its history the Croatian language has been written according to two different traditions, phonological and morphological. The orthography question has been linked to the political situation: politicians and some academics marked one of the ways as correct and the other one as incorrect. One way was considered as more “Croatian” than the other, while some authors saw a way to bring Croatian closer to the other South-Slavic languages in using morphological orthography. In public discussions the question of orthography is connected with politics and with “left” or “right” political ideologies, but also with the generational gap between younger and older language experts. Connection between orthography and politics is explicit in the following example: (13) The orthography is, for us, first of all a political, and then a professional question. (Vecˇernji list, June 2007)

4.6 Topos of history Another interesting characteristic is the recurrent use of the topos of history in the argumentation of social actors of all ideological positions. However, this topos of history is used in different ways. In linguistic terms, there is a constant drive to differentiate the Croatian language from Serbian, by stressing the differences and explaining the similarities between two languages as ‘un-natural’, ‘artificial’ and forced during the period in which Croats did not have their own independent state. There are evocations of the recent past: (14) The irritation with the Serbian name in the term of the Croatian language spoken by Croats [i.e. Serbo-Croatian language] is stressed by the bloodshed during the 90s, specifically The Croatian War of Independence. (Jutarnji list, April 2007)

Another argument points out that the Croatian standard language is not standardized only on a Sˇtokavian basis, but is enriched by language items ˇ akavian and Kajkavian idioms, and that figures as important taken from C

104 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat argumentation for the conclusion that Croatian and the Serbian language are two separate languages. (15) The president of the Council for the Croatian Standard Language Norm […] made an introductory note that Croatian literary language was not created by choosing and inaugurating one dialect, so accordingly, its ‘dialectic base’ isn’t, as it is commonly said to be, the south-east Herzegovinian dialect. […] the basic character of the Croatian language situation is pluridialectic and three-dialectic. (Jutarnji list, June 2007)

Furthermore, when referring to history and historical facts or problems of the Croatian language, a certain poetic discourse is present, along with an evocation of Christian martyrdom, accompanied by a strong pathos. In this statement the equation of Croats with their Croatian language can once again be recognized. (16) […] stated that the Croatian language has travelled through our hard history with great difficulties. All that we are, all that we have made, all our spirituality and all our memory is included in it. If we submit it to neglect and oblivion, we too will disappear. (Jutarnji list, February 2006)

5 Conclusions Language debates taking place in Croatia enable us to identify some articulated ideologies that impact Croatian macro-contexts. Linguistic nationalism in Croatia, which is rooted in the same 19th century ideas of the crucial role of language in the construction of national identity, shows that while some states are moving away from a pseudo-ideal of ethnic homogeneity within the states and towards a model of cultural and linguistic diversity based on multiple and hybrid identities, Croatia still cultivates a modernist approach, and uses a German ideology which relies on the nationalist ideal of the state: Blut und Boden model instead of, for instance the Anglo-French model of social contract. This Eurocentric 19th century Herderian tradition which views national language as the main carrier of national identity and implies that the loss of a “pure” national language means the loss of national identity is exclusive, because it does not take into account all the citizens, marking some members as Others, with negative connotations.

Language ideological debates


Another important source of national homogenization is history, as well as linguistic purism – directed against the impact of the English language and loan words in general – and elitist tendencies to construct the standard language as a symbol of national unity. In this way standard language is linked to national elite groups, and at some point holds a hegemonic position and high symbolic value over other varieties at what Bourdieu calls linguistic market, reproduced and enforced primarily through education system, elite group’s debates etc. Elitism, language purism and prescriptivism in language policy symbolises efforts of dominant social actors to maintain unified standard language which will hold the power and hegemonic position at linguistic market. 19th century prescriptive ideas dominate language debates in Croatia. They are characteristic for more conservative and sometimes authoritative philological tradition. On the other side Saussurean linguistic tradition, which is, of course, not without problems, is being somehow neglected. Without problematizing some of Saussure’s ideas from sociolinguistic and critical discursive point of view, we want to recall that it is well known that since its beginnings, linguistics has sought to establish itself as a descriptive science describing “all manifestations of human language” (Saussure 2000: 51) and refraining “from picking and choosing among the facts in the light of certain aesthetic or moral principles” (Martinet 1982: 1). Also, similar calls were coming from the other side of the Atlantic: It is peculiarly important that linguists, who are often accused, and accused justly, of failure to look beyond the pretty patterns of their subject matter, should become aware of what their science may mean for the interpretation of human conduct in general. Whether they like it or not, they must become increasingly concerned with many anthropological, sociological, and psychological problems which invade the field of language. (Sapir 1972: 63–64)

But it seems that Croatian discourses on language debates and its main social actors still ignore such calls. Returning to the dominant social actors who discursively construct links between language, nation and national identity through language debates, and to the question of what happens in the circulation of their discourses in public spheres (e.g. education, everyday communicative practices) – two other remarks should be noted. On one side, the process of standardisation and linguistic engineering is caused by the nationalist interest of elite groups of academics and politicians, and not by the desire to create a standard language for the purpose of facilitating communication, serving all

106 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat speakers equally, and enabling free expression and use for everybody. This has a negative impact on the educational system, especially in the field of language education. On the other side, nationalism and prescriptivism often cause a strong opposition and resistance to the language norm. Identity issues become an important factor here: directive language policy based on conservative and authoritative ideas negatively influences the linguistic, national and individual identities, both on a symbolic and on a functional level. Appendix (1) […] svaka hrvatska rijecˇ koja nestane zbog anglizama ili koja se ne rodi, a mogla bi se roditi, znacˇi zator hrvatskoga jezika. Isto je kao s vojnicima u ratu. Gubitak jednoga mozˇe se komu ucˇiniti malo vazˇnim, ali svaki gubitak slabi obrambenu moc´ i gubitak jednoga po jednoga vodi prema slomu, tesˇko je rec´i gdje je granica. (2) Bez pomoc´i drzˇave jezikoslovci su bespomoc´ni u borbi protiv “ serbokroatistike.” (3) […] je prijedlog Vijec´a argumentirao “ dugom hrvatskom tradicijom”, odnosno, da su Hrvati tako pisali stoljec´ima. (4) Jezik je zˇiva i dinamicˇna tvorevina i besmisleno ga je vrac´ati u prosˇlost. (5) Usvajanjem Zakona o hrvatskom jeziku pokazalo bi se da je hrvatski jezik vrijednost, koju treba zasˇtititi, a njegovo provođenje bi donijelo bitna poboljsˇanja i jezicˇnu jasnoc´u u javnoj komunikaciji […] nakon cˇetiri, pet godina vidjeli bi se veliki pomaci na bolje u javnoj i sluzˇbenoj komunikaciji. Osim toga, to bi motiviralo ljude iz javnog zˇivota da pripaze kako govore, a to bi pak pridonijelo jasnoc´i i ljepoti hrvatskog jezika. (6) Zato predlazˇem da se zadrzˇi postojec´i Hrvatski pravopis […] ali da se u nekoliko recˇenica dopuni s nekoliko vazˇnih napomena i pravila. Tako se slicˇno ucˇinilo prije desetak godina kada se uvelo pisanje tocˇke iza rimskih brojeva. Ljudi ne vole nagle i krupne promjene u pravopisu, […] jer to zbunjuje i unosi kaos.

Language ideological debates


(7) Opasnosti u onom smislu u kojem je postojala prije uspostavljanja drzˇavnosti, visˇe nema – danas imamo svoju drzˇavu kojom sˇtitimo svoj jezik […] ili da uopc´e nismo narod jer nemamo svoj jezik […]. (8) Tako smo obiljezˇili petnaest godina kako smo postali gospodarima svojega jezika, da se ne moramo dogovarati ni s kim, jer je hrvatski jezik – jezik hrvatskoga naroda i hrvatskih građana. (9) Predbacuje […] da je na tom poslu angazˇirala neiskusne strucˇnjake koji se trebaju strucˇno razvijati, a ne raditi na poslu koji je, kako navodi, unaprijed osuđen da povec´anjem zbrke bude na sˇtetu hrvatskoj kulturi. […] hrvatskoj jezicˇnoj kulturi nanijet c´e ne malu sˇtetu. (10) […] neznanstveno je poistovjec´ivati jezik s nacijom, sˇto akademici cˇine […] Primjer hrvatske nacije pokazuje cˇak dvostruko da se nacija ne podudara s jezikom. Naime, kad bi se nacija morala podudarati s jezikom, onda nikada ne bi mogla nastati hrvatska nacija jer su oni koji su se u nju udruzˇili govorili trima razlicˇitim jezicima (kajkavskim, cˇakavskim i sˇtokavskim). (11) U situacijama u kojima se jezik smatra najvec´im simbolom nacionalnog […] tada se jezik koristi kao sredstvo svakodnevne politicˇke borbe. Dolazimo do pretpostavke da je jezik nedodirljiv i da njegova standardna forma garantira koheziju koja je toliko bitna da svatko tko se usudi dirnuti u nju, dira u samu bit nacionalnog i etnicˇkog, pa nas uvjeravaju da moramo paziti kako govorimo i pisˇemo, inacˇe nec´emo biti dobri Hrvati. […] Jezik se ovdje rabi za neki oblik transmisije moc´i; kad uvedete pravila koja znate samo vi, onda imate moc´. (12) Ako smo zakonom propisali himnu i grb, onda bismo trebali i jezik. Jezik bi nam trebao biti za nijansu određeniji nego sˇto su nam drzˇavne granice. Iznimno je vazˇno znati je li pravilnije koristiti sport ili sˇport, ne u komunikacijskom nego u simbolicˇkom smislu. (13) Pravopis je kod nas ponajprije politicˇko, a tek onda strucˇno pitanje. (14) Iritacija srpskim imenom u nazivu hrvatskog jezika, jezika kojim se sluzˇe

108 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat Hrvati, svakako je podcrtana krvoprolic´em u 90-im godinama, odnosno Domovinskim ratom. (15) Predsjednik Vijec´a […] uvodno je istaknuo da hrvatski knjizˇevni jezik nije nastao izborom i ustolicˇenjem jednoga dijalekta, pa prema tome njegova “ dijalekatska osnovica” nije, kako se “ cˇita i cˇuje” istocˇnohercegovacˇki dijalekt […] temeljna je znacˇajka hrvatske jezicˇne situacije mnogodijalekatnost i tronarjecˇnost. (16) […] napominje da je hrvatski jezik hodao kroz nasˇu mukotrpnu povijest po mukama. Sve sˇto jesmo, sve sˇto smo stvorili, sva nasˇa duhovnost i sva nasˇa memorija sadrzˇani su u njemu. Koliko ga prepustimo nebrizi i zaboravu, onoliko nestajemo.

References Anderson, Benedict 1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Second, revised and extended edition. Babic´, Stjepan 1988 Standardizacija – stabilizacija knjizˇevnog jezika. Jezik 3: 65–77. [Standardization – Stabilisation of the Literary Language] Barbour, Stephen and Cathie Carmichael 2000 Language and Nationalism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barker, Chris and Dariusz Galasin´ski 2001 Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: a dialogue on language and identity. London: Sage. Blommaert, Jan 2005 Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, Jan and Chris Bulcaen 2000 Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 447–466. Blommaert, Jan (ed.) 1999 Language Ideological Debates. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bourdieu, Pierre 1991 Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Language ideological debates


Brozovic´, Dalibor 1970 Standardni jezik, teorija, usporedbe, geneza, povijest, suvremena zbilja. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. [Standard Language, Theory, Comparisons, Genesis, History, Contemporary Reality] Brozovic´, Dalibor 1978 Hrvatska knjizˇevnost u evropskom kontekstu. Zagreb. [Croatian Literature in the European Contex] Bucholtz, Mary 2003 Sociolinguistic Nostalgia and the Authentication of Identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: 398–416. Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall 2005 Identity and Interaction: a Sociocultural Approach. Discourse Studies 7(4/5): 585–614. Cameron, Deborah and Don Kulick 2005 Identity Crisis? Language & Communication 25: 107–125. Chambers, Jack K., Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes 2002 The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Clyne, Michael (ed.) 1992 Pluricentric Languages. Differing Norms in Differing Nations. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Coupland, Nikolas and Hywel Bishop 2007 Ideologised Values for British Accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(1): 74–93. Eriksen, Tomas H. 2004 Etnicitet i nacionalizam. Belgrade: Biblioteka XX vek. [Etnicity and Nationalism] Fairclough, Norman 1989 Language and Power. London: Longman. Fasold, Ralph 2001 The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Gellner, Ernest 2006 Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Greenberg, Robert D. 2005 Jezik i identitet na Balkanu. Zagreb: Srednja Europa. [Language and Identity in the Balkans] Hanks, William F. 2005 Pierre Bourdieu and Practices of Language. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 67–83. Heller, Monica 1994 Crosswords: Language, Education and Ethnicity in French Ontario. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jonke, Ljudevit 1971 Hrvatski knjizˇevni jezik 19. i 20. stoljec´a. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. [Croatian Literary Language of the 19th and 20th Century]

110 Mislava Bertosˇa and Anita Skelin Horvat Katicˇic´, Radoslav 1995/1996 Nacˇela standardnosti hrvatskoga knjizˇevnoga jezika. Jezik 43: 175–182. [Principles of Standardness of the Croatian Literary Language] Kordic´, Snjezˇana 2007 Akademicˇke bajke. Knjizˇevna republika 5(5–6): 150–173. [Academic Fairy Tales] Lucˇic´, Radovan (ed.) 2002 Lexical Norm and National Languages. Lexicography and Language Policy in South-Slavic Languages. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner. Mar-Molinero, Clare and Angel Smith (eds.) 1996 Nationalism and the Nation in the Iberian Peninsula: Competing and Conflicting Identities. Oxford: Berg. Marrone, Gianfranco 2001 Corpi sociali. Processi comunicativi e semiotica del testo. Torino: Einaudi. Martinet, Andre´ 1982 Osnove opc´e lingvistike. Zagreb: GZH. [Elements of the General Linguistics] Mogusˇ, Milan 1995 Povijest hrvatskoga knjizˇevnog jezika. Zagreb: Globus. [History of the Croatian Literary Language] Phillipson, Robert 1992 Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pupovac, Milorad 1990 Politicˇka komunikacija. Zagreb: August Cesarec. [Political Communication] Samardzˇija, Marko (ed.) 1999 Norme i normiranje hrvatskoga standardnoga jezika. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. [Norms and Normatisation of the Croatian Literary Language] Sapir, Edward 1972 Cultura, linguaggio e personalita`. Torino: Einaudi. Saussure, Ferdinand de 2000 Tecˇaj opc´e lingvistike. Zagreb: ArTresor naklada i Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje. [Course of the General Linguistics] Schieffelin, Bambi B., Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.) 1998 Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Semprini, Andrea 1997 Analizzare la comunicazione. Milan Franco Angeli. Silverstein, Michael and Greg Urban 1996 The Natural History of Discourse. In: Michael Silverstein and Greg Urban (eds.) The Natural History of Discourse, 1–20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Language ideological debates


Sˇkiljan, Dubravko 1988 Jezicˇna politika. Zagreb: Naprijed. [Language Policy] Sˇkiljan, Dubravko 2000 Javni jezik. Zagreb: Antibarbarus. [Public Language] Sˇkiljan, Dubravko 2002 Govor nacije. Jezik, nacija, Hrvati. Zagreb: Golden marketing. [The Speech of the Nation. Language, Nation, Croats] Thomas, George 1991 Linguistic Purism. London; New York: Longman. Van Dijk, Teun 2000 New(s) Racism: a Discourse Analytical Approach. In: Simon Cottle (ed.), Ethnic Minorities and the Media, 33–49. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Van Dijk, Teun 2001a Critical Discourse Analysis. In: Deborah Tannen, Deborah Schiffrin and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 352–371. Oxford: Blackwell. Van Dijk, Teun 2001b Multidisciplinary CDA: a Plea for Diversity. In: Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 95–120. London: Sage. Van Dijk, Teun 2006a Ideologija. Multidisciplinaran pristup. Zagreb: Golden marketing. [Ideology. A Multidisciplinary Approach] Van Dijk, Teun 2006b Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse & Society 17(3): 359–383. Vince, Zlatko 2002 Putovima hrvatskoga knjizˇevnog jezika. Zagreb: NZMH. [On the Paths of the Croatian Literary Language] Wodak, Ruth 2001 What CDA is About – a Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments. In: Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 1–13. London: Sage Publications. Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998 Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry. In: Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, 3–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Part II: Language Policy and Planning

Chapter 6 Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism

Patrick Studer

1 Introduction Contradictions are paramount in human thinking and key to policy-making. The motto of the European Union – unity in diversity – is founded on a contradiction that forms the conceptual backdrop of the EU’s policy-making activities. But despite the fact that contradictions inform human behaviour in such critical ways, they are markedly absent from theories of knowledge and science (Markova` 2003: 31). Examining the contradictory concept of multilingualism as currently fostered by the European Union, this chapter draws attention to the potential of discourse analysis in revealing conceptualising practices of policy-makers. Based on semi-structured qualitative interviews with policy-makers from different European institutions, the chapter argues that a theory of language policy-making must pay due attention to the ways discourses are shaped by the spontaneous interpretation and construction of, as well as reaction to, conceptual inconsistencies. In this chapter, I would like to present and critically discuss fundamental discursive phenomena that surround the current concept of multilingualism in semi-formal language policy-planning interaction. Semi-formal language policy-planning, as understood in this context, may occur when social actors – inside an institutional context – engage in the creative negotiation of meaning taking language as the subject of their interaction. Such open and creative interactive encounters seem to present a particular challenge to the researcher: On the one hand, the empirical data to be analysed cannot be called sufficiently private to count as private contributions; on the other, they do not count as official “on-record” statements of politicians. They are mixed forms of discourse with mixed and ambiguous characteristics – a kind of professional and off-the-record chat about one’s life and one’s profession, which is familiar to us from everyday interaction at work. The importance of these encounters can not be underestimated: we can assume

116 Patrick Studer that these semi-formal, semi-professional situations play an important part in the decision-making process of everyday politics or business, over coffee with colleagues, at the telephone or even in official meetings. It is the specificity of these forms or types of interaction that will be the topic of the following discussion. In particular, I will be concerned with the question of how discursive inconsistencies or contradictions are reflected in and inform such interaction. The theories that inform this question relate to models that can explain the nature of concept and contradiction in discourse as well as how discursive resources of individuals are put to use in specific contradictory episodes. While the core assumptions proposed in this study may apply to conceptual contradiction in any discourse, the actual discursive analysis is assumed to be highly contingent on the type of discourse and the actual episodes studied. This assumption places the present study within the linguistically oriented social psychological paradigm (cf. originally Moscovici 1972a, 1972b; recently, Potter 1996) which is aimed at the description and analysis of concrete social representations or discourses and which is based on the reconstruction of content, (rhetorical) function and structure of such representations as they express common sense (e.g. Moscovici 1988, 1989). Against this theoretical background, the present study will describe and analyse semi-formal language policy-making at the European level. The recently established multilingualism portfolio of the European Union is a good case in point to illustrate the workings of language policy-planning interaction in practice, as it shows how discourses are constructed in times of political challenge and need for the reformulation of social identity (Bauer and Gaskell 1999: 178). Discourses on the use of language in various contexts play an important role in this process, as they are concerned with broad themes such as identity, belonging and nationality, which are relevant and dear to all politicians and political citizens in the world.

2 Discursive conceptual analysis Concepts permeate discourse and discourse permeates concepts: it seems obvious that there is a strong interaction between the two analytic phenomena. Therefore, before venturing into empirical analysis, attention should be drawn to the particular relationship that exists between these phenomena of language in use. Let me begin by outlining some relevant connections between the concept and the word and work my way through to discourse and contradiction from there. For the purpose of the present analysis, when

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism


I speak of “concept”, I mean primarily (but not exclusively) “political” concept, which is “‘standardly’ signalled by the employment of a corresponding term” (Skinner 1989: 8). The reference to “standard” employment of a word is relevant as it indicates that there is a close but no identical relationship between the concept and the word. We can assume that political concepts can normally be represented by single words, and these words are appraisive in character, constituting the “social vocabulary” (Skinner 1989: 22) of (political) speech. Some words from this social vocabulary are conceptually stronger than others, and it is those key terms and concepts that we should pay attention to as our class of conceptual terms. With their specific function of abstracting “meaning from the world and introducing order into it” (Moscovici 1984: 17), concepts, as proposed here, form an essential part of social representations reflecting knowledge as common sense thinking. Skinner (1989: 9–10) broadly distinguishes between semantic and pragmatic dimensions of concepts, defining three levels of knowledge about conceptual terms. The first level of knowledge refers to the standard criteria of employment of the term, i.e. the core meaning of the word. The second level constitutes the reference of the term “as a consequence of understanding the criteria for applying it correctly.” In other words, the second level of knowledge represents the range of “objects” in the real world that potentially exist when we use a term; and thirdly, knowledge exists about what we can do with those terms, i.e. the communicative options (speech acts) people have who use them. These speech acts are expressive of the attitudes people reveal towards others when using language. People rarely agree on all three levels of knowledge, let alone on one of them. Disagreements are obviously varied and manifold but there are communicative patterns that appear more regularly than others. These patterns constitute the interactive rhetoric of how people negotiate their positions when they exchange their ideas with others. With reference to the concept of multilingualism, disagreements are likely to arise at all levels: people may disagree about the criteria of correct application of the concept, i.e. about when a person can reasonably be called multilingual. Are we multilingual if we speak a dialect and standard language, or how many languages do we need to master to be multilingual? Does multilingualism mean that people master several languages as thoroughly as their native language(s)? Disagreement over the use of the term may arise when we think about the “mothertongue plus two” strategy currently employed by the EU. In the light of this policy, is the term multilingual still applicable even if we only speak our own native language and a little bit of English? At the

118 Patrick Studer third level, we may disagree with the changed social perceptions of multilingualism at a political level, in which the term is interpreted as a short form of Europeanness – a young, urban, open and geographically mobile society. There is another source of disagreement, which consists in the change of direction of the term’s evaluative force (cf. Skinner 1989: 17–19). Discursively, such changes can be achieved by weakening, abolishing or reversing the speech act potential of a term. With regard to the multilingualism debate at hand, we can imagine the discursive employment of the concept in cases where a reversal to the original, pragmatic, meaning of the term is desired (i.e. the use of several languages by an individual or by a group). The use of multilingualism as a policy concept as such, on the other hand, constitutes an act of abolishment or weakening of the previously active concepts of language learning or linguistic diversity. When I speak of discursive conceptual analysis in the following discussion, therefore, I mean the presence of the above phenomena in actual instances of speech, as can be observed in everyday interaction at work. In particular, I am interested in revealing how conceptual inferences are realised and operationalised during speech and in the actual conceptual sequences triggered by a specific term (i.e. its “macro-rhetoric”). While conceptual sequences may be present at various levels of the discourse studied, I would like to focus my analysis on instances of speech that form a discursive episode (cf. Studer, Kreiselmaier, and Flubacher 2010). By discursive episode I understand the smallest micro-interactive sequences of speech that are pragmatically and semantically self-contained and which are marked by speech act boundaries (social acts, cf. the positioning triad, for example, in Harre´ and Gillett 1994; Harre´ and Moghaddam 2003; also Drew and Heritage 1998: 13). Minimally, discursive episodes consist of the representation of one concept that is activated during speech and which ends at the point the interactants acknowledge the presence of the concept or initiate a new turn. Episodes obviously interact together and there may be complex sequences of speech in which loose ends between episodes are resumed at various stages during interaction. While discursive conceptual analysis potentially includes the analysis of stretches of discourse within and between episodes, as well as the role interactants (and interaction in general) play in initiating turns, I would like, in the following, focus on the individual episode as it reveals inconsistencies in the representation of one specific concept.

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism


3 Conceptual contradictions I would like to begin my discussion of discursive inconsistencies or contradictions by making some assumptions. First of all, I agree with Elster (1978: 1) who recognises that contradictions can be analysed in discourse as “real contradictions, i.e. as mental or social phenomena that […] can be linked to the logical notion of a contradiction” (my emphasis). I further agree with conceptual historians like James Farr (1989), Melvin Richter (1996), Robert Martin (1997) who argue that “[…] contradiction and criticism form the principal mechanisms of conceptual change” (Martin et al. 1997: 424). Understanding how contradictions appear in discourse, therefore, contributes substantially to understanding how (political) attitudes are formed and, indeed, how human thinking may be organised (cf. dilemmatic thinking in Billig et al. 1988; cf. also Potter 1996, 1998, 2003 on discursive representation of thinking). James Farr (1989: 34) sees contradiction as involving “manifestly inconsistent beliefs,” thus referring to the act of conscious reflection on knowledge and the act of public self-positioning within oppositional belief systems. Any change that results from such positioning can be interpreted as a resolution of contradictions inherent in two inconsistent beliefs. In this context, concepts can be seen as a means by which beliefs, practices and actions are expressed (interactively and discursively) and by which they are constituted. When a concept changes, therefore, so do the corresponding beliefs, practices and actions (Farr 1989: 24–27). Contradictions may exist between pairs of concepts, or between a concept and its corresponding practices and actions. For the analysis of conceptual contradiction, it is important to distinguish between the two forms as conceptualised and un- or pre-conceptualised contradictions. Elster (1978) would probably argue that relationships between ideas and practices or actions can not in strict terms be contradictory, since these relationships do not relate to the logic of thought. However, un- or pre-conceptualised contradictions may (and often do) eventually lead to conceptual inconsistency, and then to reconceptualisation and conceptual change. They play an important part in the analysis of how contradictions arise and unfold discursively. Conceptual contradictions are often preceded by a phase of criticism grounded in practices and actions that go against a particular concept, and by a readiness of those individuals representing a concept to act and incorporate criticism into their conceptual design (cf. Studer, Kreiselmaier, and Flubacher 2010; with reference to Ager 2001). Before incorporating criticism, policy-makers go through a stage of insecurity in which their

120 Patrick Studer effort to maintain the image of a concept in the public is undermined by critical argumentation brought forward against it (Ager 2001: chapters 3 and 4). Such frictions in the consistency of a concept, which may appear unsolicited and above or below the level of awareness of the participants, merit further attention. While the interpretation of the “formal” (i.e. logical) elements of conceptual contradiction may vary greatly depending on the tradition of thought to which one is subscribed, I would like to propose a relatively narrow definition of the term which relies on the notion of exclusion or extreme opposition between two elements of a concept. Such a logical interpretation of contradiction is particularly relevant in the European scientific context which, as Markova` (2003: 33) argues, tends to conceptualise opposition in the Aristotelian tradition. Two concepts can be called in extreme opposition to each other if they share a common core identity that binds them together (cf. also relevant vs. irrelevant relations between elements in Festinger 1957: 13). We may follow Festinger’s (1957: 13) logical definition of dissonance between two elements x and y according to which “x and y are dissonant if not-x follows from y.” In relation to cognitions of a (political) concept, as opposed to cognitions in general, I would like to argue that there is a close relationship between conceptual inconsistency and the notion of conflict, even if inconsistency does not automatically lead to a conflict situation. A personal or interpersonal conflict exists when two contradictory elements within a concept are perceived as inherently problematic and as causing feelings of discomfort (cf. consistency claim in Festinger 1957; also Davies/Harre´ 1990: 12; Quinn 1991 or Bateson 1979 on the issue of rational management). Conflict potentially embodies the unwillingness on the part of the social actors to engage in cooperative dialogue (as opposed to the acceptance of polyphonic nature of discourse, cf. Grant et al. 2004). For the purpose of analysing public (political) discourses, I would like to suggest three dimensions along which conceptual contradictions may become active during interaction. Contradictory discourses may arise over the theoretical meaning of a concept (meaning and reference), its social scope of application (range of social acts it is believed to accomplish), and its private meaning (relevance it is claimed to possess for a person). At the theoretical level, contradiction may appear over the logical consistency of a concept visa`-vis another concept; at the social and personal level, contradiction can be expressed as a result from dissonance between theory and past experience or between the specific (cultural) application of a concept versus its general

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism


scope (cf. Festinger 1957: 14). These three dimensions can further be viewed with regard to scales relating to the degree of involvement, consciousness and conceptualisation (see figure 1). The degrees along the three scales can be assumed to change simultaneously from the theoretical to the personal meaning. At the level of the individual, concepts may be assumed to be most personalised, least conscious and least conceptualised (i.e. spontaneous or automatic). It is clear, though, that conceptualisation is not limited to the theoretical level only, and I would like to see this differentiation as entirely relative to one another and relative to a specific (political) concept. impersonal



1. Theoretical meaning


2. Social meaning

3. Private meaning

Figure 1. Levels of conceptual contradiction in public discourses

On this basis, we can formulate further assumptions relating to the discursive acknowledgement of conceptual contradiction during speech. In particular, we may wish to point out strategies individuals use when they try to reduce dissonance as a result of being exposed to (new) information. Festinger (1957) here offers some ideas that appear relevant to the present discussion, such as efforts to change cognitions that contradict one another (e.g. along the three dimensions in figure 1), to change the environment in which interaction takes place (e.g. in reference to in-group vs. outgroup communication), or to add new cognitive elements in favour of one side (e.g. in the form of argumentation). In political discourse, we are likely to find all strategies co-present, as they reflect the effort of policy-makers to make coherent and rationally sound statements and arguments vis-a`-vis the public. All the above elaborations can be understood with reference to contradictions arising at the public level which often motivate trained routine interventions by the participants. These interventions reflect, to some degree, a

122 Patrick Studer repertoire of argumentative actions people can take to maintain their image in public, regardless of the type of contradiction they encounter. At the same time, these interventions can be seen as representing ways of handling conceptual inconsistencies as they have traditionally been dealt with in scientific discourse. In other words, they represent discursive fall-back options for participants in that they offer a resource of scientific cognitions that have traditionally been identified as standing in extreme opposition to one another. This repertoire of “conceptual reference points”, which in the present chapter is understood in relation to the notion of a priori concepts in social psychology that guide intellectual activity (cf. Durkheim 1912: 21), does not only provide building blocks for argumentation but also serves as a way of identification and subject positioning based on commonly practised conceptualisation patterns. Moscovici (1989: 420) in this context refers to the distinction between scientific thinking, which is guided by objective knowledge based on reality, and ‘primitive thinking’, which is guided by the belief in the human spirit in the construction of social representations. Scientific thinking thereby is used as a constant source of inspiration in the construction of common sense (Moscovici 1988). In a similar sense, our dealing with contradictory experiences and cognitions is fed by coping and explanatory strategies used in the scientific world. I would like to conclude the present theoretical excursion by listing a few such conceptual reference points that consistently appear in philosophical literature on contradiction, all the way from Heraclitus, Aristotle, Hegel, Marx to Habermas and Foucault, and which have informed public thinking and acting both in substance and form over centuries. Most of these opposition pairs are very familiar to everybody as they represent basic intellectual activity that we perform when we engage in political thinking. I will leave the complex histories of these pairs unexplained in this chapter but I will assume for now that they represent a key conceptual resource informing discourses of contemporary European policy-making which can be revealed when analysing spontaneous speech of policy-makers.1 – – – –

oneness/identity vs. difference/non-identity unity/uniformity vs. diversity/plurality subject vs. collective materialism vs. idealism

1 There are a number of studies in social psychology that assume the existence of social representations in a sense similar to the cognitive reference proposed in this chapter. Cf. Jacob 2004 for a detailed discussion of these studies.

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism

– – – – – – – –


purity of spirit vs. impurity of nature / material higher purpose vs. natural forces empirical evidence vs. belief reason vs. emotion opposition vs. contradiction true vs. untrue discourse right vs. false discourse sincere vs. insincere discourse

4 The concept of multilingualism in action: A case study In this and the following parts of this chapter, I will look at the concepts of multilingualism and language policy-planning in action as they are represented spontaneously in interviews. I assume that the semi-structured narrative interview situation presents a fair picture of how policies are conceived in reality. My interest in the analysis of interviews especially concerns the role and discursive manifestation of contradiction in current discourses of multilingualism at the European level.2 Before looking at specific examples of spontaneous speech, however, it seems important to recapitulate briefly the more general nature of contradiction in language policy-planning in the European Union (also cf. Studer, Kreiselmaier, and Flubacher 2008: 63–66). Multilingualism policy derived from the Lisbon strategy and found expression, for the first time, in the so-called Framework Strategy on Multilingualism (COM 2005 596). This foundational document can be seen as the first serious attempt at outlining a new policy area in coherent form. The fact that the policy document opens with a reference to Europe’s culture of diversity in opposition to the United States is meaningful in this context as it legitimises the policy ex negativo and projects it as an alternative to a policy aimed at unification that is considered fundamentally wrong: “It is this diversity that makes the European Union what it is: not a “melting pot” in which differences are rendered down, but a common home in which diversity is celebrated, and where our many mother tongues are a source of wealth and a bridge to greater solidarity and mutual understanding.” (COM 2005 596, 1.1) This opening statement is important as it gives us a sense of direction and orientation within the broader conceptual framework of the policy portfolio. 2 For details of the interview and the project design cf. Studer, Kreiselmaier, and Flubacher 2008: chapter 3.

124 Patrick Studer When we look at the statement in detail, we can recognise the discursive background from which the new concept of multilingualism was derived (and to which it openly referred). The concept of multilingualism united several existing discourses under a new name, of which three appear as particularly active in the debate: these are the Unity in Diversity discourse, including the (Linguistic) Human Rights discourse of every citizen; the European Economic Competitiveness discourse, as expressed in the acknowledgement of language diversity as a source of wealth; and the Language Learning discourse which is embodied in the reference to the mutual understanding of citizens and to the celebration of language diversity in Europe. While, at the surface, these interrelated discourses seem to push into similar directions, they set different accents or conceptual emphasis on multilingualism policy which can easily result in contradictory opposition pairs between two or inside one specific discourse. The Unity in Diversity discourse in itself is an interesting case in point as it constitutes an obvious attempt to openly address and resolve a contradiction within the concept of the European Union (diversity and unity which cannot apply to a concept simultaneously). While one is tempted to interpret this saying as an attempt to unite diverse society, it is significant to notice that, at the same time, it contains an indirect commitment to conflict and tension. Conflict and tension is fundamentally connected to the conception of unity in diversity through Heraclitus’s theory of change, proposing the struggle between the two opposing elements as inherent and necessary in all life (Markova´ 2003: 36). In the contemporary European context, therefore, this contradiction and its inherent tension can only be resolved by identifying different references for the contradictory cognitions: diversity applies to an internal perspective (member states, citizenship, languages, cultures, etc.), while unity refers to the territorial and political boundaries of the European Union in opposition to other political entities. With regard to languages, unity in diversity can be interpreted as granting every citizen the same right to use their own language, regardless of nationality, origin or other discriminatory factors. We can easily derive opposition pairs relating to languages using the three “master-discourses” available. For example, immediate contradiction arises when we try to reconcile the European Economic Competitiveness discourse and the Linguistic Human Rights discourse, which both are actively present in multilingualism policy: while, in the European Economic Competitiveness discourse, multilingualism refers to situations in which citizens are encouraged to speak certain (trade) languages in order to enhance their business opportunities, the Linguistic Human Rights

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism


discourse grants the right and encourages citizens to use their own native language, especially when that language is not widely used for trade. A similar contradiction exists between the message to citizens to develop an interest in learning other languages for mutual understanding and the message to claim one’s linguistic rights. Contradictions such as these can present a serious challenge to people who find themselves in the position of having to reason about and publicly represent a political concept; contradictions relating to the concept of multilingualism may appear automatically and unintentionally during speech and they are likely to reveal themselves in interview situations where and when contradictions are directly addressed. I would like to pick out some classical situations in which contradictions appeared during interaction as manifestations to reduce or resolve dissonance or as an acknowledgement of conceptual inconsistency that leads to conflict.

5 The consistency of linguistic diversity: A puzzle to the mind Any opinion about a state of affairs depends on a variety of factors, but it is critically influenced by the degree of (objective and subjective) involvement of a person with a subject matter. It is not surprising that, in the case of the present investigation, policy-makers who can be located at the periphery of language policy-planning seemed more open to acknowledge contradictions in multilingualism policy without trying to reduce the dissonance between the contradictory elements. This result may also be explained by the fact that those individuals at the periphery tended to feel less responsible for the policy content and less informed about its history and purpose than their colleagues at the centre of the process. Although not exclusive to this type of interaction, but maybe characteristic of peripheral involvement in general, the interviewed policy-makers tended to explain the existence of contradiction in multilingualism policy by recoursing to fundamental cognitive reference points. Let me illustrate this tendency briefly with two examples from our interviews. In the first excerpt from an interview with a senior European Commission lawyer, the opening statement of multilingualism policy is spontaneously analysed with reference to the logic of meaning as linguistic expression that is expected to contain a non-contradictory truth value. As can be seen in that example, the respondent engages in discourse by actively seeking to construct opposition pairs from the meta-discourses mentioned above and by openly attacking the truth claim that is believed

126 Patrick Studer to be present in the text. The contradictions, which are introduced in the first excerpt, are corrected slightly at a later stage during the interview when the speaker tries to explain their existence as a fault in the presentation of multilingualism policy, i.e. as a stylistic issue rather than a semantic one. This shift in the interpretation of the text passage from untrue to insincere reveals the text as potentially misleading to the unprepared reader and as consciously framed to lead the reader into accepting the idea of a linguistic unity where such unity is impossible and impracticable. This second interpretation is backed up with a reference to the common practice of policy presentation in the European Union. While this second interpretation could be seen at first as an attempt of the speaker to reduce the dissonance in the statement by legitimising it, the speaker rather seems to express genuine wonderment and surprise at the strategy of EU policy-makers who twist sentences into a conveying any policy messages they want. (1) […] what they are saying is that diversity of languages is a bridge (.) the diversity of languages is a bridge if people understand those different languages (.) if you can speak spanish the individual diversity is the bridge to understanding those other people but of course if you have an irish and a spanish person and neither speak their tongue the diversity of languages is not a bridge it’s a barrier […] (.) but here to say “where our many mother tongues are a BRIDGE to greater solidarity” (.) I mean that statement is not true just in itself, it is not true. (emphasis by the author)3 (2) […] it’s interesting when you look at the way European policies are presented traditionally (.) very often the European economic model the European integration issues the single market wealth generation in that particular context is used (.) you’re using it for other purposes so for economic wealth generation being used to create political unity […]. (emphasis by the author)

The second interview excerpt I would like to discuss presents a slightly different case. Here a junior policy-maker in a contract position tries to come to grips with the same policy statement as the previous candidate but 3 The interviews were conducted and transcribed in English. All transcripts were checked against English as a lingua franca transcription standards proposed by VOICE (Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English, Transcription Conventions 2.1).

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism


recourses to a different reference point in attempting to explain it. Like the first candidate the respondent acknowledges that the text makes a claim to (logical) truth consistency and that the text fails to support that claim. This puzzle is resolved by the speaker by referring to a second opposition pair that consistently emerges in scientific discussions, namely that between the purity of the idea vs. the impurity of nature and the material world. By referring to the distinction ideal-real, the speaker explains the dissonance that he perceives as an unavoidable consequence of the discrepancy between the idea of the policy and the limitations of linguistic expression of this idea. Against the background of this argumentation, the speaker acknowledges that, although the text is far from perfect or complete, it forms part of a simplified story line needed for creating coherence in a familiar environment. The words narrative and policy house call up the image of a family story in a family home with its imperfections but warming fireplace at the same time. Thus, while the contradiction is transferred to another cognitive level, it is essentially left unresolved, conveying to the hearer an almost proverbial resignation at God’s wondrous ways.4 (3) Q and you would agree with this statement completely? A in principle yes (.) you might say it’s a little bit idealistic that this is what the European Union is because of course when you talk about a European Union or indeed a country or perhaps even a human being you cannot give one description in one sentence without it being subject to further refinements (.) but at the end of the day this is the narrative and narratives are a very important thing in a policy house. (emphasis by the author)

6 The multiplicity of the self: Splitting the contradiction The closer to the centre of the language planning process we get, the more personalised the responses become and the more involved people seem to react when they are confronted with conceptual inconsistencies. Pressure to reduce dissonance can take on various forms, from refusal to acknowledge any connection between opposition pairs to open recognition of a conflict that needs to be resolved. In this section, I will not be concerned with

4 The reference to proverb in this context is not accidental but draws attention to the narrative psychological perspective as proposed by Sarbin (1986).

128 Patrick Studer attempts by respondents to reduce dissonance by questioning the nature of the inconsistency at hand, although this reaction is undoubtedly common in cases where policy-makers try to defend their image against criticism. Instead I will focus on instances of speech in which contradictions are acknowledged spontaneously, and I will assume that these instances reflect more appropriately how in-group communication and internal problem-solving in language planning activities may take place. One powerful means of coming to terms with inconsistencies spontaneously is by “splitting” one’s identity into a private and a professional self. Thus, conceptual inconsistencies can be resolved, reduced or suspended by accepting two layers of truth in a concept. This process may happen openly and reflectedly or more subtly and below the level of awareness of the speaker (for a detailed discussion of personal-private role conflicts see Studer, Kreiselmaier, and Flubacher 2010). I would like to discuss three examples which illustrate different degrees of awareness and coping strategies of language policy-makers as revealed during our interviews. In the first example, the respondent, a European Commission lawyer in intermediate position, is asked to choose one statement from four quotes from the 2005 Framework Strategy on Multilingualism which is believed to reflect the concept of multilingualism best. The quote this particular respondent chooses makes reference to language as the most direct expression of one’s culture and identity: “Language is the most direct expression of culture; it is what makes us human and what gives each of us a sense of identity.” (COM(2005) 596 final, 1.1). This statement directly alludes to the master-discourses introduced at an earlier point in this study and potentially motivates a conceptual contradiction between Linguistic Human Rights discourse and the European Competitiveness discourse. What is interesting in this case is the fact that the respondent chooses the statement as the most appropriate description of multilingualism only if she ignores her professional role and professional knowledge about the (political) world. In other words, the respondent acknowledges the statement as true and not contradictory by temporarily suspending her professional voice which would otherwise alert her to inherent inconsistencies in the social potential of the concept. Through this temporary “elimination” of the professional self the respondent is able to eliminate the conceptual contradiction and to shift attention from the discussion of conceptual inconsistency to a personal-institutional discrepancy that exists in her professional context.

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism


(4) Q so if you hear the word multilingualism which of the four quotes do you think would reflect your understanding of the term best? A if I forgot that I was a lawyer (.) I mean in the first place (.) I would say the second one.

If we represent this situation graphically, we can see that by moving the tension from a conceptual to a personal level, the respondent introduces a cognitive reference point that seems to embed the encountered contradiction in the more commonly accepted opposition between belief and practice. Although this move essentially shifts the contradiction from a conceptual to a personal dimension (I am idealistic vs. as a lawyer I am not idealistic), it appears softer and more humane. professional




Figure 2. Opposition between belief and practice

The second example shows a similar reaction by a respondent, a language policy-maker at intermediate level, to deflect from potential conceptual inconsistency to the person. This second example is different from the first in that the act of deflection results in actual criticism of the concept and of those involved in the design of the concept. The criticism expressed by the speaker is subtle and builds on the same tension as the previous example where private belief interferes with political practice. The conceptual inconsistency in the concept of multilingualism is acknowledged indirectly by the speaker’s effort to position herself outside the language planning discourse. Thus, the respondent is able to distance herself from any identification with the policy and to take a critical stance on the rightness and sincerity of the concept at a social level. To the extent that this particular respondent was involved in the decision-making process relating

130 Patrick Studer to the concept, it seems that these decisions are revoked on a personal level as she analyses the situation in retrospect. The respondent’s criticism of the concept of multilingualism is achieved by spontaneously giving away several cues when answering the question why there was a need to create a new policy portfolio under the name of multilingualism. The respondent immediately problematises the “moral rightness” of the way the commission deals with language matters, namely by wishing to be seen to be doing something for languages. Indirectly, and underneath that statement, we can hear a concern that all the commission is doing about the language situation in Europe is wishing to be perceived by the citizens. Thus, the work carried out by these language planning agencies is portrayed as mainly cosmetic and image-related rather than substantial, which clearly contradicts the aims stated in multilingualism policy: (5) I guess it’s an indication of the fact that the commission […] as they are politicians wish to be seen to be giving a higher profile to the issue of multilingualism and that’s and I word that carefully I suppose they wish to be able to signal that there is a unit which is responsible for multilingualism there is a commissioner who is responsible for multilingualism and one can speculate about why that’s now come to the fore rather than five years ago ten years ago […] (.) obviously that’s a relatively non-contentious belief that the union should be seen to be trying to do something for language diversity.

What appears striking in this passage, moreover, is the enormous distance that is created between the respondent and the language planning agencies which she represents in this interview. This distance is achieved by the insertion of modality markers that are connected to the speaker’s identity (I guess I suppose). Taking on the perspective of a complete outsider, the respondent speculates about the true motivations of commission workers as they devise language policies, displaying an acute sense of delicacy and need for careful wording. The early legitimising reference to commission workers being politicians frames expectations about the real motivations of politicians, namely to appear or represent rather than really be concerned about the subject matter, thus falling back on the sincerity debate related to public work. Trying to put herself into the shoes of politicians, the respondent argues that the reason for this sudden interest in language matters could be related to external pressure put upon European institutions to put the issue of diversity into their agenda, again emphasising extrinsic

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism


motivation rather than true personal concern. Although the conceptual contradictions related to sincerity and rightness are left unresolved, the attention is shifted to a personal position running counter to that of other policy-makers, which suggests how the issue ought to be addressed in a sincere fashion. In the final example, an interview with a policy-maker with task responsibilities, the question of conceptual contradictions motivates an open role conflict between the private and professional self in which the respondent openly acknowledges and reflects upon the difficulty of the concept. Again the conceptual contradiction addressed can be referred to the dissonance between the European Economic Competitiveness discourse and the Linguistic Human Rights discourse. The inconsistency in this case is perceived as potentially leading to contradictory messages to citizens with regard to what can be done with the concept, i.e. to which languages should be learned (speak your own language vs. speak English for competitiveness). As a result of this dissonance the respondent feels unable to communicate a clear message to citizens which renders communication with citizens vague and fuzzy. Unlike the previous example, however, the introduction of the personal dimension does not only serve the purpose of allowing personal criticism or conflict into the discourse but seems to function as a way of reflecting the perception of conceptual inconsistency in the policy back on the strong personal involvement of the speaker. Thus, the feeling of discomfort resulting from dissonant messages shifts attention from an abstract to a more concrete level by isolating it as a single emotional episode of one person rather than a fundamental conceptual inconsistency relevant to all reflecting human beings. Her criticism, at the same time, is not directed at the contradiction inherent in the concept of multilingualism but at the personal inability to reconcile the contradictory elements.5 (6) (.5sec) personally (.) the greater difficulty I have when I try to convey a message at conferences or in any case that we cannot say because it does not apply to the situation learn this language or this other lang this is the key to success (.) learn GERMAN LEARN English and don’t bother about the rest LEARN because actually the idea is and it is just so difficult

5 For a detailed discussion of this episode see Studer, Kreiselmaier, and Flubacher 2010.

132 Patrick Studer to pass the message that […] (.) it’s like telling people go to supermarket and buy what you want and actually publicit I mean marketing does that doesn’t work exactly this way / but this is more I mean maybe I feel it strongly because I work on this field (.) […].

7 Conclusion The present study has been concerned with ways of operationalising and theorising the phenomenon of conceptual contradiction in discourses of language that can be located in the socio-political sphere. Using the debate surrounding the concept of multilingualism as a case in point, the study showed how contradictions can be addressed and dealt with spontaneously in semi-formal interaction. In the course of the chapter, several short passages from these conversations were transcribed and analysed with regard to the discursive role contradiction played in the reflection process and argumentation of individual policy-makers. The chapter suggested several angles from which conceptual contradiction in discourse could be looked at, such as the level of abstraction (theoretical consistency, social potential and personal meaning), its conflict potential, and the coping mechanisms of participants (recourse to meta-discourses, acknowledgment of and attempts at resolving contradictions). The discussion has shown that the greatest conflict potential relating to the concept of multilingualism occurs at the level of social interpretation of the concept, i.e. with respect to the belief of speakers about what can be done with multilingualism and about the sincerity of intention of those people representing the policy to the outside world. The acknowledgement of contradiction in discourse in turn leads to several coping strategies which seem to serve different purposes, including reducing discursive dissonance or openly criticising the contradictory concept. In particular, personalisation tendencies have emerged as an escape route for participants to avoid addressing theoretical opposition pairs and as a way of positioning themselves and their role within the discourse.

References Ager, Dennis 2001

Motivation in language planning and language policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Bateson, Gregory 1979 Mind and Nature. A Necessary Unity. New York: E.P. Dutton.

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism


Bauer, Martin W. and George Gaskell 1999 Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 29(2): 163–186. Billig, Michael, Susan Condor, Derek Edwards, Mike J. Gane, David Middleton and Alan Radley 1988 Ideological Dilemmas. A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London: SAGE. Billig, Michael 1991 Ideology and Opinions. Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: Sage. Drew, Paul and John Heritage 1998 Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Durkheim, Emile 1981 Die elementaren Formen religio¨sen Lebens. Translated by Ludwig Schmidts. First published in Paris (F. Alcan) 1912: Les formes e´le´mentaires de la vie religieuse. Le syste`me tote´mique en Australie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Elster, Jon 1978 Logic and Society. Contradictions and Possible Worlds. Chichester: John Wiley & sons. Farr, James 1989 Understanding conceptual change politically. In: James Farr and Terrence Ball (eds.), Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, 24–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Festinger, Leon 1957 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Grant, David, Cynthia Hardy, Clifford Oswick and Linda Putnam 2004 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Harre´, Rom and Grant Gillett 1994 The Discursive Mind. London: Sage. Harre´, Rom and Fathali Moghaddam 2003 The Self and Others. Positioning Individuals and Groups in Personal, Political, and Cultural Contexts. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers. Heap, James L. 1990 Applied ethnomethodology: Looking for the local rationality of reading activities. Human Studies 13: 39–72 Hollway, Wendy 1984 Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In: Julian Henriques, Wendy Hollway, Cathy Unwin, Couze Venn and Valerie Walkerdine (eds.), Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity. London: Methuen.

134 Patrick Studer Jacob, Susanne 2004

Soziale Repra¨sentationen und Relationale Realita¨ten. Theoretische Entwu¨rfe der Sozialpsychologie bei Serge Moscovici und Kenneth J. Gergen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Deutscher Universita¨ts-Verlag.

Markova´, Ivana 2003 Dialogicality and Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin, Robert W.T. 1997 Context and Contradiction: Toward a Political Theory of Conceptual Change. Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1997 June ): 413–436. McHoul, Alex and Mark Rapley (eds.) 2001 How to analyse talk in institutional settings: A casebook of methods. London: Continuum Moscovici, Serge 1972a Society and theory in social psychology. In: Joachim Israel and Henri Tajfel (eds.) The Context of Social Psychology: a Critical Assessment, 17–68. London: Academic Press. Moscovici, Serge 1972b The psychosociology of language. Chicago: Markham. Moscovici, Serge 1984 The phenomenon of social representations. In Robert M. Farr and Serge Moscovici (eds.), Social Representations, 3–69. Cambridge: University Press. Moscovici, Serge 1988 Notes towards a description of social representations. Journal of European Social Psychology 18(3): 211–250. Moscovici, Serge 1989 Preconditions for explanation in social psychology. Journal of European Social Psychology 19(5): 407–430. Potter, Jonathan 1996 Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. Potter, Jonathan 1998 Discursive Social Psychology: from Attitudes to Evaluations. European Review of Social Psychology 9: 233–266. Potter, Jonathan 2003 Discursive Psychology: Between Method and Paradigm. Discourse and Society 14: 783–794. Quinn, Robert E. 1991 Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass. Richter, Melvin 1996 The History of Political and Social Concepts: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conceptual contradiction and discourses on multilingualism


Richter, Melvin 2000 Conceptualising the Contestable: “Begriffsgeschichte” and Political Concepts. In: Gunter Scholtz (ed.), Die Interdisziplinarita¨t der Begriffsgeschichte, 135–144. Hamburg: Meiner. Sarbin, Theodore R. 1986 The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology’. In: Theodore R. Sarbin (ed.), Narrative Psychology. The Storied Nature of Human Conduct. New York: Praeger. Skinner, Quentin 1989 Language and political change. In: Terence Ball, James Farr, Russell L. Hanson (eds.), Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, 6–23. Cambridge: University Press. Kang, Soon-Jeon 1999 Reflexion und Widerspruch. Eine entwicklungsgeschichtliche und systematische Untersuchung des Hegelschen Begriffs des Widerspruchs. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag. Studer, Patrick, Felicia Kreiselmaier, Mi-Cha Flubacher 2008 Language policy-planning in a European context. Bern: Universita¨t Bern. (Arbeitspapiere 43). Studer, Patrick, Felicia Kreiselmaier, Mi-Cha Flubacher (2010) Language planning of the European Union: a micro-level perspective. European Journal of Language Policy 2.2: 251–270.

Chapter 7 The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration: Contrasting case studies of “new” migration in Spain and the UK

Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero

1 Introduction This chapter investigates linguistic diversity in Europe by focusing on the interacting and overlapping issues of language policy, migration and citizenship (Castles and Davidson 2000; Hampshire 2005). We frame these concepts within the context of the increasing labour mobility of EU citizens in recent years, and the migratory flows which have been witnessed within and beyond these enlarged EU borders. We argue that such substantial transnational movements of people have repercussions for notions of language and policy, particularly in receiving countries as they seek to deal with issues of “integration” and “cohesion”. In particular, we examine two case studies in detail which explore the notion that national and regional language policies can exist in a spectrum from “no policy” to “explicit policy”.1 We show how evidence from the case studies – Barcelona and Castello´ in Spain, and Southampton in the UK – locates countries at different points of this spectrum, tracking the emergence of the distinct policies (or lack of), as well as critically

1 The case studies were part of research carried out as part of the European Commission funded LINEE programme (Languages in a Network of European Excellence). Our particular focus was to explore how far language policies affect migrant populations and their attitudes/endeavours towards acquisition of the language and/or citizenship of the receiving country. In addition to the authors of this chapter, we would like to acknowledge the participation of LINEE colleagues Montserrat Barrera who carried out the data collection in Barcelona, and Vanessa Mar-Molinero who provided additional data on the Southampton case study.

138 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero analysing the public debates around cultural integration, translation services and language learning for migrants. We explore how far national language policies – and their local implementations – affect migrant populations and their aspirations to become citizens of host countries. Of particular interest to us are the responses of migrants that arise from the debates and policies in each of these differing locations and circumstances. We present qualitative data in order to examine reactions towards the acquisition of the host-country’s language(s) by migrants, and the role of language learning in citizenship. We also examine changing views about the acquisition of language(s) in transnational settings in both host and migrant communities. We ask whether the existence of a language policy (e.g. in Spain) influences the way migrants do (or do not) acquire the “host” country’s language, and specifically in multilingual settings. Furthermore we consider whether aspirations amongst migrants differ in contexts such as the UK where there is little or no explicit policy. We ask if migrants perceive the language policy – or where this is lacking, a policy on citizenship – as designed to “naturalise” them into “being British/Spanish/Catalan/etc”. Finally, we question how these differences might relate to “Europe” and European aims to converge policies on language and citizenship in order to appear as a cohesive unit.

2 Theoretical framework: Language and citizenship In recent years, a number of scholars have begun to engage with the issues of government-initiated language tests and how these are being used as a condition for the success or failure of applications at state level for residency and/or citizenship (see, e.g. Extra, Spotti and Van Avermaet 2009; Hogan-Brun, Mar-Molinero and Stevenson 2009). Macnamara and Shohamy (2008) note that the acquisition of citizenship – and even the process of integration so closely associated with it – is often contingent on passing a test which measures proficiency in the “national” language, but which does not take into account length of residence, status, employment, income, education or particular reasons for migration. The concept of language testing for citizenship has also been criticised by Cameron (2002) as being merely a punitive measure which – in the British case – favours those immigrants from “white settler” countries like Australia, South Africa, etc, and those who have had privileged access to education in their countries of origin. Milani’s (2008) study of language debates on citizenship in Sweden shows how the proposed introduction of language testing there would

The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration


actually contribute to the reproduction of social differentiation rather than any challenge to this veiled form of discrimination. And in a recent volume edited by Hogan-Brun, Mar-Molinero and Stevenson (2009), scholars examine case studies from across Europe in order to problematise this growing trend of testing migrants’ proficiency in “national” or “official” languages of individual nation-states. The common thread running through all the contexts with which these various studies engage is that the ability to speak the dominant language of a nation-state is seen as “social capital” (Bourdieu 1980). Consequently, the state (as “gatekeeper”) requires possession of this linguistic/social capital before citizenship applicants are permitted access to the status of being a full citizen, with all its concomitant rights, privileges and responsibilities. What is, to a large extent, immigration policy or naturalisation policy actually contributes in part to a wider language policy. More specific language planning efforts such as language testing are clear evidence of what Blommaert calls “cases in which authorities attempt, by whatever means, to shape a sociolinguistic profile for their society” (1996: 207). The objectives are usually social, political, or economic in character, as we demonstrate in our study.

3 Data and methodology The aim of our fieldwork was to explore how far language policies affect migrant populations and their attitudes (and any potential subsequent endeavours) towards acquisition of the language and/or citizenship of the receiving country. In addressing the topics of language policy, migration and citizenship – and in order to examine both “top-down” and “bottom-up” policies and practices related to these topics – fieldwork was conducted with a wide range of stakeholders in three sites (Southampton in the UK, and Barcelona and Castello´ in Spain) across two different national contexts (UK, Spain). These stakeholders included not only policy makers but also those agents responsible for enacting and operating decisions and systems, as well as “end-users”: members of the focus migrant communities themselves. The case studies primarily adopted semi-ethnographic methods of data collection through life-history style interviews with predominantly Polish migrants to the UK, Moroccans to Barcelona, and Romanians to Castello´. The choice of these groups was determined by the current extent of migration to the host countries, offering us important insights regarding movement in EU member-countries of groups from within (Romanians, Polish) and outside of (Moroccans) the EU. The recent accession to the EU of

140 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero Poland (2004) and Romania (2007) afforded us the opportunity to observe the impacts of immigration to Southampton (where Poles are now the largest foreign-born group in the city and in the UK), and to north-eastern Spain (where immigration from Romania is marked by well-defined geographical origins; most Romanians in Castello´ are from Targoviste). In Barcelona, there are some 13,500 Moroccan immigrants and throughout the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, they are the largest immigrant group by far (almost 20% of all immigrants are Moroccan). The interviews were up to 90 minutes long and were conducted in English, Spanish or Catalan2, though on some occasions they were conducted in the migrant’s native language with the help of an interpreter. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with “gatekeepers” and those involved in making and/or implementing policy locally, including, for example in Southampton, employees of the local council with responsibility for community cohesion and provision of English-language teaching, as well as a local Member of Parliament. In Barcelona, we interviewed Spanish and Catalan language teachers, as well as Catalan policy makers, and in Castello´ the interviewees included academic and professional experts on Romanian migration to the area, and local government representatives. Finally, the empirical data was contextualised by the critical analysis of secondary sources including policy texts at a national level (e.g. Final report of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, Home Office documents on the Immigration System, Plan estrate´gico de ciudadanı´a e integracio´n 2007–2010, Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Plan Valenciano de inmigracio´n, Generalitat Valenciana) and the local level (Southampton New Communities Interagency Integration Strategy and Action Plan, Catalan Citizenship and Immigration Plan, Plan de Acogida, Castello´), as well as media coverage of issues related to migration and language learning appearing in the national (such as BBC onlineEl Paı´s) and local media.

4 Case study: Southampton, UK For many years, the multicultural credentials of the United Kingdom have been predicated mostly (though by no means exclusively) on immigration 2 Any translations into English that were necessary for the purpose of this chapter were carried out by the researchers and authors. English versions were included throughout this chapter. The original version of a quotation, if appropriate, has been footnoted. The original version of an example is provided in the appendix.

The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration


flows from ex-colonies of the defunct British Empire in Africa, the Indian subcontinent and the West Indies. In recent years however, Eastern Europeans – and the Polish in particular – have come to form the largest foreign national group in the UK (while many of ex-colonial origin have adopted British citizenship). This trend is reflected in Southampton, a diverse and ever expanding city on the southern British coast, which – largely due to its position as a southern port city – has a long history of immigration and settlement. The city has a population of over 228,600 inhabitants and while figures inevitably vary, the Polish population is reported to be in the region of 12,000–20,000. A particular characteristic of the city’s Polish community is that there is a perceived “old” and “new” migration, both of which are highly visible through the network of shops, churches, businesses and press which all have an impact on Southampton’s linguistic landscape. The “old” migration constitutes those who sought refuge there and settled during and after the Second World War; in the 2001 Census, these numbered no more than 300. By contrast, the “new” migration who came in the years leading up to Poland’s 2004 accession to the EU – and predominantly since – are considered to be economic migrants and now far outnumber the “old” Polish group. Similar to the case of Romanians in Castello´, Polish migration to Southampton is marked by well-defined geographical origins, with the majority of Poles coming from Ostrowiec S´wie˛tokrzyski in southern central Poland. Southampton as a destination was, for many, selected on the basis of factors such as the existence of an established East European community; friends and family; the ease of finding work and the proximity to London. The national context in the UK differs markedly from Spain, where the sociolinguistic profile pursued by the state is made explicit in the Constitutional recognition of Castilian as the official state language (with co-official languages within autonomous communities subject to regional legislation). In contrast, no such explicit planning exists in the UK, due in part to the fact that the UK has no Constitution as such in which to enshrine language policy. It is also due to the historical status of English as the national/official language which has been secured de facto by both education policy and – most relevantly for our investigation – through recent debates and developments in British immigration and social cohesion policy. Adrian Blackledge (2009) points to how government and popular discourse on the need for immigrants to learn and use English has been hitherto based on particular representations of cohesion, integration and British identity emanating from powerful social actors who envisage “a Britain which is multilingual, homogeneous, and assimilationist.”

142 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero In 2007, the British government published Our Shared Future, the final report of its Commission on Integration and Cohesion (CIC). The report highlighted the vision of the CIC for an “integrated and cohesive community”, in which, it states: There is a clearly defined and widely shared sense of the contribution of different individuals and different communities to a future vision for a neighbourhood, city, region or country There is a strong sense of an individual’s rights and responsibilities when living in a particular place – people know what everyone expects of them, and what they can expect in turn Those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities, access to services and treatment There is a strong sense of trust in institutions locally to act fairly in arbitrating between different interests and for their role and justifications to be subject to public scrutiny There is a strong recognition of the contribution of both those who have newly arrived and those who already have deep attachments to a particular place, with a focus on what they have in common There are strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and other institutions within neighbourhoods. (Commission on Integration and Cohesion 2007b: 10, our emphases)

The words and phrases highlighted in the above extract are those which are most frequently repeated in the discourse of government and media in discussions of the integration of migrants into what is considered to be British society. More succinctly, the Home Office (2008: 12) has said that: “Integration means not simply mutual respect and tolerance between different groups but continual interaction, engagement and civic participation, whether in social, cultural, educational, professional, political or legal spheres”. One particularly interesting finding from the CIC’s work was that, in a poll conducted by the CIC, 60% of respondents identified language proficiency as the main ingredient of ‘being English’. This was then reinforced and reflected in the CIC’s interim statement (2007a: 18): “We are therefore adamant that not speaking English is a barrier to integration and cohesion.

The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration


It hampers people’s efforts to integrate economically and to access the labour market. And it prevents them from developing a sense of belonging to bring them together with others”. This collocation of English proficiency with integration was not a particularly new finding, however. Indeed, the British government’s Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act of 2002 had already initiated a system by which prospective British citizens would have to demonstrate knowledge of English and of life in the United Kingdom. It follows that acquisition of the English language is very much seen by the government – as well as by a majority of poll respondents – as a precondition for integration of migrants as well as for the later possibility of acquiring British nationality. This is reflected not only in official and public discourse but also in a number of our participants’ contributions: (1) “Oh I think it’s vital thing. It’s the most important thing, language skills, thinking about integration, because without language, it’s really hard, it’s really hard. Yeah, without language I cannot imagine real integration on a personal basis.” (2) “If you have known the language before you came to Southampton, it’s easier for you to integrate. It’s easier for you to go out with some English friends, whereas for people who don’t know the language that much […] don’t feel any need of integrating because they’ve got so much. Polish here in Southampton […] if there’s a person that comes here and they don’t know the language so well, they would have problems with integration.” (3) “Integration with English people? Well integration is very good. I think it is the best way to learn English for us.” (4) “Looking back, I wouldn’t be able to have such many friends without speaking good English.”

For the Polish migrants resident in Southampton who were interviewed, integration – and particularly the role of language in achieving this – is primarily and consistently linked to notions of friendship and immediate contact with neighbours, colleagues and existing British citizens.

144 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero Members of the UK government publicly encourage those who are settled and are considered to be integrated in the United Kingdom to apply for British citizenship and, in doing so, to demonstrate their commitment to the country and its customs. In early 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced a new system of “earned citizenship” which will see immigrants “actively entering into a contract through which, by virtue of responsibilities accepted, the right of citizenship is earned” (Prime Minister’s Office 2008). The stricter procedures for acquiring citizenship introduced in these measures will require applicants to provide proof of the different aspects of integration – involvement in civic and voluntary work, respect for the rule of law, celebrating British values, and learning to speak English more and faster than previously (BBC News, 05.06.2007). The fact that these requirements will not – ironically – apply to citizens of other European Union countries would appear to create two-tiers of acquired citizenship: one for EU citizens, and another, more difficult system for non-EU applicants. What would remain common to all applicants, according to the Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, is the “absolute top priority” for all migrants coming to the UK to learn English (BBC News, 17.02.2008). Blears bases this policy on argumentation strategies of integration, belonging, commitment, societal cohesion and protection for vulnerable migrants. Interestingly, only some of these considerations feature in the attitudes expressed by our migrant participants in their discourse about UK nationality: (5) “I’m not sure if I should apply, because it wouldn’t be for the reasons of loving the country so much. You know, I’d have to have the British passport, so I don’t think I should apply because it would be a lie really wouldn’t it?” (6) “One of the reason [sic] why we applied for British passport was because we like travelling, and wherever we went of course from here, from England, visiting other countries using our Polish passport, it was always sort of funny you know. All British went through the border very well and without any kind of stoppage, but we were always stopped and some kind of difficulties and operating Polish passports. So that was one reason why we applied for British passport, and also, and the main reason I suppose, was that we love England. We got lots of friends and we want to be part of England and contribute to this country and to be British, to be English, that I suppose that [is] the main reason.”

The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration


As can be seen, there exists a variety of quite different attitudes which, we argue, might be seen as situated at different points along a spectrum of positions regarding nationality. The range of positions varies considerably, and the nuances that can be identified in migrants’ own discourse contrasts with the rather more monolithic, single position in which the State views the acquisition of the English language as a precursor to integration, and both of these as forerunners to acquiring British citizenship itself. Debates and policy developments continue, and the UK Government recently announced “a radical new approach to British citizenship that will require all migrants to speak English and obey the law if they want to gain citizenship and stay permanently in Britain” (UK Border Agency 2009). These tougher measures regarding immigration and citizenship will now even include a period of “probation” for new citizens (Home Office 2009), sweeping aside a decades-old system of nationality based solely on the amount of time spent in the UK (BBC News Online 15.01.2009).

5 Case study: Spain Immigration is today a major contributory factor in population growth in the states of southern Europe, particularly in Spain where, in 2007, nearly 10% were foreigners (INE 2007). As a proportion of its population, Spain’s figure is the highest in the EU, and the absolute increase in the total population between 1998 and 2006 was the biggest in the EU (Chislett 2007). This rapid growth and intensification in migration has had a transformational impact on Spanish society requiring profound adjustments at all levels, not least in the role of language in society. For reasons that we outline below, our fieldwork in Spain focused on Barcelona (capital of Catalonia) and Castello´ (a city in the autonomous region of Valencia).

5.1 Barcelona In Catalonia today, migrants represent 15.6 % of the Catalan population, of which a quarter are originally from the EU (Idescat 2007). In particular, there are reported to be almost 192,000 Moroccans in Catalonia, with 13,500 of these residing in the regional capital of Barcelona (Idescat 2007), making them by far the largest immigrant population in Catalonia (19.71% of immigrants; the next largest group are Ecuadorians at 8.41%). There has been growing awareness of the situation in Catalan society that it is at the forefront of new migrations (particularly from developing countries) and that this

146 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero presence is beginning to impact noticeably on the social and urban landscape, such as in schools, adult education and social/cultural centres where more resources and support are now available for immigrant communities. The result is a multicultural and a multilingual society where speakers of more than 300 different languages must co-exist. In 2005, the Catalan Government (Generalitat de Catalunya) drew up its Citizenship and Immigration Plan (Pla de Ciutadania i Immigracio´ 2005–08) which details a large number of social, cultural and political objectives by which the government hopes to manage citizenship and immigration. In their own words: “[The Plan] puts forward a new concept of citizenship which tries to advance towards equal rights and responsibilities for all Catalan men and women, regardless of nationality or legal situation. The link required to access and to understand citizenship is residency.”3 (Departament de Benestar Social 2005: 34). This new concept of citizenship sees the Generalitat moving away from traditional foundations of jus solis and jus sanguinis towards a rights-based, sub-national, Catalonian citizenship as a regional implementation of national policy. As such, the planning of identity becomes more complex because it is taking place below the level of the state – a regional tier which does not exist in UK discourse on citizenship. Nevertheless, this innovative concept has not effectively penetrated Catalan society, particularly not the immigrant communities who are the target of such measures. A study by the EU placed five states – all those with the largest immigrant populations – along with the UK, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain as the most difficult places to achieve nationality – in the case of Spain only 41% of migrants successfully acquire citizenship (Chislett 2007). As in our British case study, the opinions of the immigrants interviewed demonstrate considerable differences in their conception of citizenship. For them, citizenship is: (7) “A really long process which never finishes.” (8) “To be a Spanish citizen? Is it possible?” [laughs]

3 El Pla de ciutadania i immigracio´ 2005–2008 proposa un concepte nou de ciutadania que prete´n avanc¸ar cap a la igualtat de drets i deures de tots els catalans i les catalanes, amb independe`ncia de la nacionalitat i de les situacions jurı´diques, dins els lı´mits competencials del marc actual.

The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration


(9) “A difficult way to go. I have double nationality but it was necessary to have a lot of papers, meetings, inspections … so much bureaucracy! To learn their own language isn’t enough, you know?”

Furthermore, the Plan takes a number of basic common principles – passed by the Council of Europe in November 2004 – for an integration policy of immigrants within the EU. One of these principles is the concept of “integration” as a bidirectional, dynamic and seemingly limitless process of accommodation between immigrants and the host population. Remarkable, too, amongst these principles is the decision of the Catalan Government to talk of having to seduce immigrants – a seduction that takes place through the medium of learning Catalan: “I don’t like the word integration if integration means to assimilate all the population. I think it is more like a feeling. A Catalan is one who works and lives in Catalonia and one who wants to be a Catalan. If someone doesn’t want to be Catalan, then we have to seduce them.”4 (Director of Immigration Secretariat, Generalitat de Catalunya, 04.07.2007). Thus, the situation in Catalonia is apparently similar to that in the UK where the acquisition of the “national” language (Catalan or English, respectively) is seen officially as a precondition for integration. Our data include aspects of immigrant discourse in which we see evidence of the effectiveness of Catalan policy. Immigrants frame the discussion of language with terms such as “opportunity” and “self-esteem”: (10) “Language is an opportunity.” (11) “If you speak Catalan people accept you more and you feel more integrated. An immigrant who speaks Catalan has more self-esteem.” (12) “Catalan is a means to open new perspectives for you. It allows you to rent a better flat, to find a better job, etc.” 4 Jo la paraula integracio´ no m’agrada. [xxx] Jo penso que hem de parlar me´s de formar part d’una comunitat comuna, de sentir que formes ‘part de’. E´s me´s una qu¨estio´ de sentiment. E´s catala` qui viu i treballa a Catalunya i vol ser-ho. [xxx] Si hi ha algu´ que no vol ser-ho, que no vol aprendre catala` [.] aleshores hem de seduir-lo.

148 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero In general terms, then, migrants do not perceive the Catalan language policy as a tool to ‘naturalise’ them into being Catalans (whether or not they understand that Catalan citizenship does not legally exist, only Spanish). However, the acquisition of the Catalan language could possibly represent a first stage in migrants’ assimilation into the dominant – or at least prestigious – sociolinguistic profile of Catalonia. That is arguably why the majority of immigrants do not want to learn it, with some of them expressing attitudes such as the following: (13) “I think the Catalan linguistic policy is really hard, because I think the more they force people to speak or learn Catalan, the less they want to do so. Imposition is not the way. I think there are other methods to learn without impositions.” (14) “[The linguistic policy] is well thought-out but really badly administered. Catalan people have revived the language and this is really worthwhile but now they have the internal turmoil regarding the immigrants’ languages.”

The internal turmoil referred to here is manifested in the Catalonian administration’s daily struggle to balance the questions of language (Catalan vs. Castilian) and social cohesion (Autonomous Community vs. State), and this is nothing new. Repeatedly, Catalan public discourse returns to the question of the ‘national’ language (Catalan) and its relation to the ‘state’ language (Castilian). It follows that the relative positions of these languages invoke questions of identity, and one concern which constantly resurges in public discourse is that: “[…] if Castilian becomes the everyday language and the language of reception for all immigrants, Catalan has a subordinate and uncertain future. Who can demand of us this national sacrifice?”5 (Enric Marı´n i Otto, El Punt 13.09.2006). What we must remember here is that the “national sacrifice” of Catalan nationality is not, in fact, marked by any formal, legal status. The only legal nationality in Spain is Spanish, and language competence is not explicitly linked with acquiring this nationality since there is – as yet – no formal

5 […] si el castella` esdeve´ definitivament la llengua vehicular i d’acollida, el futur immediat de la nostra llengua e´s la subalternitat a precari. Algu´ ens pot demanar aquesta dimissio´ nacional?

The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration


language test. Nevertheless, the expectation is that the necessary knowledge of the culture of Spain will be expressed in the “national” language, Castilian, in the interview for naturalisation. It is important to note that the difference between residency requirements before applications for naturalisation are permitted is loaded heavily towards Castilian speakers: two years for applicants from Spanish-speaking countries (basically former Spanish colonies) and ten years for those from non-Spanish-speaking countries. As an apparent result of this, it has been reported that: “[…] the principal reason for turning down applications [for citizenship] is lack of knowledge of the Spanish language, as is the case with Moroccans and Chinese.”6 (Arturo Dı´az, El Paı´s 09.11.2004). What is significant here is the presumed ignorance of the Spanish language (Castilian), rather than any of the other co-official languages, which are not considered to be sufficient or appropriate for immigrants to learn in order to apply for citizenship.

5.2 Castello´ Turning now to the other of our two Spanish case studies, we consider the situation in Castello´ de la Plana, a provincial capital in the Comunitat Valenciana. The predominant migrant group here is the Romanian community, and estimates have suggested that there are some 40,000 in the city which would constitute as much as 25% of the population (Petrescu, 24.07.2005). A number of summary comments can be made regarding our findings about the language practices of immigrants to Castello´, and these findings are equally true of those we have considered in Southampton and Barcelona: the first is that people come to the receiving country in order to find work, thus we are dealing with economic migrants as opposed to refugees or asylum seekers. Second, the immigrants’ experience is that it is easier to get work if you speak some of the national language, however it is not essential. Third, speaking some of the national language is useful to help one’s orientation around the city of residence and to access services, with the principal goals being to understand and to be understood. Fourth, it is interesting to note that very few immigrants made any concerted effort to learn the language before migrating to the receiving country, citing reasons 6 La causa principal de denegacio´n de la solicitud es el desconocimiento de la lengua espan˜ola, como ocurre con marroquı´es y chinos.

150 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero such as a lack of opportunity, time, finance or even interest in doing so. Fifth, very few had actually used formal facilities offered by British/ Spanish agencies for language learning, as the comments of migrants in Castello´ show: (15) “We will never get to the point of being able to speak like the Spanish but (to understand them) if I speak and the person next to me understands then thank God for that…”. (16) “Well, having the will to learn because I had to learn because if you can’t speak it you don’t get work and so on, but then my daughter came … and in three months she was already correcting me she says ‘You don’t say it like that … even after ten years she says ‘Don’t say that, it’s not correct but I’m happy that I can understand people.”

On the other hand, the statements of policymakers and agents place language learning firmly in the centre of the process towards societal integration: “It is very important not to feel an outsider and the easiest way to feel ‘local’ is to be able to communicate, speak the same language, which does not mean having to give up your roots, that you should cherish, but that it is also important to learn [about] ours and this is what is called co-existence.”7 (Mayor of Castello´, Ayuntamiento de Castello´n, 15.01.2007). Many of the Romanians in Castello´ have not yet been in Spain long enough in order to prove that they have ten years’ of legal residence (since nearly all would have to reveal that they were illegal for a period, having outstayed the validity of their visas). However, for the most part they did not express any intention of acquiring Spanish nationality, either because they do not wish to relinquish that of Romania, or because they maintain an aspiration to return “home” one day. Thus although Romanian immigrants often said that they felt “at home” – en casa – in Spain and they said – and demonstrated – that they could manage adequately in Spanish in order to live a normal daily life, to talk to neighbours, to shop, and so on, this was not seen as any kind of step towards formal integration

7 “Es importantı´simo no sentirse un extran˜o y la forma ma´s fa´cil de sentirse de aquı´ es poderse comunicar, hablar el mismo idioma, lo que no significa tener que abandonar las raı´ces, que debe´is atesorar pero que tambie´n es importante aprender las nuestras y eso se llama convivencia”.

The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration


through naturalisation. Some participants expressed their views on nationality thus: (17) “For the moment I haven’t considered it, but at the moment I don’t know whether it’s advisable, I don’t know. Now with globalisation, if I go to England because I want to be English, because I’m European now it doesn’t make any difference if you’re English, Romanian, Bulgarian, Czech, you know. That’s my opinion.” (18) “No, I don’t want to take out Spanish nationality because I’m Hungarian and it’s enough and the Spanish don’t give you the possibility to have double nationality and maybe I don’t want to change and we have the same rights as Spanish people and I don’t want to change nationality just to be Spanish. No, for me it’s not important. Maybe one day I’m going to change it, yes, but it’s not very important for me.”8

6 Discussion In both countries, the UK and Spain, integration is conceptualised as having the means to communicate with the receiving society in the dominant language. The UK has increasingly come to see formal citizenship – the adoption of British nationality – as the most important and effective way of encouraging and monitoring “belonging” and hence the success (or otherwise) of the maintenance of cohesion within in British society. Increasingly, public discourse in the UK has focused on language learning as an end in itself, a goal that will ensure integration by its successful completion, and as a means to access more obscure aspects of what constitutes being and feeling British. According to official and media discourse, these include essential principles such as democracy, tolerance and freedom of speech, as well as more anecdotal (yet nonetheless seemingly important) characteristics and behaviours such as queuing, putting rubbish in the wheelie bin or knowing how the scoring system works in the “national” game, cricket. In Spain, as we have shown, language is also considered as a key factor in the successful integration of its immigrants and to a successful resolution of their transformative impact on Spanish society. However, here, 8 This interview was led in English.

152 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero citizenship as a formal acknowledgement of belonging to Spanish society is not advanced as the sole desirable outcome of this process, if it is mentioned at all. Spain’s Strategic Plan for Citizenship and Immigration does not include any specific commitment within its ten objectives to increase the number of naturalisations from within the immigrant communities. The presence of immigrants is indeed a current reality of Spanish society which is reflected in the central government’s concession that “they [migrants] have already become part of the communal us that is Spanish society”9 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, 2007: 22). It has become clear in this chapter that immigrants are convinced of the value of learning the language in order to get work and to access support and entitlements from government services – both local and national – which are available to non-citizens. Where migrants are registered with the local authority, this gives access to most essential services such as healthcare and education. The supposedly “elevated” status of being a “national” only goes beyond existing rights insofar as it offers the right to vote in elections for non-EU nationals and the opportunity to stand for certain offices and entry to some administrative posts. In both countries language is becoming more firmly associated with the acquisition of citizenship – its sine qua non – however citizenship is projected as a far less important goal in Spain than it is in the UK.

Appendix Below are the original language versions of examples 7–17. The original language of examples 1–6 and 18 is English. (7) [Llegar a ser ciudadano espan˜ol] Es un proceso muy largo que nunca se acaba. (8) Ser ciudadano espan˜ol … ¿es posible? [hehehe] (9) Es un camino muy difı´cil. Yo tengo la doble nacionalidad pero para ello fueron necesarios muchos papeles, entrevistas, inspecciones … ¡muchı´sima burocracia! ¿Sabes?, aprender su lengua no es suficiente … 9 Las personas inmigrantes de distintos orı´genes, culturas y caracterı´sticas han pasado ya a formar parte del nosotros comu´n de la sociedad espan˜ola.

The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration


(10) Aprender su lengua es una oportunidad, la lengua es una oportunidad. (11) Si tu parles el catala` la gent t’accepta me´s i alhora tu et sents me´s integrat. Un immigrant que parla catala` te´ me´s autoestima. (12) El catala´n te abre nuevas perspectivas. Te permite alquilar un mejor piso, tener un mejor trabajo, etc. (13) Yo pienso que la polı´tica lingu¨´ıstica del catala´n es muy dura, porque pienso que cuanto ma´s fuerzan a la gente a hablar o aprender catala´n, menos lo quieren hacer. La imposicio´n no es el camino. Yo pienso que hay otros me´todos para aprender sin imposiciones. (14) [La polı´tica lingu¨´ıstica] Esta` ben direccionada pero` molt malament administrada. Heu ressuscitat una llengua i aixo` e´s molt honorable. Ara, pero`, no teniu una lluita amb Espanya sino´ amb les llengu¨es immigrants. (15) Nunca llegaremos a hablar como los espan˜oles pero para (entenderlas) si yo hablo y el de al lado me entiende pues gracias a Dios. (16) Bueno y teniendo la voluntad de hablar porque tenı´a que aprender porque si no hablas no encontras trabajo y eso pero despue´s ha venido mi hija … dentro de tres meses mi hija ya me corregı´a dice ‘eso no se dice ası´’ … aun despue´s de diez an˜os me dice ‘no se dice ası´ no esta´ correcto’ pero yo estoy contenta que me puedo me puedo/entender con la gente. (17) Por el momento no me lo he planteado pero no lo se´ si en dı´a de hoy es aconsejable no lo se´ ahora con la globalizacio´n si voy en Inglaterra porque quiero ser ingle´s rumano porque yo soy europeo ya no me importa si usted es ingle´s rumano bu´lgaro o checo o hu´ngaro entiendes es mi es mi opinio´n.

154 Darren Paffey, Dick Vigers and Clare Mar-Molinero References de Castello´n, Ayuntamiento 15.01. 2007 Un total de 264 inmigrantes han participado en los cursos de castellano y valenciano organizados y subvencionados por el Ayuntamiento de Castello´n. BBC News Online 24 02 2004 Q&A: The road to UK citizenship. BBC News Online 05 06 2007 UK citizenship ‘earned by points’. BBC News Online 17 02 2008 English is ‘priority’ says Blears. BBC News Online 15 01 2009 Citizenship test plans published. Blackledge, Adrian 2009 ‘Being English, speaking English: Extension to English language testing legislation and the future of multicultural Britain’. In: Gabrielle Hogan-Brun, Clare Mar-Molinero and Patrick Stevenson (eds), Discourses on Language and Integration: Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in Europe, 83–108. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Blommaert, Jan 1996 “Language Planning as a Discourse on Language and Society: The Linguistic Ideology of a Scholarly Tradition”. Language Problems and Language Planning, 20(3): 199–222. Bourdieu, Pierre 1980 ‘Le capital social: notes provisoires’. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 31: 2–3. Cameron, Deborah 2002 “Language: it’s just not cricket.” Critical Quarterly 44(2): 69–72. Castles, Stephen and Alistair Davidson 2000 Citizenship and migration: globalization and the politics of belonging. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Commission on Integration and Cohesion 2007a Our interim statement. London: Crown. Commission on Integration and Cohesion 2007b Our shared future. London: Crown. Chislett, William 2007 Spain going places. Economic, Political and Social Progress, 1975–2008. Madrid: Telefo´nica. Departament de Benestar Social 2005 Pla de Ciutadania i Immigracio´ 2005–2008. Dı´az, Arturo 09.11. 2004 ‘El nu´mero de extranjeros que solicitan la nacionalidad espan˜ola se triplica desde 1999’. El Paı´s.

The impact of language and citizenship policies on integration


Extra, Guus, Maximiliano Spotti and Piet van Avermaet (eds) 2009 Language testing, migration and citizenship: cross-national perspectives. London/New York: Continuum. de Catalunya, Generalitat 2006 Informe general de polı´tica lingu¨´ıstica 2005. Hampshire, James 2005 Citizenship and belonging: immigration and the politics of demographic governance in post-war Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Home Office 2008 The Path To Citizenship: Next Steps in Reforming the Immigration System. Border and Immigration Agency Communications Directorate. Home Office 2009 Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill. Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle, Clare Mar-Molinero and Patrick Stevenson (eds) 2009 Discourses on Language and Integration: Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in Europe. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Idescat (Institut d’Estadı´stica de Catalunya) 2007 Poblacio´ estrangera per paı¨sos, 2007. INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadistı´ca) 2007 Espan˜a en cifras 2007. McNamara, Tim and Elana Shohamy 2008 “Viewpoint: Language tests and human rights.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1): 89–95. Marı´n i Otto, Enric 13.09. 2006 ‘Immigracio´ i debat electoral’. El Punt. Milani, Tomasso 2008 ‘Language testing and citizenship: a language ideological debate in Sweden’. Language in Society 37(1): 27–59. Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales 2007 Plan estrate´gico de ciudadanı´a e integracio´n. Petrescu, Alexandru 24 07 2005 ‘Rumanı´a de Castello´n’. El Mundo. Prime Minister’s Office 2008 Speech on Managed Migration and Earned Citizenship, 20 02 2008. Soler, Montserrat 2007 Director of the Immigration Secretariat, Generalitat de Catalunya. Interview with Montserrat Barrera, 04.07.2007. UK Border Agency 2009 Government’s new bill shakes up the route to citizenship. Zapata-Barrero, Ricard 2006 Immigracio´ i govern en nacions minoria`ries: Flandes, el Quebec i Catalunya en perspective. Barcelona: Fundacio´ Ramon Trias i Fargas.

Chapter 8 Social actors and the language policy and planning process: A case study from German-speaking Lorraine (France)

Daniela Dorner

1 Introduction This contribution aims at presenting first results from a case study on language policy and planning processes in a minority context which has been carried out within the European project LINEE (Languages in a network of European Excellence). The issue of language policy and planning processes will be addressed from two different perspectives. Firstly, by describing language policy and planning processes against the backdrop of a minority context, the author seeks to shed light on the current practice of minority protection in one “old” member state of the EU involving a German-speaking minority in Lorraine (France). This will reveal discrepancies between language policy and planning activities on the European level and on the national/regional level. Secondly, an analysis of the role that social actors play in language policy and planning processes in the specific minority context should provide insights into the dynamics between the different sociological levels at play in social action, i.e. the macro-, the meso- and the micro-level. Given the strong interplay of these three levels, it will be of particular interest to show how language policy and planning processes influence and shape individuals’ attitudes and identities (micro) and how these changes in turn have an impact on the formulation of new policies (meso and macro). The aim of this twofold approach is to show that language policy and planning processes as an example of social human action are highly dynamic and therefore characterised by and dependent on the involvement of all social actors at all social levels.

158 Daniela Dorner 2 Context 2.1 Language policy and planning and minorities within the framework of LINEE The European continent is shaped by linguistic diversity, which can be seen as the outcome of historical developments but also as a product of ongoing changes and processes. European autochthonous “old” minorities are today perceived as forming an important part of this linguistic diversity. Since their ethnolinguistic mobilisation in the late 1960s, the minority issue has also become a policy area within the European Union (henceforth EU), which above all calls for conflict appeasement and problem solution. In 1993 with the formulation of the Copenhagen criteria, minority protection became an integral part of the accession conditionality. Moreover, signing the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is considered as a benchmark of the “new” member states’ commitment vis-a`-vis their minorities, whereas for the “old” member states of the European Union no such obligation was implemented.

2.2 Case studies and research design In order to fulfil the planned comparison between minority related policies of the “old” and “new” member states of the EU, three case studies have been carried out: one in Lorraine (France), one in Prague (Czech Republic) and one in Transylvania (Romania). All areas investigated are inhabited by a minority group that speaks German or German dialects – the present contribution will present the findings about the German-speaking minority in Lorraine by focusing on the role of social actors within the language policy and planning processes under investigation. This case study was conducted by the author herself and at the same time represents her PhD project at the University of Vienna. The research design was largely a qualitative one, focusing on the experiences of the social actors involved in the various stages of the policy planning process in order to “understand more about the complex and often contradictory perspectives behind apparently consensual policies and strategies formulated and ratified at different levels within the European Union and about the ways in which individuals position themselves in relation to the social orders shaped by these policies” (LINEE 2008: 3). As stated above, the methods of data collection were mainly qualitative (semi-structured and narrative interviews), with the analysis of policy

Social actors and the language policy and planning process


documents serving as the very starting point for each case study. The case study in German-speaking Lorraine was furthermore complemented by a quantitative survey (questionnaire).

3 Language policy and language planning in a minority context 3.1 Theoretical considerations 3.1.1 Language policy and planning processes A comprehensive theoretical conceptualisation of language policy and planning is still notably absent in this research area. There are several approaches and definitions (for an attempt at formulating an “Integrative LPP Framework” see for example Hornberger 2006) but as Thomas Ricento assumes, there is „no overarching theory of language policy and planning, in large because of the complexity of the issues which involve language in society” (Ricento 2006: 10). In the 1960s, Einar Haugen conceived of language planning as a human activity stemming from the need to find a solution to a certain problem (cf. Haugen 1966: 51–52, Haugen 1972). According to him, language planning can be subdivided into status planning (referring to the role of language within society) and corpus planning (referring to the language itself, cf. Haugen 1987a), both forms being closely interrelated: “The fact is that any change in the character of a language is likely to result in a change in the use environment, and any change in the use environment is likely to induce a change in the character of the language” (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997: 28). Robert Cooper added acquisition planning to Haugen’s classification, defining it as language spread policies, e.g. measures aiming to improve the learning and teaching possibilities for a given language (cf. Cooper 1989: 159). “[…] [A]lthough formal language policy making and language planning is a relatively recent development in terms of human history, as an informal activity it is as old as language itself, plays a crucial role in the distribution of power and resources in all societies, is integral to much political activity and deserves to be studied explicitly from this political perspective” (Wright 2004: 1). Language policy and language planning are generally concerned with the distribution of resources and, thus, of power within society (cf. Fishman 2006: 311). For this purpose, language can be exploited within language policy and language planning, which means that language is positioned within the social structure and that language determines who has access

160 Daniela Dorner to (political) power and resources. Hence, language policy and language planning become a means by which dominant groups (implicitly or explicitly) foster their hegemonic position with regard to language use (cf. Tollefson 1991: 16). As language policy and language planning occupy an important position in situations where dominant and dominated groups are in contact, the analysis of language policy and planning processes in a minority context represents a highly interesting field. In this contribution, the term “language policy” will be used as the overarching term subsuming activities that can be regarded as being part of language planning (corpus, status and acquisition planning), except for those cases where scholars deliberately use one term or the other. This simplification is taken up from previous research on language policy and language planning (cf. Ricento 2000; Rindler Schjerve and Vetter 2003; Grin 2003) in which language policy is understood as any measure aiming at the maintenance or modification of a societal (in particular linguistic) situation in an implicit or explicit way.

3.1.2 Social actors within language policy and planning processes Haugen already points out the fact that the individual, i.e. the single social actor, or the micro-level plays an important role within language planning. It must not be overlooked that every user of a language is in a modest but important sense his (her) own language planner. […] Some would exclude this aspect from language planning, limiting it to official bodies set up for the purpose. But their activities are fruitless if they are not in touch with the usages of the community and the needs of users. (Haugen 1987b: 627)

The more recent “Language Management Theory” also acknowledges the relevance of the micro-level within the language planning processes, which are conceived of as being located both at the micro- and the macro-level. This theory also explains how problems related to language are solved and implemented into discourse (cf. Nekvapil 2006, Nekvapil and Nekula 2006). The view that language planning cannot exclusively be located at the macro-level is also supported by Robert Cooper, who argues that “[…] the same processes which operate in macrolevel planning also operate in microlevel planning. […] In my view, language planning activities move upwards as well as downwards” (Cooper 1989: 37–38). But what is the exact role of social actors at different levels within language policy processes? If we perceive language policy as measures which

Social actors and the language policy and planning process


aim to change or maintain a present state or a given societal power constellation (cf. Rindler Schjerve and Vetter 2003) the question is: Who initiates these measures? Who takes the necessary decisions? Tollefson conceives of language policy (together with language planning) as of a general social theory which is not bound to certain social levels and which takes into account the close relationship between those levels (cf. Tollefson 1991: 16). Dennis Ager in turn concentrates on the 3 "traditional” actors individuals, communities and states in his research on the motivation for language policy and language planning (cf. Ager 2001: 6), thus involving both the macro- and the micro-level. Kaplan and Baldauf also stress the fact that language planning does not exclusively take place at the macro-level, speaking of “group or individual micro-level planning” (cf. Kaplan and Baldauf 1997: 27). In more recent research, Baldauf (2006) again emphasises that within language policy and language planning the macro- and the micro-level often work simultaneously and that the question of agency is a central issue to which in traditional research, however, little attention is paid (cf. Baldauf 2006: 154). But since the middle of the 1980s and the emergence of a post-modern critical approach to language policy and language planning, the question of agency has increasingly found its way into the research. This means that the role of individuals and collectives within processes which relate to language use, attitudes and political implementation is more and more in the focus (cf. Ricento 2000: 208). The inclusion of the micro-level, in turn, impacts on the potential research questions within the investigation of language policy processes and also on the methodological design. Why do individuals opt to use (or cease to use) particular languages and varieties for specific functions in different domains, and how do these choices influence – and how are they influenced by – institutional language policy decision-making (local to national and supranational)? The implications of this question are that micro-level research (the sociolinguistics of language) will need to be integrated with macro-level investigations (the sociolinguistics of society) […]. (Ricento 2000: 208)

In this context, the actors within language policy and planning processes can be located at the macro-level as well as at the micro-level, which are characterised by a highly dynamic and reciprocal relationship. We can thus assume that macro and micro represent a continuum in which any change of one factor has an effect on the other factors involved.

162 Daniela Dorner 3.1.3 Excursus: Macro-Micro and the sociological explanation process For a better understanding of the conceptual design of macro- and microlevel in sociolinguistics, it is worth looking into sociology, which mainly aims at developing theories to explain the behaviours of individuals within their social environment. In this process of developing sociological theories, the differentiation between distinct levels of social analysis (micro- and macro-level) can be applied, with the meso-level being optionally inserted as a linking device (cf. Johnson 2008: 104). Social systems are designed as multilevel-systems and always consist of at least a micro- and a macro-level. The individual actors are always participating micro-elements and constitute the aggregate macro-phenomenon by means of their contribution. At the meso-level, the operation of intermediary entities (e.g. associations or unions) can be observed, with these entities mediating between the micro-level of individual actors and the macro-level of e.g. the political system and thus substantially contributing to a balance of interests (cf. Esser 2000: 59–62). The separate levels are closely interconnected. Interactions in the microcontext influence larger social processes and macro-systems and vice versa (cf. Giddens 2006: 25–26). The micro- and macro-level thus do not constitute “self-contained levels of analysis”, but rather “interact with each other at all times” (Cicourel 1981: 54). Insights from sociological research confirm the sociolinguistic perspective in relation to language policy. According to this perspective, actors at the macro-level as well as those at the micro-level are to be taken into account due to the enmeshment of the social levels, with micro-level actors contributing substantially to shaping the macro-social world: “[…] it is the complex aggregation, combination and coordination of the(se) micro-level patterns of action throughout society that constitute the macro-level social world” (Johnson 2008: 10). Summing up we can say that within language policy, impetus comes both from the micro- and the macro-level. Between the two levels there is a dynamic relationship which means that measures cannot only operate “top-down”, but that they can also be shaped by single individuals (e.g. through their language use). This dynamic interrelation further implies that all actors (those at the micro-level as well as those at the macrolevel) can theoretically bring about changes within the social system. Besides, the close relationship between the social levels within language policy and planning processes implicates that every activity remains socially ineffective if (1) the activity is initiated at the macro-level without being adapted to the needs of the actors at the micro-level and if

Social actors and the language policy and planning process


(2) the activity starts at the micro-level without having consequences at the macro-level.

3.2 Methodological considerations 3.2.1 Socio-profiles Regarding the question as to how language policy processes at all social levels can be investigated, the method of so-called “socio-profiling” was used. Together with the analysis of documents relating to language policy in the single areas under investigation, the socio-profile should serve as the basis for the investigation into language policy processes and the implication of social actors into these processes. The so-called “socio-profiles” (cf. Darquennes 2005) go back to the “community profiles”, which were developed within contact linguistics. They were initially intended to represent an alternative approach to selecting informants (sample collection) (cf. Wo¨lck 1976, 1985: 32). The initial aim of this method is to discover the “major social distinctions or structural divisions in a community” and the potential connection of these structures with “linguistic features or differences in language use” (Wo¨lck 1985: 33). Certain social characteristics such as age, gender or occupational status are considered to be universal factors (cf. Darquennes 2005: 47). On the basis of the socio-profile, factors can be identified which influence attitudes and subjective reactions concerning language use (cf. Wo¨lck 2004). The socio-profile, therefore, allows for identifying potential social factors influencing language use, and thus represents a resource for formulating hypotheses and their operationalisation, for instance in the context of designing questionnaires. Since the socio-profile can also be useful for data interpretation, it represents a tool accompanying the entire research and cognition process (cf. Labrie and Vandermeeren 1996: 765). A starting point is provided by the profile of the community to be investigated, which is established on the basis of an ethnographic study using explorative techniques – such as the consultation of scientific investigations, interviews with people at the location, or observations (cf. Labrie and Vandermeeren 1996: 765) – and which focuses on qualitative details (cf. Wo¨lck 1985: 32). In this first phase of compiling a socio-profile, literature research is combined with visits to the area under investigation and interviews with privileged witnesses in a descriptive, qualitative investigation process (cf. Darquennes 2005: 48). The information gained this way can be grouped into categories: e.g. basic demographic information, distribution

164 Daniela Dorner of occupations, political structure, educational aspects, religious organisation, voluntary societies, habitation structure as well as means of communication and media (cf. Wo¨lck 1976: 51–52). Darquennes breaks down the socio-profile into individual aspects: geographic, demographic, economic, historical, political / relating to language policy, linguistic, cultural and instruction-related (cf. Darquennes 2005). The aim of the elaborated socio-profile is to facilitate the formation of hypotheses which are to be tested in the subsequent steps. Hypothesis formation is thus carried out in this context on the basis of an inductive approximation of reality involving qualitative research approaches (cf. Darquennes 2005: 49). The second phase in socio-profiling comprises survey design and interview. Ideally these components should be operationalised in the form of a fourfold interview (cf. Darquennes 2005: 56). This means that for instance in the case of language contact situations, in which the method of socioprofiling is frequently applied, a primary group from the minority, a secondary group from the minority, a secondary group from the majority as well as a selection of privileged witnesses is interviewed. The third and fourth socio-profiling phases are finally formed by the analysis of the data and the interpretation of the results (cf. Darquennes 2005: 56). The advantage of the method of socio-profiling consists in the fact that the researcher somehow “immerses” him/herself in the community to be investigated, carries out qualitative investigations and is thus able to efficiently identify the differentiating structural features mentioned at the outset. For this reason the sample can be kept relatively small without influencing the high degree of representativeness permitted by this method (cf. Wo¨lck 1985: 35). The advantage mentioned above, however, can also be interpreted as a disadvantage since the socio-profiling approach may present itself as too personalised, too subjective and thus not reliable enough, and as too time consuming and too expensive (cf. Wo¨lck 1985: 36). Moreover the question arises in how far it is possible to take into account all relevant variables (cf. Labrie and Vandermeeren 1996: 768). Not least due to these points of criticism aimed at the method of socio-profiling, an approach combining this method with others was chosen.

3.2.2 Cooper’s questions Robert Cooper offers another methodological tool for the investigation into language policy and planning processes in the form of a set of questions

Social actors and the language policy and planning process


which tries to capture the complexity of the factors involved in these processes (cf. Cooper 1989: 98): I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

What actors attempt to influence what behaviours of which people for what ends under what conditions by what means through what decision-making process with what effect?

Cooper’s approach clearly includes actors both at the macro- and the microlevel. Thus, the combination of the socio-profile and Cooper’s questions seems to be a promising device for investigating language policy processes and the role of social actors within them.

4 Results of the case study in German-speaking Lorraine (France) 4.1 Presentation of the region under investigation – a socio-profile The German-speaking minority in Lorraine (France) is in a special position on the one hand among the other minorities in France and on the other hand among other German-speaking minorities in Europe. This specificity is due to the following reasons: First of all German-speaking Lorraine can be subdivided into at least three different linguistic areas. In the Pays de Bitche and the Coal Basin (henceforth CB), the regional language is Rhenish Franconian but it is much more vital in the former than in the latter region (CB). Moving towards the north of the De´partement Moselle, one can find Moselfra¨nkisch and Luxemburger Fra¨nkisch. Again the vitality of the regional language may vary compared to the CB. Particularly Luxemburger Fra¨nkisch may profit from the fact that this variety is one of the three official languages in Luxemburg. This contribution only refers to the CB where all research was carried out (in the central town of the CB, Freyming-Merlebach). Another important aspect relates to the fact that the German-speaking area in Lorraine does not represent a geographically and administratively clearly distinct region like it is the case for e.g. the neighbouring German-speaking minority in Alsace. The De´partement Moselle (one of the 4 de´partements of the Lorraine region) is divided into two parts by the linguistic border between German and Romance Languages. The urban and administrative centre of the de´partement is located in Metz, a 100% French speaking town that also serves

166 Daniela Dorner as an intellectual hub offering the possibility to study at a fairly large university. However, there is no genuinely powerful urban centre within the German-speaking area (Moselle germanophone) as it exists for example in Alsace with the town of Strasbourg. As to the CB, the German city of Saarbru¨cken (which is the capital of the German federal state Saarland and where a university is located) is only a few kilometres away from the border, but it mainly attracts French people because of its shopping and entertainment facilities and does not serve as a “spiritual” point of orientation for the German-speaking community in Lorraine. The division of the de´partement into a French and a German-speaking part additionally represents an administrative obstacle to the elaboration and application of measures supporting the German-speaking minority. Furthermore in the literature, Germanspeaking Lorraine is often treated together with Alsace although these two regions differ in many respects. In the 20th century, an important period for the regional languages in Lorraine and in Alsace, the two regions basically share the same history. But since the end of the Second World War, Germanspeaking Lorraine has developed into a different direction with the result that “Alsatian” (the Alemanic dialect used in Alsace) is today much more vital than “Platt” (the Franconian dialect used in Lorraine). This is mainly due to differences in aspects relating to identity which themselves result from the unclear position of the German-speaking minority within the entire Lorraine region. Another important specificity of the CB is the high amount of people with an immigrant background. Since the beginning of coal mining, people from all over Europe (especially from Italy, Poland, Slovenia and more recently from the “Maghreb”) have come to Lorraine in order to work as miners. This development stopped when it became clear that the mines would be closed (which has been the case since 2004), but the mix of nationalities still represents the main characteristics of the region. It is important here to say that Franconian traditionally served as the language of the mines. Foreign workers were therefore integrated into their work place via the regional language, i.e. they learnt a new language which was required in the work place. But immigrants very often gave up their original mother tongue and replaced it by French in order to become French citizens (as if to say: “France gave me something to eat, the least I can do in return is speak its national language”). This implies that in the last thirty years, the Franconian dialect in the CB has been gradually replaced by the French language as the means of primary socialization. Therefore, only few persons belonging to the younger generation (born in the 1970s) still use Franconian in their everyday life. They often have passive competencies but are rarely capable of conducting a conversation in Franconian.

Social actors and the language policy and planning process


4.2 Research questions and hypotheses For the case study in German-speaking Lorraine (France), two main research questions have been formulated: The first research questions refers to the vitality of the autochthonous minority language of this region, Franconian (a German dialect): How vital is Franconian in the region under investigation? As previous research (Philipp 1989; Stroh 1993; Rupp 1999; Philipp 2003; Rispail 2003; Dorner 2003; Hughes 2005) shows that Franconian is declining in use and being replaced by French as the language of primary socialization, the second research question refers to the reasons for the ongoing language shift in German-speaking Lorraine. Here, it is hypothesised that French language policy (mainly in the field of education) is responsible for the decline of Franconian because this policy influences the population’s attitudes and identities (and is in turn influenced by the population itself) and their language use. It is this second research question which represents the framework for the present contribution.

4.3 Research tools In the case study on the German-speaking minority in Lorraine (France), several research tools were used. First, the socio-profile of the community under investigation was established with the help of desk research (from 2002 onwards), a stay in the region (October 2003 to May 2004) and some qualitative interviews with experts (November 2002), policy-makers, stakeholders, teachers, etc. (cf. Dorner 2003). Second, a questionnaire for a quantitative survey was developed. This survey was conducted in July 2007 with a sample of 700 randomly chosen persons in Freyming-Merlebach, a town in the centre of the Lorraine coal basin. Third, qualitative interviews (conducted with 11 persons in July 2007 and February 2008) supplemented the field research. All these research tools were applied to obtain an answer to Robert Cooper’s questions, this way shedding light on the influence of social actors within the ongoing language policy processes.

4.4 Results Until the French Revolution there are only very few measures which influence the linguistic situation in the Moselle germanophone. But during the French Revolution language becomes a political instrument and French is declared the language of the revolution. In 1794, Abbe´ Gre´goire tries to

168 Daniela Dorner record which languages are actually used on the French territory through a survey with the title Sur la ne´cessite´ d’ane´antir les patois et d’universaliser l’usage de la langue franc¸aise [On the necessity of extinguishing the dialects and spreading the use of the French language] and concludes that French is only spoken by a minority. As a consequence, the regional languages of France are reduced to “patois”, and in a speech in 1794 Bare`re denounces each regional language separately. He announces that French will become the “langue universelle” and calls German a language of emigration and hatred. In order to propagate French, measures are primarily aimed at school education, which should spread the revolutionary concepts among the population in French. The period from 1800 to 1833 constitutes a calm phase with regard to language policy. In 1833, French classes are introduced in all schools with the Loi Guizot. The results of this school reform are very diverse, but still a noticeable increase of French classes until 1850 can be observed. From 1850 to 1870, French is propagated intensively and methodically. At the end of the French regime it becomes apparent, however, that the aim of a complete Frenchification has not been reached despite all efforts (cf. Le´vy 1929: 205). With the annexation of the De´partement Moselle to Prussia, a change of roles can be noted: German becomes the national language, French is tolerated. The French speaking population emigrates due to these measures, but “l’e´migration d’e´le´ments francise´s fut de loin de´passe´e par l’immigration d’e´le`ments allemands” [the emigration of French elements was by far exceeded by the immigration of German elements] (Le´vy 1929: 342). The First World War disrupts a development which may have led to the absolute dominance of the German language (cf. Le´vy 1929: 477). During the war, language is turned into a political element again and the policy of Germanisation, which proceeded rather gently until 1914, resorts to more rigorous measures. The use of the German language is also pushed in bilingual regions. In 1918, a long period of Germanisation is followed by a period of Frenchification pursuing the aims purifier, centraliser, assimiler. French becomes the only language of instruction, and teachers using the so-called me´thode directe in their classes, exclusively speaking French, are recruited from the heart of the country. In the light of this policy, the initial enthusiasm with which France was welcomed in 1918 is followed by disillusionment in which the so-called malaise identitaire is rooted. When Lorraine and Alsace “returned” to France after the Second World War, it was one of the main goals of the French government to frenchify these regions as rapidly as possible. The first and maybe most important

Social actors and the language policy and planning process


step was to promote the French language (Il est chic de parler franc¸ais.) while systematically suppressing the German language and therefore also Franconian. School was the preferred domain for this language policy to be applied and pupils were for example punished for speaking Franconian at school. But also the German-speaking population itself wanted to become French, as there was a strong will for assimilation since too many horrible events that had occurred during the war were connected with Germany and the German language. Regarding language policy in the school domain it is important to add that Franconian has not been included into the first document regarding the teaching of regional languages in France, i.e. the Loi Deixonne (1951). Furthermore, the school-leaving examination option Langue et Culture re´gionales which was created in 1982 (Circulaire Savary), was introduced in Lorraine only in 1986. In 1990 the first text dealing exclusively with the role of Franconian in the school system is published (Circulaire rectorale langue et culture re´gionales: Voie specifique mosellane). This document speaks of a variety of dialects in use in the De´partement Moselle which have one thing in common: their language of reference, German, which is therefore regarded as the “true” regional language. This statement leads to another specificity of German-speaking Lorraine: The teaching of standard German is strongly promoted while Franconian is given very little space in the school system. This policy moreover relies on a powerful economic argumentation since it is much easier to find work in Germany than in France and therefore knowledge of German becomes a professional asset whereas people do not see any advantage in speaking/learning Franconian. In 2007 Franconian was even excluded from the regional language programmes for the e´cole primaire (Arreˆte´ du 25 juillet 2007 sur les programmes de langues re´gionales pour l’e´cole primaire). After the protest of the Fe´de´ration pour le Lothringer Platt. Union des associations pour la de´fense de la culture francique en lorraine, the regional language of German-speaking Lorraine was reintroduced keeping the term langue re´gionale d’Alsace et des pays mosellans and rejecting the term francique luxembourgeois, mosellan et rhe´nan, which would have been the Federation’s proposal. The Fe´de´ration pour le lothringer platt mentioned above represents a forum for “bottom-up” language policy (located at the meso-level) and comprises all associations in Lorraine which fight for the promotion of Franconian: Bei uns dahem (BUD)Wei lang nach? and Gau und Griis. The central claim of BUD (located in the coal basin, in Freyming-Merlebach) is the achievement of trilingualism francique-franc¸ais-allemand in German-speaking Lorraine. Furthermore, from 1999 until the beginning of 2008 Franconia operated a

170 Daniela Dorner platform on the internet ( Despite the existence of the Fe´de´ration, we can say that in general the pressure coming from the population itself (especially in the CB) is weak or nonexistent, respectively. This behaviour results from the malaise identitaire, i.e. the fact that due to history, and mainly because of the Second World War, German-speaking Lorrains could not form a proper identity in which Franconian is firmly rooted. This identity problem in turn represents a breeding ground for language policy measures aiming at promoting French. The ongoing language shift in the De´partment Moselle may also be regarded as the result of an implicit power relationship between members of the German-speaking community and “genuine” French citizens which were born after the Second World War. This unequal relationship led to prejudices and stereotypes concerning all aspects related to Germany and was the reason for the already mentioned malaise identitaire. Interviewees say that prejudices and stereotypes relating to German do still exist in a very subtle manner but they all believe that European integration and the French-Germanfriendship will contribute to the quick disappearance of such prejudices particularly among the young generation of Lorrains. Nevertheless, the decline of Franconian is a fact and although interviewees often regret that it is disappearing and speak about their regional language in a nostalgic way (saying e.g that it is part of the local heritage, or the language of the older generation), they have not passed it on to their children and are in most cases incapable of explaining this choice.

5 Conclusions The case study in German-speaking Lorraine shows that regional and minority languages in France (an “old” member state of the EU) are not necessarily well protected although within the EU’s mainstream language policy minority protection is clearly included. However, one has to take into account that the situation in the De´partement Moselle is a very complex one which probably cannot be compared to that of the other minorities in the French territory. Nonetheless, French language policy has for a very long period been hostile vis-a`-vis all regional languages, and the conditions (social, historical, political, geographical etc.) in German-speaking Lorraine have made it even easier for this policy to be successful. Answering Cooper’s questions we can say that (I) the actors within French language policy since 1945 belong above all to the educational system. In this domain (II) the language behaviour of the (III) younger

Social actors and the language policy and planning process


generations can be influenced most easily. This is why (IV) the generation born shortly after the Second World War, whose mother tongue was Franconian, was frenchified via school, and these individuals only rarely passed on Franconian to their children. In the light of the French-German partnership, French language policy no longer aims at circumventing the German language. On the contrary, standard German as being the “neighbour’s language” and also a European language is central to the conception of the teaching of foreign languages in the De´partement Moselle whereas the regional language figures less prominently in education and is constantly running the risk of disappearing from the curricula. This development can be explained by the (V) conditions under which French language policy is being conducted. Although Europe is nowadays united and pacifist and respects linguistic diversity, we cannot erase the past. In German-speaking Lorraine, the German-hostile language policy after 1945 has its origins in the Second World War. This dreadful conflict has caused a collective trauma in Moselle germanophone, which may serve as an explanation for the population’s passivity vis-a`-vis the Frenchification. Under these conditions (VI) all forms of language policy measures are promising. After years of absence of Franconian in the education system, it is evident that its re-introduction into school is very difficult, all the more since its vitality is weak and since the pupils no longer possess the necessary competences. As regards the (VII) decision-making process behind the current French language policy in German-speaking Lorraine, the choice of the language to be promoted is very important. The choice of standard German rather than Franconian as the regional language to be taught is justified by the following arguments: Standard German represents the umbrella language of Franconian, it is the “language of the neighbour”, facilitates transborder contacts and is standardised and thus “teachable”, which means that textbooks, curricula, teachers etc. are available. The effects (VIII) of French language policy since 1945 can be seen in the current decline of Franconian in German-speaking Lorraine. Hence, the initial goal, i.e. the Frenchification of the population, has been reached. Language policy processes in German-speaking Lorraine are mostly initiated at the macro-level, i.e. measures to promote French or German/ Franconian normally originate from official institutions and are in most cases put into practice in the field of education. However, for this policy to succeed, impetus or cooperation from the micro-level is required, be it in the form of teachers adequately following the curricula or in the form of parents choosing a language of primary socialization for their children. In this context, the sociological and psychological prerequisites in

172 Daniela Dorner German-speaking Lorraine contribute to the success of a language policy more or less hostile to the regional languages, as attitudinal aspects and issues related to identity do not allow for a clear identification with Franconian and thus for clear bottom-up micro initiatives in favour of the regional language.

References Ager, Denis 2001

Motivation in Language Planning and Policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 119. Baldauf, Richard B. 2006 Rearticulating the Case of Micro Language Planning in a Language Ecology Context. Current Issues in Language Planning 7(2/3): 147–170. Cicourel, Aaron V. 1981 Note on the integration of micro- and macro-levels of analysis. In: Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Aaron Cicourel (eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology. Toward an integration of micro- and macro sociologies, 51–80. Boston: The University of Chicago Press. Cooper, Robert L. 1989 Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darquennes, Jeroen 2005 Sprachrevitalisierung aus kontaktlinguistischer Sicht. Theorie und Praxis am Beispiel Altbelgien-Su¨d. St. Augustin: Asgard Verlag. Dorner, Daniela 2003 Mo¨glichkeiten der Revitalisierung des Lothringischen vor dem Hintergrund des „Europa der Regionen“. Vienna: MA thesis. Esser, Hartmut 2000 Soziologie: Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 2: Die Konstruktion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt / New York: Campus. Fishman, Joshua A. 2006 Language Policy and Language Shift. In: Thomas Ricento (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy. Theory and Method, 311– 328. Oxford: Blackwell. Giddens, Anthony 2006 Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fifth fully revised and updated edition. First published in Cambridge (Polity Press) 1989. Grin, Franc¸ois 2003 Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Social actors and the language policy and planning process Haugen, Einar 1966 Haugen, Einar 1972 Haugen, Einar 1987a Haugen, Einar 1987b


Linguistics and Language Planning. In: William Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics. Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference 1964, 50–71. The Hague: Mouton. Language Planning in Modern Norway. In: Joshua Fishman (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Languages, 673–687. The Hague: Mouton. Blessings of Babel. Bilingualism and Language Planning. Problems and Pleasures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Language Planning. In: Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar and Klaus Mattheier (eds.), Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Band 1, 626–637. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Hillmann, Karl-Heinz 1994 Wo¨rterbuch der Soziologie. Fourth edition. Stuttgart: Kro¨ner. Hornberger, Nancy C. 2006 Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning. In: Thomas Ricento (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy. Theory and Method, 24–41. Oxford: Blackwell. Hughes, Stephanie 2005 Bilingualism in North-East France with specific reference to Rhenish Franconian spoken by Moselle Cross-border (or frontier) workers. In: Bent Preisler, Anne Fabricius, Hartmut Haberland, Susanne Kjærbeck, and Karen Risager (eds.), The Consequences of Mobility, 135–153. Roskilde: Roskilde University. Johnson, Doyle Paul 2008 Contemporary Sociological Theory. An Integrated Multi-Level Approach. New York: Springer. Kaplan, Robert B. and Richard B. Baldauf Jr. 1997 Language Planning From Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 108. Kelle, Udo 2001 Sociological Explanations between Micro and Macro and the Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods [43 paragraphs]. FQS Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Art.5. Labrie, Normand and Sonja Vandermeeren 1996 L’analyse du profil de la communaute´. In: Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary and Wolfgang Wo¨lck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgeno¨ssischer Forschung, 1. Halbband, 764–770. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

174 Daniela Dorner Le´vy, Paul 1929 LINEE 2008 Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı 2006

Histoire linguistique d’Alsace et de Lorraine. Vol 2: De la Re´volution franc¸aise a` 1918. Publications de la faculte´ des lettres de l’universite´ de Strasbourg, 48. Paris : Les belles lettres. Research Area Report: Thematic Area B.

From Language Planning to Language Management. Sociolinguistica 20: 92–104. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı and Marek Nekula 2006 On Language Management in Multinational Companies in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 7(2/3): 307–327. Philipp, Marthe 1989 Les dialectes ale´maniques et franciques en France. In: Les relations entre la langue allemande et la langue franc¸aise. Wissenschaftsforum der Universita¨t Heidelberg octobre 1988, 79–88. Paris: Conseil international de la langue franc¸aise CILF. Philipp, Marthe 2003 Le Francique de Moselle. In: Bernard Cerquiglini (ed.), Les langues de France, 45–57. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Ricento, Thomas 2000 Historical and theoretical perspective in language planning and policy. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2): 196–213. Ricento, Thomas 2006 Language Policy: Theory and Practice – An Introduction. In: Thomas Ricento (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy. Theory and Method, 10–23. Oxford: Blackwell. Rindler Schjerve, Rosita and Eva Vetter 2003 Historical sociolinguistics and multilingualism: Theoretical and methodological issues in the development of a multifunctional framework. In: Rosita Rindler Schjerve (ed.), Diglossia and Power. Language Policies and Practice in the 19th Century Habsburg Empire, 35–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rispail, Marielle 2003 Le Francique. De l’e´tude d’une langue minore´e a` la sociodidactique des langues. Paris: L’Harmattan, Collection se´mantiques. Rupp, Beatrix 1999 Die Vitalita¨t des Lothringischen. Untersuchung des Sprachwechselverhaltens in der Gemeinde Mittersheim. Vienna: MA thesis. Stroh, Cornelia 1993 Sprachkontakt und Sprachbewußtsein. Eine soziolinguistische Studie am Beispiel Ost-Lothringens. Tu¨bingen: Narr. Tollefson, James W. 1991 Planning language, planning inequality. Language policy in the community. London: Longman.

Social actors and the language policy and planning process


Wo¨lck, Wolfgang 1976 Community profiles: An alternative approach to linguistic informant selection. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 9: 43–57. Wo¨lck, Wolfgang 1985 Beyond community profiles: a three-level approach to sociolinguistic sampling. In: Peter H. Nelde (ed.), Methoden der Kontaktlinguistik. Plurilingua V, 31–43. Bonn: Ferdinand Du¨mmlers Verlag. Wo¨lck, Wolfgang 2004 Sampling and interviewing: community profiles revisited. In: Peter H. Nelde (ed.), Mehrsprachigkeit, Minderheiten und Sprachwandel. Plurilingua XXVIII, 167–171. St. Augustin: Asgard Verlag. Wright, Sue 2004 Language policy and language planning. From Nationalism to Globalisation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Part III: Multilingualism and Education

Chapter 9 English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?

Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman

1 Introduction One of the potential contradictions facing foreign language use in Europe is that as English is added to linguistic repertoires it is the learning of English itself which may be a force inhibiting further multilingualism (Phillipson 2003). There is general concern that as English has become a dominant foreign language in Europe, it may act as a force restricting or preventing the learning and even use of other foreign languages besides English (House 2003). In the countries of the new member states, where the learning of other major European languages is lagging behind other countries (Eurydice in Brief 2005), this may be a particular problem. The overall question that this paper addresses is this controversial relationship between English and multilingualism in Europe. We approach this issue through data collected on language learning and use in educational settings in Hungary and the Czech Republic, focusing on three different but related topics. First, we look directly at the issue of how opportunities for students to become multilingual in a particular setting are potentially limited or not utilized due to the dominant role of English. Second, we look at students’ attitudes towards the use of nonnative speaker (NNS) and native speaker (NS) English. And finally, we are interested in the role that NSs of English themselves play in multilingual contexts as English has become the dominant foreign language in Europe.

180 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman 2 Literature review At the outset it is important that we define how we interpret the concept of multilingualism as this has direct bearing on our research and results. We take as a starting point the connection between multilingualism and multicompetence. Here, following a recent interpretation by Hall et al. (2006) of the concept introduced by Cook (1992), we see the movement between monolingualism, bilingualism and multilingualism not just in terms of the addition of extra language codes, but rather in terms of the expansion of the linguistic repertoires which speakers can bring to specific contexts. These expanded repertoires may indeed involve different codes, but also involve an individual’s ability to communicate in a specific context. Thus, according to Hall et al. (2006), multicompetence is linked to language use as it occurs in context. Alternatively, these contexts of language use may be seen as communities of practice, that is, sites of social learning defined by the criteria of mutual engagement in shared practices, participation in some jointly negotiated enterprise and making use of members’ shared linguistic repertoire (Wenger 1998). When individuals traverse different communities of practice, they are likely to use different repertoires and codes. Thus, it is with reference to these contexts that multicompetence, and thus multilingualism, can be best understood. We will return to these points later in discussing our data. English most certainly plays a key role in the development of multilingualism in Europe (Coleman 2006; Graddol 2006). The emergence of English as a global language not only has led to the majority of foreign language speakers in Europe to become bilingual in English (Eurobarometer 2005), but also to the fact that NNSs are communicating more with other NNSs rather than they are with NSs of English (Kachru 1996: 241; Graddol 2006). Thus, the ability to speak English or communicate using English in English as a lingua franca (ELF) situations provides potential access into multilingual contexts. It is, however, far from clear whether English and/ or ELF in reality support “English only” (see Phillipson 2003, chapter 1) or “bilingualism with English” (Hoffmann 2000). In other words, there is yet not enough evidence as to whether English or ELF facilitate or inhibit the movement from bi- to multilingualism. Furthermore, we assume that speakers’ attitudes towards NS’ and NNS’ use of English play a role in developing multilingualism and multicompetence in that their attitudes may influence their goals in language learning, choice of model, and view of themselves as a speaker of English. By attitudes, here we mean “predispositions to respond to (speakers of) specific

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


languages/speech styles and language situations with a certain type of (language) behaviour” (Vandermeeren 2005: 1319).Teaching and learning English has traditionally been realized as English as a second language (ESL) or as a foreign language (EFL). Both approaches draw heavily on the NS and NNS distinction and emphasize the superiority of the former (Jenkins 2007). Native speakers are believed to serve as target language models in English language teaching and as authorities of language ability concerning correctness and appropriateness (Lesznya´k 2004: 25–30). Phillipson (2003) places these traditional models of English teaching within the diffusion of English paradigm and associates them with monolingualism, subtractive learning, linguistic and cultural imperialism, hieararchization, homogenization and ideological globalization. Whether ESL and EFL will eventually lead to “English only” remains to be seen. By now we may only conclude that they have led to many people becoming bilingual. More recently, however, ELF talk has challenged the traditional approaches to the teaching of English and, necessarily, the relationships between NSs and NNSs. By definition, ELF communication arises in multilingual settings whereby NNSs of English interact with other NNSs of English (Jenkins 2005). ELF is not a unified “variety”, but language in use in a particular situation (Seidlhofer 2005). From another perspective, it can be seen as a variable code with substratum influenced features (see Thomason and Kaufman 1988, chapter 5) whose form is situationally dependent and potentially at variance with perceived native speaker norms and use. Concerning the roles of the NS and the NNS, the “privileges” traditionally reserved exclusively for NS are now attributed to the NNS (I-Chun 2006). Conforming to NS norms is considered not only irrelevant and inappropriate (Lesznya´k 2004; I-Chun 2006) but also unrealistic (Coleman 2006). ELF allows more realistic pedagogic goals as it encourages accent addition rather than accent elimination. This model is in great harmony with the ecology of languages paradigm which promotes multilingualism, linguistic diversity, additive learning, equality in communication, the maintenance and the exchange of cultures, localization, democratization and human rights (Phillipson 2003). It is in this controversial context of at least three distinct approaches to learning and using English in which users of English can often find themselves and where their attitudes towards and understanding of different varieties can play a key role. Finally, NSs of English themselves play a key role in this situation and they are inevitably implicated in questions of the larger sociopolitical role

182 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman that English plays in Europe. A key issue is the degree to which the domination of English as the main European lingua franca and its strong perception as cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986) is a detriment to other languages in the quest for multilingualism and multicompetence throughout Europe – particularly concerning “smaller” European languages such as Czech and Hungarian, and other potential lingua francas such as German and French. That is, the question is whether the role of English and its native speakers is an “imperialistic” one (Phillipson 1992). Thus English speakers may be seen and see themselves as possessing cultural capital, defined as the societal (and, ultimately, economic) advantages individuals have based on the education, skills and knowledge they have been able to acquire (Bourdieu 1996). And they may also be seen as participating in linguistic imperialism, defined by Phillipson (1992: 47) as “the dominance asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages.”

3 Methodology To investigate this complex relationship between English and multilingualism, we have chosen to use data from participants who are engaged in contexts where the learning and use of English and other languages is of focal interest to them. Our data comes from three sources taken from a larger research project carried out between 2006 and 2008. First, our primary source of data comes from semi-structured interviews which were carried out with a diverse group of 26 Erasmus students who were interviewed in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Our main reason for choosing these students as participants is that they form a natural community of NN English users with members having come from across Europe who had clear experience studying and living in a multilingual context. Furthermore, similar groups to this can be found at universities in most other European countries. We chose to use semi-structured interviews centred around pre-planned topic nodes in order to give participants the opportunity to speak at length and develop their responses in the general direction that they wanted to. Thus it was our hope that participants would lead the conversation in directions that were of interest to them and that considered we may not have. We also used two further sources of data in order to provide additional viewpoints on specific topics. First, we carried out semi-structured interviews with 18 students, teachers and administrators at two secondary schools in Szeged, Hungary, a town of 175,000 residents situated in

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


Southern Hungary. This data is best seen as forming a case study, rather than a survey of schools in Hungary, and was gathered to give insights into the educational opportunities afforded a group of relatively inexperienced student users of ELF in a specific context, different from that of Erasmus students. This data comes from an elite university prep secondary school, and a vocational school. Second, in order to provide further data on native speakers and their views, a corpus of threads from internet forums dealing with the use of English in Europe, particularly as concerns NSs of English, was collected, containing 15 threads and a total of 410 individual contributions. A variety of forums were investigated which included world-wide, European, Czech, and Hungarian forums.1 Interviews with all NN students were carried out in the same semistructured format, usually involving groups of three students who were interviewed by the two NN English speaking authors. Interviews with Erasmus students were carried out in English, and thus through their discussion of their use of English, they both clarified and exemplified the role of ELF in Europe and their attitudes towards it. Interviews with secondary school students were carried out in Hungarian, which was the L1 of both the students and of the interviewers. An interview protocol was developed around several topic nodes concerning participants’ linguistic background, experiences and views on English. Our aim here was not necessarily to elicit specific data or answers to questions, but in the context of conversation to move the group of interviewees to discuss key issues, exchange views, tell stories, and provide information concerning their use and learning of English and other languages in their specific context. Furthermore, as a specific task to promote discussion and the exchange of views, we had the students listen to speech samples of English, rate and discuss them. These speech samples presented different NSs and NNSs of English reading a common text, and our goal in using them was not to collect quantitative 1 Nine internet forums were monitored for this study. Two were world-wide with sections for countries in Europe. These forums focused on native English speakers as potential teachers and people employed based on their native knowledge of English. Discussions dealt with economic issues (salaries, etc.), position of English speakers in the societies of various countries, learning local languages, etc. One European-wide forum was monitored which focused on European general issues, including language policy and use. It was divided into forums for all EU official languages, but most of the discussion took place on the English language forum. Furthermore, five Czech-based and one Hungarian-based forum were also monitored.

184 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman data concerning attitudes, but to stimulate further discussion and exchange of ideas among participants. Interviews with teachers and administrators were carried out in a similar manner, though the topic nodes were related to education rather than their use of language, and they did not carry out the speech sample rating task. Concerning the internet forum research, the data collection procedure consisted of the following steps. First, a range of internet discussion forums which deal with English native speakers in Europe were monitored (including their archives, which reach back as early as 2001). Second, the definitive selection of the forums for further investigation was made: two world-wide forums with sections devoted to Europe, one European-wide forum, five Czech-based forums and one Hungarian-based forum. On the basis of the volume of posts concerning language use, it was determined that the European-wide forum, one of the world-wide forums, and one of the Czech forums would be the primary sources of data. Third, forums were monitored for threads and posts dealing with English native speakers, particularly as concerns the learning of English in contrast with the learning of other languages. And fourth, key words and phrases were sought out in the collected threads. The main key words were “language” (including “official language”, “working language”, “language learning”, etc.), “English”, other languages such as “French” and “German”. The threads selected were subsequently summarized and analyzed.

4 Results We will present our results in groups which relate to the three themes outlined above.

4.1 Multilingualism: Goals and opportunities Based on our sample of interviews with Erasmus students and secondary school students, there is little evidence in our data to claim that ELF is disadvantageous and prevents the speakers from adopting personal goals of becoming multilingual. Quite the contrary. As English is considered to be understood by everyone, it helps the Erasmus students to gain entrance into their local, multilingual community of practice. The newly formed communities in Szeged and Prague which we have investigated are not ideal communities in the respect that they have no expert members, but newcomers only. Everyone in the community, over time and in response

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


to others’ forms of participation, learns together about how to participate most meaningfully. By participation, the students themselves establish the norms, practices and codes which they find appropriate in the given community. English, the primary means of communication in our data, is soon adjusted to local practices and needs, thus becoming the tool for expressing group membership as well. The students are conscious of the functions and values of their emerging new code and take much pride in it. It appears that as stronger ties develop between the members, so does the appreciation of this code, along with a lesser concern about being “correct” (see example 1). Thus the Erasmus students, far from entering into a world where English is dominant, have entered into a multilingual world where English is used as a lingua franca. (1) I liked very much with the English here to speak English with non-native speakers it’s the funny new words or new pronunciations that emerge and then you just keep those because you like them so much and not important anymore to say in the right way and even more fun to create this new language. (German student)2

In addition to facilitating access to multilingual settings, ELF gives the opportunity to learn further languages. Since the Erasmus students’ communities of practice are comprised of native speakers of various different languages, the students are in the fairly advantageous position in that they may both practice their previously learnt foreign languages with and learn further foreign languages from the native speakers of those languages (see examples 2 and 3). (2) There are some Erasmus students that try to speak French with me. They are proud to say they know some French words, and it’s the same for me when I try to speak German. (French student) (3) People tell their words to others, the words in their language and, and it is one of the topics of conversation always that “how is it in your language?” 2 Since transcribing is in essence a representation (Cameron 2001: 31), we left out the unnecessary details and transcribed only those features which were relevant for our research goals. Unless otherwise indicated, the participants are quoted verbatim.

186 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman “how is it in your”, and you, you already learn the new, new words and new things. (Estonian student)

And it is indeed the case that the Erasmus students take these opportunities to become further multilingual. What is more, the vast majority of the Erasmus students take time and effort to learn the local language to some degree, even if, on a global scale, the local language, Hungarian or Czech in our data, is not considered very useful. They attend formal local language classes and report that they may just as well engage in informal language circles and tandem language learning, where pairs teach and learn languages from each other. Their learning of the local language serves not only practical purposes, but also has symbolic reasons. They wish to make the impression of a respectful, polite foreigner with a status more than that of a tourist (see example 4). (4) If you don’t want to feel as a guest all the time because I think if you just speak English everywhere, you feel a tourist wherever you are. Of course you can’t be a local but maybe something in between and for that you need some language skills. (German student)

Thus, using the local language is considered not only useful, but also appropriate regardless of whether the locals tend to speak English or not. It is therefore fairly disappointing for the visiting students if, despite their effort to practice their local language skills, the locals shift to a foreign language, mainly to English or German. In sum, as the Erasmus students’ communities of practice in Szeged and Prague demonstrate, English is first used to gain access to multilingual settings and then to improve or learn further foreign languages. Participants who have studied elsewhere in other localities, such as France, Italy and Spain, report that English does not, or eventually ceases to, fulfil the above purposes, giving way to the local languages. While it remains to be seen what role English plays in such contexts, it is obvious that it is far from preventing the Erasmus students from becoming or remaining multilingual. We may thus conclude that the Erasmus students’ communities of practice serve as nice examples for a group of people who are happy to be multilingual. The interviews conducted with secondary school students provide further evidence, shown below, for the claim that success in learning English does not necessarily reduce speakers’ motivation to become multilingual even

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


when the students are not immediately engaged in a multilingual community of practice. In our data, students who are indeed interested in learning English due to their success and expectations for use are no less interested in learning other foreign languages. That is, participants report that their success in English does not limit their desire for learning further languages. As one student puts it, nowadays one foreign language is not enough. The other students in our data seem to know this already and study their two foreign languages quite ambitiously. Those students who have obtained a sufficient command of English and have passed, at least, an intermediate level language exam now put time and effort into improving their second foreign language. Some of them even voiced the need for a reversal of the emphasis on English and wish they would now have a greater number of second foreign language lessons (see example 5). These students expect to use their foreign languages as a tool both in Hungary and abroad, and are ready to learn further foreign languages. (5) We have had enough many classes from English but we are having too few from our second foreign languages [our translation]. (Hungarian secondary school student)3

As the secondary school students we interviewed in Szeged, Hungary are not interacting in a multilingual setting on a daily basis like their Erasmus counterparts are, their opportunities to become multilingual are largely dependent on the choices offered by the schools they attend. These schools offer a relatively wide range of foreign languages, yet English does dominate the agenda as the most widely taught foreign language in both schools. At present, this practice is optional, but from 2011 on, it will be the rule to offer English as the required first foreign language due to a change in the national curriculum, which sets the number of hours in which a particular language is to be taught. Nevertheless, both schools we have investigated currently offer a relatively wide range of choices for second foreign languages including German, Spanish, Italian, French, Russian and Latin, though the number of classes is far fewer than English. In the elite school more foreign language courses in a more flexible format are offered than compared to the vocational school, where there are currently only two 3 The interviews with the Hungarian secondary school students were conducted in their L1, Hungarian. The Hungarian interview data was transcribed in English with the researchers summarizing the content.

188 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman choices besides English. Both schools also have international programs which allow students to take part in training and events with their European peers. Thus, both secondary schools take at least three cautious steps to help make their students multilingual. One, they set the learning of two foreign languages as obligatory; two, they offer a variety of foreign languages; and three, they provide opportunities for foreign travel or study. However, the picture is not all bright: English definitely dominates the language learning agenda. As the cases we presented above demonstrate, English comes first and all the rest of the foreign languages come second. Even the teaching of German, which has had a long tradition in Hungary, is now dramatically declining in these schools. Thus, while the desire is there on the part of more successful secondary school students to become further multilingual in languages other than English, the opportunities are potentially being reduced due to a general perception that English is more important. In sum, then, the Erasmus and secondary school students we have interviewed all point to the possibility that their ability to speak English is not limiting their goals of becoming multilingual. For the Erasmus students, it is their engagement with a multilingual community of practice which validates and stimulates their views concerning the importance of being multilingual. Furthermore, in both groups of students, these desires are met with various opportunities for the further learning of languages, which the students report taking advantage of. 4.2 Multilingualism and the effects of attitudes towards varieties of English Data concerning the attitudes of NNS of English towards native English and non-native English come from our interviews with Erasmus students. Two important themes emerge from our data. First, these students are not necessarily learning and using English as a code only, but are in fact, in the contexts we have investigated, enhancing their multicompetence, something which involves, among other things, the appropriate use of a range of linguistic skills and repertoires in a specific context (Hall et al. 2006). Second, and closely related to the first point, the participants value the ability and the possibility to express their own personal culture through their use of English rather than identify with an English NS culture. According to our interviewees, NS English is considered different in several ways from the NN English that these students use and experience in their Erasmus communities. First, most often the difference occurs in

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


terms of comprehensibility. NS English is reported to be difficult to understand for many reasons. This is largely due to the perceived features of NS English which are reported by our subjects as problematic: quick speed, local accents, and unfamiliar vocabulary. In general, this means that Erasmus students feel that it is significantly easier to understand NNS English, as seen in example 6. (6) I see that if I’m in the middle of people that are not English and they’re speaking English and so there is no problem understanding them, probably my obstacle was that to understand like really English people talking. (Italian student)

Furthermore the Erasmus students frequently report that the features of the English they use among themselves for purposes of communication are different and more variable than NS English, yet more comprehensible than NS speech, as seen in example 7. (7) Well, I don’t have any example but I agree that it’s like that and Erasmus English is totally different than the real English, but it’s like we have uh different accents, dif, we use uh these words and it’s not like correct at all, it’s like quite awful sometimes [laughs], but it’s good, we can understand each other, so. (French student)

Because of the relative difficulty in comprehending NS speech as compared to NN speech, our subjects report feeling more relaxed when talking to NNS speakers of English than when talking to NS of English, and more insecure when talking to NSs. Also, we asked participants to overtly reflect on which variety of English they felt was most appropriate for a European NN speaker of the language, a task which was done with reference to recorded speech samples during the interviews. In answering this question, participants often made a distinction between models and goals. A model is something to which the speakers adjust their English yet, at the same time, keeping in mind that this model is not necessarily an achievable goal. While, for example, in the speech sample rating task (see section 3) participants almost exclusively chose a native accent as a model, on the other hand they almost exclusively chose the competence of a speaker with a high but “understandable” level of English rather than native competence as a goal, as can be seen in example 8.

190 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman (8) I don’t want to I don’t want to sound British or American, like uh I just, I don’t mind if I have a, my own accent, I just want to speak clearly and good English. (French student)

In general, an opinion widely reported by our participants is that NNSs should follow native English norms because, they claim, there aren’t any other norms to adjust to as they believe there is no stable “European variety of English”. By saying this, they support the claim that ELF is not a variety, the features of which can be codified, but language in use, the norms of which are negotiated online (e.g. Firth 2009; Hu¨lmbauer 2007). Thus they report their goal should be something different than matching the model (see example 9). (9) I think that there is nothing wrong, there is some model and it is naturally it is native, native language speakers are the models. But I think that it’s not the question of what is the model but what emphasis is put on it because we shouldn’t stress, I don’t know, force students to achieve, like perfect grammar, or something like this. Because I think that the point is to use the language to put the students in some, I don’t know, some situations like communicative situations. And so it’s not the question of the model for me. (Polish student)

There are several other reasons reported why their models are different from their goals. First, they note that a non-native speaker can never achieve accent-free NS competence after a certain age. This obviously parallels the view of those (e.g. Chambers 2003: 179) who argue that over the age of 14 attempts to acquire native speaker accents will almost certainly remain fruitless. The second concerns the ELF users’ needs: they tend to emphasize that they are going to speak to other ELF users more in the future than to native speakers, just like they do now. What this actually shows is that they are very much aware of the recent trends Kachru (1996: 241) points out – namely, that the NNS of English already outnumber the NS in a ratio of about 5: 1. From this follows the recognition that they need to be able to communicate appropriately with NNSs, not NSs. Finally, the participants also emphasize that the point is to be able to communicate in English and not to speak an accent-free English – a variety of English which would also hide one’s native culture. This is clearly in line with Po¨lzl and Seidlhofer (2006) who argue that ELF speakers need and,

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


when and where appropriate, create a space for expressing their L1 cultural identity, a theme which we will return to below. Beyond the above issues of linguistic form which were discussed by participants, many of them noted that they are actively learning how to communicate in ELF contexts. That is, concerning ELF, the primary means of communication within the Erasmus community of practice, the emphasis is not so much on the linguistic forms as on the way of communicating. Thus, participants quite often commented on the mode of interaction apparent in ELF contexts. They believed that cooperation and accommodation, often in the form of code-switching, borrowing and using special words and phrases which are largely meaningful only within the group, are essential features of ELF talk. Many times they expressed their surprise and satisfaction that this way of interacting “works”, suggesting that this is something new for them (see examples 10 and 11). (10) […] nobody knows (maybe) the rules and often we are listening some words and then we try to express them other way and for my example my, my grammar is, but I think everybody understands what I want to say, and it’s the same with all the other Erasmus students. Everybody use the grammar of his own language and put it, puts it into English, and it works [laughs], somehow it works. No? (German student) (11) When I, when I speak to non-native speaker, she or he may not know something, some words or something and we have to find a conclusion between us. (Estonian student)

This cooperative nature of communication can also be seen in participants’ use of the term “Erasmus English” to describe the new and highly group – specific elements of language which are created and used within the group. The fact that the participants are aware of these features points to the conclusion that accommodation and negotiation, as suggested by Jenkins (2005, 2000), are indeed essential features of ELF interactions, and what remains to be seen is how these features are actually manifested in the speakers’ language use. This kind of accommodation (Giles, J. Copeland and N. Copeland 1991) is characteristic of communication in the Erasmus community, not only to aid in comprehension, but to express and understand the cultural diversity inherent in the community. Their cultural diversity can be captured in the way one of the participants describes the English an individual NNS speaks,

192 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman saying that it is a mixture of some native English variety and his or her native language and culture. Due to this diversity of languages and cultures, accommodation simultaneously allows for the creation of group cohesion and the resolution of communication problems. And as, in fact, it is exactly on this point of accommodation that NSs of English fall short, they are therefore often not seen as complete, caring or concerned members of the group. As will be discussed below, NSs of English are seen as speaking their native language as if to other native speakers, while NNSs of English are engaged in a more complex process of communication as outlined above. Furthermore, resulting from these above circumstances, issues of personal identity stand out in the data. We find evidence that participants are asserting and negotiating their own L1 identity through English, rejecting the hierarchical relationship with native speakers and the identification of themselves with the native speaker group. While some traditional discussions of second pedagogy have spoken of taking on a “new identity” through learning and using a second language (for example, Brown’s 1987 discussion of acculturation), the participants in the current study in many cases are using English to assert themselves and their own cultural identity, not to join a NS culture (see example 12). (12) […] so that I am carrying my own culture and if I don’t speak a good English I am speaking, I don’t know, the people can say that I’m a foreigner and I, I love that, I, I don’t want to OK, in a way I would love and I would be really proud to that the people don’t recognize that I am not English, but I love the fact that I am the foreigner and that I’m even I make […] I mean if you speak perfectly English you would hide your own culture. (French student)

The fact that the ELF participants consider expressing their L1 identity in ELF important implies that ELF is both a means of communication and of signalling identity. Concerning identity, as Po¨lzl and Seidlhofer (2006), Po¨lzl (2003) and Cogo (2007) point out, ELF provides space for signalling the speakers’ L1 as well as multicultural identity. In our participants’ case, acculturation happens, but clearly it is acculturation into the temporary Erasmus group, rather than to some NS group. In sum, what is happening is that they are asserting their own identity and also learning how to interact within the Erasmus community. To put this in terms of multicompetence, what they are doing, then, is adding to their linguistic repertoire, not joining a NS culture. Finally, there are several lines of evidence from the interviews with Erasmus students which show that the participants who have experience in

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


communities where English is used as a lingua franca undergo a change in their attitudes towards English and its use. First of all, many participants undergo a change from focusing on the correctness of their speech to focusing on using language for communication, and this is an experience which is directly related to the multilingual context in which they are using English (see example 13). (13) […] maybe you we have some time some bad grammar and mistakes or something like this but it’s not the problem. We can share opinions, we can we discuss, we have the common language so and it’s very good. (French student)

This point is further emphasized in the frequent discussion in the data concerning the view that they believe the communicative function of language is more important than what, according to the participants, was a largely forms-focused approach to English which they experienced in language classrooms. It should be pointed out, though, that while participants focus on the communicative function of language, they are also keenly aware that grammar and lexis are a part of the foundation of communication. That is, they are not rejecting awareness of form as unimportant in language learning, nor do they, to a large extent, consider themselves using a reduced or simplified form of the language, but now consider the use of form in communicative context. In this way, these participants are expressing rather clearly the concept of “focus on form” found in the second language acquisition literature (Long 1991), which notes the necessity of learning forms as the need for them naturally arises in context. Thus in the context of experiencing and developing the Erasmus community, participants may have changed the way they understand using and learning English. To sum up, then, the attitudes of the NN speakers we have interviewed suggest that the Erasmus students in Szeged and Prague are not necessarily “speaking English”. Rather, they are expressing and developing their multicompetence by being multilinguals who use their linguistic repertoires by negotiating what is appropriate in the given context of their community of practice while they also retain and represent their own L1 identity.

4.3 Multilingualism and the role of English native speakers in Europe Three issues with reference to NSs will be discussed in this section: the relationship between NSs of English and NNSs in the Erasmus community,

194 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman the learning of other languages by NSs, and finally the larger sociopolitical context that English and its NSs are a part of in Europe. First, according to the interviews with members of the Szeged Erasmus community, English native speakers run the risk of becoming outsiders in the community due to a perceived lack of ability to communicate in ELF contexts. Thus, rather than being central members of the community due to the mastery of the code and possessors of a high degree of cultural capital, NSs run the risk of being peripheral members of the community to the degree that they do not accommodate and cooperate in this ELF community of practice. NSs, then, are often seen as the source of communication problems rather than the solution, due systematic differences between NS and NNS ways of communicating in English. The implications of this are that NSs are not necessarily the beneficiaries of entitlements due to speaking English as a native language in these communities, but are, in fact, potentially at a disadvantage to the degree that they do not recognize the differences between NS and NN speech and practice the new, cooperatively developed rules for communication which exist in the ELF community. In a sense then, it is being a NS of English which makes being a member of the multilingual ELF community difficult as they may be lacking in the basic prerequisites for participation. This situation gives NNSs, as expressed in our data, the opportunity to positively differentiate themselves from NSs. While participants make reference to the traditional belief that native speakers are custodians of the “real English” (and even hope that NSs will correct their “mistakes”), it is quite frequently pointed out, as noted above, that NSs speakers may not necessarily communicate well in an ELF context, not due to differences in proficiency between the two groups, but due to NSs of English not accommodating and cooperating in their communication. That is, NNSs are learning that speaking English is not so much about mastery of the code as it is about communicating in a way which is appropriate for the context (Jenkins 2005). It is in this sense that, as time goes on, the NNSs of English may become the experts and the NSs may remain as novices, something which is mentioned as a source of pride by NN speaking participants (see example 14). (14) […] I was really embarrassed I mean in the beginning […] I was like I remember the first months I was always like “oh I’m really sorry for my level, I’m really, I’m really sorry” and because I was ashamed I think. And now I mean I don’t care about the native speaker because most of

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


them don’t speak an any other language, so that’s not my problem I, I don’t speak perfectly English but I speak some other language […]. (French student)

Furthermore, from what has been presented, then, NNSs in ELF contexts appear to be aware that they are substantially different from monolingual native speakers of English in a complex and multifaceted way. What this appears to be, then, is consciousness, in the folk linguistic sense (Niedzielski and Preston 2000), on the part of NNSs of their multicompetence by virtue of having the appropriate linguistic repertoires for interaction in a variety of contexts. This consciousness of being “multicompetent” is potentially empowering for at least some of these participants as is seen in several of their comments already. Second, a key issue is whether or not English NSs learn other foreign languages when given the opportunity, and for this we turn to the data collected from internet forums involving NNS in Hungary and the Czech Republic. According to the data, there are various perceived reasons on the part of some NNSs concerning why these opportunities for learning other languages are not taken. Here the question of who should be expected to learn which language and at what level arises and directly concerns the issue of multicompetence and what models for it should be established for native speakers of various languages. Starting from the view that perfect (grammatical) knowledge of English is not and should not be required of NNSs, that a working competence is sufficient, and that a Euro-version of English can be developed which need not sound like “Britspeak”, there is also a call heard on the internet forums for taking the focus off the “perfect”, native-like command of other languages for NS of English. This is depicted in a somewhat problematic manner, particularly as concerns the new member states, their economic situation, and the status of their languages (e.g. Czech, Hungarian) as less-commonly taught outside of the countries. Furthermore, many generalizing statements on the forums thus arise, often perpetuated by those self identifying as native speakers. For example, there are the generalizations that native English speakers are dependent upon goods and services in their own language, that they live in a “ghetto” surrounded by other English-speaking people, and that they do not “need” to learn local languages. Furthermore, there exist the claims that local language speakers in the new member states do not allow native English speakers to speak the local language (e.g. Czech or Hungarian), do not tolerate less than perfect grammar, and are incapable of “foreigner talk”, that languages such as Czech and Hungarian are

196 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman inherently difficult for native English speakers, and that language pedagogical methods in the new member states are out of date and not effective (compared to imported TEFL or TESOL methods), thus discouraging foreigners from learning the language. Thus self-declared NSs offer various explanations and reasons for why learning a local language such as Hungarian or Czech is problematic. Ironically (as these same participants often state) this leads to their further separation from local communities. Finally, it is necessary to note that the relationships between NSs and NNS are not only played out in local communities, but are affected by the larger sociopolitical context in which English and other languages and their speakers operate. In this context, the concepts of English as cultural capital or linguistic imperialism come into play. One way to view these constructs is as part of a binary relationship, where a potential learner is either gaining in cultural capital, or contributing to linguistic imperialism. And one important question is whether one or the other of these constructs is dominant. We can begin to find answers to this question by looking at the broader context. In it, foreign language knowledge and formal foreign language education (especially when the foreign language is English) is depicted as cultural capital in discourses which present it as “an investment into the future” or in other economic metaphoric terms. As one European forum participant expressed it: “Whilst it is good to know English, it is even more important to learn to master one’s mother tongue. On the other hand, as English rapidly becomes the universal foreign language of the world – without any centralised agreement or command – the command of other languages becomes a competitive advantage”.4 Linguistic imperialism is depicted in the European forums in several ways. One is that the problem with English is that it does “belong” to some native speakers in Europe, who are thus able to act in a dominant manner, otherwise it would be no problem to use it as a European lingua franca. Another is that in dealing with the question of English it is not only a question of Europe, but of the whole world, as some posters point out, English is “politically not acceptable, (mostly because of US)”.5 On the other hand, some participants reject this idea, claiming that learning English merely requires being open to the world around you. As another poster notes, “it is the language people in Asia, Africa, the Americas know already how to speak, at some level. We do not have to all speak English as the Brits or Yankees do.

4 The author self-identifies as being from Finland. 5 The author self-identifies as being from Poland.

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


English is like an open source language. I do not consider English property of the British or the Americans. It is like ‘freeware’”.6 Based on the data from the monitoring of the various types of websites for all speakers of English, native and non-native, it can be observed that the learning and use of English involves dealing with the inevitable conflict between these two constructs. That is, the participants who most strongly promote the idea that the domination of English is “linguistic imperialism” are either declared native speakers of it themselves (on the expat forums) or are declared users of it at a high level (on the European-wide forums). Individuals who might consider English alone as “cultural capital” are less vocal on web forums (or not participating on them at all). Participants on the forums who do consider it cultural capital in any sense tend rather to consider it as such only in combination with other foreign language knowledge and competence in one’s own mother tongue. In sum, then, NSs and NNSs of English interacting in multilingual contexts in Europe are placed in a complex situation. Even though NSs speak English, this does not ensure their effective participation in multilingual communities, something which is furthermore affected to the degree that opportunities to become multilingual are not taken advantage of. NNSs, on the other hand, may find that in certain communities they are in a more advantageous position. Finally, the larger socio-political roles that English plays in Europe and in the world provide a particular context for NSs and NNSs of the language and, through the ideologies associated with these roles, these speakers are also influenced in their language use.

5 Conclusions and implications A consistent pattern which has been seen in the above data is the complex relationship between individuals, English and multilingualism. We feel though, that several conclusions can be drawn concerning the three areas of our research. Our findings show that speaking English allows people to enter into communities which they may not otherwise have had access to. That is, speaking English has a facilitating effect on making connections between people and cultures, something all of our participants are aware of. Nevertheless, according to our participants, speaking English in a lingua franca context is not a substitute for learning a local language or other widely spoken 6 The author self-identifies only as being a NNS of English.

198 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman languages. What we consistently find in our interviews with NNS students is reference to the usefulness of English, while at the same time, the desire, plans and effort to become multilingual beyond speaking English. Thus, although they have gathered first hand experience of the usefulness of English, the people we have interviewed have quite positive attitudes towards increasing their linguistic repertoires. This definitely has to do with their having become members of a well established multilingual community. These positive attitudes, though, need to be met with resources and opportunities for becoming multilingual and multicompetent, otherwise without such resources, people may rely only on their English knowledge and not seek out and find opportunities to develop their multilingualism. Furthermore, we see the need for these opportunities at all levels of education, from secondary schools, universities, and formal contexts in which adults can learn. For example, in interviewing university students, we find that they still have educational needs in specific, new linguistic environments that they may be in, and that they have plans for further multilingualism in their lives. Moreover, as we have frequently seen reference in our data to the vast formal and informal opportunities available for learning and using English, it may be possible to direct resources of time and money away from teaching and learning English and towards supporting lesser learned languages. Furthermore, through our interviews with students studying abroad in the Erasmus program, we find clear evidence that NN speakers of English can form temporary communities of practice where English is used as a lingua franca where these speakers, many of whom are highly proficient in English and various other foreign languages, are best described as being multicompetent. In the context of their temporary community of practice in Szeged and Prague, it is multicompetent people who appear to be most successful and valued, not necessarily NSs of English. This awareness of multicompetence is empowering, especially when compared to the negative feelings that NN speakers of English report having about their own English. Thus, we feel that there is great potential in deemphasizing the dominant position of NSs of English in contexts where English is used by NN speakers. While this does not directly address the hegemonic position that NSs of English have, this view of English has the potential to encourage and support equality among speakers of English and the development of this resource for true intercultural communication. Furthermore, given the empowering nature concerning knowledge of how English is used in Europe, it may be good practice to provide learners of English with information concerning the contexts in which they are most likely to be using English. If people will be

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


using as English a lingua franca for communication with other NNSs in Europe, then they need to be prepared for this reality. Finally, our data has shown that English NSs, particularly those living in countries where English is not an official language, are at risk of not being able to communicate effectively in Europe, since, as noted above, successful participants in English conversations with multilingual individuals are not necessarily those whose native language is English, but those who can truly be seen to be multicompetent. It can be considered necessary and therefore good practice to promote the two types of language learning with NSs which contribute to their multicompetence. The first would be the learning of effective ELF communication. The ability to appropriately communicate in an ELF context is not necessarily an ability inherent to native speakers of English. Therefore, English NSs should learn (and be taught) to speak in a manner such that they are understood by NNSs and can interact appropriately in the given context. Second is the acquisition of other European languages such that NSs are able to at least begin interactions in the local language, rather than automatically assuming English competence of others. In conclusion, while our research needs to be interpreted within the specific contexts in which it was done, there is potential for this analysis to add to the discussion of English and multilingualism in Europe, particularly in understanding the complex relationship between NN communities of English users, attitudes towards English, and NSs of English. The powerful and hegemonic role of English in Europe cannot be denied, yet we feel that our above conclusions can lend depth and texture to the understanding of the situation concerning English and multilingualism.

References Bourdieu, Pierre 1986 The Forms of Capital. In: John G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, 241–258. New York: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, Pierre 1992 Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brown, H. Douglas 1987 Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Second editon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents. Cameron, Deborah 2001 Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.

200 Donald W. Peckham, Karolina Kalocsai, Emo˝ke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman Chambers, Jack K. 2003 Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Second edition. Maiden, MA : Blackwell Publishers. Cogo, Alessia 2007 Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: a case study. Unpublished dissertation. London: King’s College. Coleman, James A. 2006 English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching 39: 1–14. Cook, Vivian 1992 Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42(4): 557–91. Eurobarometer 2005 Europeans and Languages. Eurydice in Brief 2005 Foreign language learning: A European priority. Eurydice in Brief March 2005. Firth, Alan 2009 Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the workplace and (some) implications for SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics 47: 127–156. Giles, Howard, Justine Coupland and Nikolas Coupland (eds.) 1991 Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Graddol, David 2006 English Next. London: The British Council. Hall, Joan Kelly, Cheng An and Matthew T. Carlson 2006 Reconceptualizing Multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(2): 220–240. Hoffmann, Charlotte 2000 The spread of English and the growth of multilingualism with English in Europe. In: Jasone Cenoz and Ulrike Jessner (eds.), English in Europe: the acquisition of the third language, 1–21. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. House, Juliane 2003 English as a lingua franca: a threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4): 556–578. Hu¨lmbauer, Cornelia 2007 ‘You moved, aren’t?’ − The relationship between lexicogrammatical correctness and communicative effectiveness in English as a lingua franca. Vienna English Working Papers 16(2): 3–35. Jenkins, Jennifer 2000 The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, Jennifer 2005 Teaching pronunciation for English as a Lingua Franca: a sociopolitical perspective. In: Claus Gnutzmann and Frauke Intemann

English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe?


(eds.), The globalisation of English and the English language classroom, 145–158. Go¨ttingen/Tu¨bingen: Gu¨nter Narr. Jenkins, Jennifer 2007 English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, Braj B. 1996 The paradigms of marginality. World Englishes 15(3): 241–255. Kuo, I-Chun (Vicky) 2006 Addressing the issue of teaching English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 60(3): 213–221. ´ gnes Lesznya´k, A 2004 Communication in English as an International lingua franca. Norderstadt: Books on Demand. Long, Michael 1991 Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In: Kees de Bot, Ralph B. Ginsberg and Claire Kramsch (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross Cultural Perspectives, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Niedzielski, Nancy A. and Dennis R. Preston 2000 Folk linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. Phillipson, Robert 1992 Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, Robert 2003 English-only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. Routledge: London. Po¨lzl, Ulrike 2003 Signalling cultural identity: the use of L1/Ln in ELF. Vienna English Working Papers 12 (2): 3–23. Po¨lzl, Ulrike and Barbara Seidlhofer 2006 In and on their own terms: the “habitat factor” in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 151–176. Seidlhofer, Barbara 2005 English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59(4): 339–341. Thomason, Sarah and Terrence Kaufman 1988 Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Vandermeeren, Sonja 2005 Research on language attitudes. In: Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier and Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics, 1318–1332. Second edition. Berlin: Walter de Gyuter. Wenger, Etienne 1998 Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 10 European multilingualism, “multicompetence” and foreign language education

Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou1

1 Introduction This chapter draws upon the activity of one of the workpackages within the LINEE thematic network (Workpackage 8), which was concerned to research evolving conceptions of multilingualism within the domain of formal education in Europe today. The main focus was on second/foreign language education, which lies at the heart of efforts to promote and sustain multilingualism in Europe; the workpackage was titled Traditional pedagogic cultures in foreign language education and the need for multicompetence. A first phase of concentrated theoretical work set out to clarify the related concepts of multilingualism, plurilingualism and multicompetence, from the different disciplinary perspectives of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and education. This was followed by a phase of small scale empirical research, conducted by the research team during 2007–2008 at three main locations: Szeged (Hungary), Bolzano (South Tyrol, Italy) and the south of England. At each location a small number of secondary schools were visited by members of the research team. Interviews, questionnaires and/or focus group discussions were conducted with teachers and students at the different sites, concerning attitudes to multilingualism and to the extension of students’ linguistic repertoires through second/ foreign language learning within formal education. Observations supported by videorecording were conducted in second/ foreign language classrooms at each site (focussing on German as a second/ foreign language, a choice governed

1 The authors acknowledge the contribution to all aspects of the research project reported here of the other members of the research team: Gessica DeAngelis, Katalin Petneki, Gerda Videsott.

204 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou by the fact that this language played a significant part in the school curriculum at each location). The resulting datasets (questionnaire findings, interview and focus group transcripts, lesson transcripts) were analysed at each individual location to produce initial reponses to a shared set of research questions regarding participants language attitudes and the prevailing pedagogic cultures. A full synthetic report has been produced drawing together the findings from all three locations (Mitchell et al. 2008) and relating these to public policy discussions. This chapter first of all (Section 1) introduces the concept of “multicompetence” as it has been interpreted and elaborated by the team to illuminate language education practices in formal educational contexts. In Section 2, the chapter reviews briefly the stated goals of contemporary language education policies in the European context, pointing out some tensions between various formulations of “mulitilingualism” and “plurilingualism”, and highlighting in particular the normative and discrete conceptualisations of language competence which underlie historical educational policy. Section 3 explores the expressed attitudes of student participants towards contemporary societal multilingualism and the expansion of their personal language repertoires (i.e. their language “representations”: Gueunier 2003). In Section 4 the conceptualisations of language competence and multilingualism which prevail in contemporary second/ foreign language classrooms are briefly examined. The concluding section draws together the empirical findings on both attitudes and practices, and evaluates the relevance of multicompetence as a goal for current educational practice. 2 Multicompetence from psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives One of the main objectives of the project reported in this chapter was to elaborate the concept of multicompetence with reference to education, following the wider focus of the LINEE thematic network which is, “from bi- to multilingualism: history, acquisition and measuring “multicompetence” today” (LINEE 2006: 25). The team focused on clarifying the construct, together with its implications for future education policies. This conceptual work took into account theories from psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and education as well as the framework offered by the Council of Europe on plurilingual communicative competence. Sections 1.1-1.2 discuss the concept from these different theoretical perspectives. Section 1.3 offers an interim definition of multicompetence which the team have proposed for use in educational settings (De Angelis 2007).

European multilingualism


2.1 Linguistic and psycholinguistic theories of “multicompetence” In the early 1990s, the linguist Vivian Cook (1991) first proposed the notion of multicompetence to fill what he saw as a theoretical void in linguistics discussions. He had observed that L1 competence and L2 competence were usually treated as separate systems in the literature when in his view they should be treated as components of a single integrated system. The bilingual mind, Cook argued, does not have separate compartments, and since “L2 users do not have two heads, their mind must be different at some level of abstraction” (Cook 1992: 585). The word “different” in this context implied that the integration of knowledge caused some kind of adjustment or change within the mind. The notion of multicompetence was thus proposed to capture two fundamental aspects of the human mind: the integrated state of its knowledge in the presence of two languages, and the adjustment that such an integrated state entailed. Central to Cook’s argument is the idea that both the linguistic systems and the conceptual systems of bilingual speakers are affected by the presence of additional language knowledge. Empirical research in support of the “multicompetence” concept in this sense can be broadly divided into two major strands. The first is concerned with defining how an individual’s L1 may be affected by the presence of an L2. It compares the L1 of monolingual speakers with the L1(s) of bilingual speakers and examines potential differences in the lexicon, pragmatics, phonology, syntax and writing systems (see Cook 2003). While the approach has its critics who view it as to some extent internally contradictory (Hall, Cheng, and Carlson 2006), it has nonetheless provided evidence to support claims of “difference” between monolingual and bilingual minds. The second line of inquiry examines more broadly the effects of multilingualism on cognitive development (De Angelis 2005, 2007). Research may focus on the L1, the L2 or third or additional languages. Empirical evidence in support of the cognitive effects of multicompetence has mostly focused on bilingual speakers (see e.g. Bialystok 2004), but some further insights are also available from research with multilingual speakers. So far, they have been shown to develop an increased awareness of language in comparison with bilinguals; they have also been shown to be more flexible in their thinking, less anxious in the learning process and simply more effective in a range of learning tasks (see review in De Angelis 2007). The educational implications of this psycholinguistic perspective on multicompetence have been discussed previously in the literature. Cook (1991, 1997) pointed out the existence of a monolingual bias in both research and educational practice, which originates from viewing

206 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou competences as separate from one another. Central to Cook’s arguments is the idea that it is not appropriate for a bilingual mind to be measured against monolingual norms (Cook 1997). In some SLA literature, arguments have been advanced against the “biased” practice of assessing and measuring second language competence or performance according to monolingual norms, even though L2 learners or speakers are not monolingual by definition and will never be able to reach monolingual standards (Baker and Jones 1998; Cook 1995, 1997; Grosjean 1992; De Angelis, 1999, 2005; BleyVroman 1983). The implications for language teaching and assessment are substantial. On the one hand, thinking in terms of separate languages (and competences) only leads to setting unrealistic goals in the language classroom and, most of all, the introduction of flawed testing practices. On the other hand, ignoring the possibility that competences may overlap with one another or that language knowledge may be deeply interconnected in an integrated system means limiting the opportunity for learners to build upon what they already know (Jessner 2006). In recent years, advocates of “communicative” approaches to language teaching have encouraged to some extent the relaxation of rigid barriers between languages in classroom instruction. For example, L2 teachers are increasingly encouraged to allow some use of learners’ L1 in the L2 classroom if this is considered helpful. However, in general, school language curricula and assessment systems remain founded on normative models of the “target languages” to be taught; even in the case of English, now used as a worldwide lingua franca, acceptance of non-standard forms in educational contexts remains controversial (see e.g. Preisler 1999; Jenkins 2007). One aim of the research study discussed below was to explore contemporary classroom pedagogic practice, so as to document the extent to which the integrated nature of language competence may be visible and acknowledged by classroom participants.

2.1.1 Neurolinguistic perspectives From an evolutionary linguistic perspective, the notion of multicompetence may be taken considerably further; language is seen as variable on both individual and phylogenetic levels, and is acknowledged to develop adaptively in terms of its environment (Johansson 2005). Increasing empirical support for this perspective is coming from the neurological research methodologies adopted in recent decades. In general terms these have shown that the brain is plastic, and potential synaptic neuronal assemblies consolidate and reinforce each other through repeated

European multilingualism


interconnection. Studies have shown, for example, that musicians exhibit distinct brain structures compared to non-musicians (Gaser and Schlaug 2003), that the volume of grey matter in the posterior part of the hippocampus of taxi drivers is greater that that of a control group (Maguire et al. 2003) or that in blind subjects the occipital lobe, that in normal cases is responsible for visual features, is activated for linguistic purposes (Ofan and Zohary 2007). From this neurolinguistic perspective, language can be seen as a capability which can be compared basically with all other human capabilities, for example with walking. Indeed, it can be argued that the brain knows no discrete “languages” such as German or English, whether as L1 or as L2. The trend of recent neurolinguistic research indicates that a specific common neuronal substrate underlies the capability for language (a capability that must be considered as the sum of various subcomponents, like articulation, memory, etc.), independently of individual language codes. This claim was supported by a study at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano in collaboration with the Clinical University of Ulm that set out to analyze a relatively homogenous group of quadrilingual subjects (speakers of Ladin, German, Italian and English) undertaking an object naming task (Videsott forthcoming). The scientific technique used (functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI) produces results must be interpreted with caution given the innovative nature of the technology. However they support the existence of a common neuronal network with only minimal differences between the individual languages. Different activation was found, not in the classical language areas but primarily in the right prefrontal cortex and in the cerebellum, which suggests that this difference mainly reflects different levels of facility in memory recall (e.g. for pronunciation) rather than cross linguistic variation. It was further shown that different levels of activation exist across languages only when different “naming accuracy/ proficiency” is present – from which it may follow, that variations in fluency are mainly responsible for different types of activation, rather than structural/ systemic differences between languages. Such neurolinguistic evidence suggests that discrete language codes may not actually exist a priori, either in our brain or in language use. The classification of language behaviour into individual languages depends on the application of the language system, i.e. it only makes sense to classify languages a posteriori. In such a view, the definition of “multicompetence” must be understood with reference to specific applications. An adult is more “multicompetent” than a child, because of a richer history of language use (including e.g. literacy practices). Similarly, anyone who speaks “more

208 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou languages”, and therefore possesses a more differentiated word store or a greater variety of grammatical structure(s), will normally be “more multicompetent” than someone who continually uses the same limited language registers. However the common assumption, that follows the traditional use of the expressions “monolingual” and “bilingual” and following which a bilingual individual must by definition be “more multicompetent” overall than a monolingual speaker, is challenged by this neurolinguistic perspective. Overall this new area offers stimulating insights and challenges to existing perspectives. However it is not sufficiently well established as yet for firm educational implications to be drawn.

2.1.2 Sociolinguistic and educational perspectives on “multicompetence” The foregoing section reviewed the linguistic and psycholinguistic origins of the concept of “multicompetence”, and briefly explored the fresh insights into the concept being provided by the new research area of neurolinguistics. However the main focus of the LINEE research reported in this chapter is on current language attitudes and practices in formal second/ foreign language education. From this perspective, a “usage-based view of multicompetence” is needed (Hall, Cheng and Carlson 2006). From a sociolinguistic perspective it is also necessary to note the possible (though not necessary) contrast between the notions of “multilingualism” and “multicompetence”. As Lu¨di (1996) remarks multilingualism can be individual, territorial, social, institutional, all of which are obviously interrelated but not necessarily co-occurring: in particular a multilingual territory is not necessarily inhabited by multilingual individuals. A useful bridge between psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives is provided by the notions of “plurilingualism” and “plurilingual communicative competence”, identified in Council of Europe documentation as a desirable goal for second/ foreign language education (Council of Europe 2001): The plurilingual approach emphasises the fact that as an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other people (whether learnt at school or college or by direct experience), he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. In different situations, a person can

European multilingualism


call flexibly upon different parts of this competence to achieve effective communication with a particular interlocutor […] From this perspective, the aim of language education is profoundly modified. It is no longer seen as simply to achieve ‘mastery’ of one or two, or even three languages, each taken in isolation, with the ‘ideal native speaker’ as the ultimate model. Instead, the aim is to develop a linguistic repertory, in which all linguistic abilities have a place. This implies, of course, that the languages offered in educational institutions should be diversified and students given the opportunity to develop a plurilingual competence … The full implications of such a paradigm shift have yet to be worked out and translated into action. (Council of Europe 2001: 4–5)

Whatever the precise structure and organization of language system(s) in the mind and the brain, we follow the Council of Europe in finding the notion of a “plurilingual repertory” helpful, when attempting to clarify how multicompetence may be manifested in language use. That is, where individuals can indeed “call flexibly on different parts” of their internal language system, for a variety of purposes and to achieve effective communication with speakers from a range of “monolingual” and/ or “multilingual” backgrounds, our assumption is that multicompetence in use can be observed. The early development of language in the young child may involve input from one or more discrete language varieties (discrete at least in performance and perception, whatever their status in the mind of the fluent speaker). Thus children’s earliest language systems may integrate material from one, two or several varieties. Subsequent contact with other language systems beyond the language input(s) of the home entails various sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and linguistic effects. On the sociolinguistic level the individual (and the community, if the contact affects a group of people) is confronted with changes in experienced linguistic repertoires and in domain configuration, as new discrete language varieties are encountered in the environment. The more languages are added in a community, the more complex the picture, because each language fills a space and shapes and constrains the space of the others (on this see also Clyne 1998). In particular, the social role of the first language may be affected. Studies of language ideologies and language policies remind us that in a multilingual society, all languages are not equal. Instead there is a clear division among languages characterized by overt prestige (international, national or regional standard languages) and others characterized by covert prestige (local varieties, local dialects, autochthonous minority languages) or by no prestige at all (migrant minority languages). However, a “multicompetence” perspective encourages us to

210 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou consider in a descriptive and non-judgmental way the linguistic practices of a multilingual society, including the use of non-standard varieties, codemixing, and language crossing (Rampton 1995) as well as the language practices of lingua franca users, semi-speakers and second/foreign language learners. Here the link between sociolinguistic (and language policy) issues on the one hand and psycholinguistic and acquisition issues on the other hand becomes clearer in that a variety of phenomena emerge that may affect language knowledge (=multicompetence) over time. The different functions and the different roles that languages have in a community (or an individual’s) repertoire, have effects on language form, in terms of acquisition, development and attrition, as well as other effects such as directions of borrowing, type and quantity of code switching, and kind and direction of grammatical convergence (see e.g. Dorian 1989 on attrition; Selinker 1972 on acquisition; Thomason 2001 on grammatical convergence; Clyne 2000 on emergence of ethnolects). Formal education and the powerful ideological, normative and practical support it lends to particular standard language varieties, is an obvious example.

2.2 Multicompetence: A tentative definition In conclusion, drawing on the foregoing discussion, it can be said that multicompetence defines the knowledge of more than one language in the mind (Cook 1991). Languages coexist and shape each other creating a unitary whole that is both dynamic and variable. Multicompetence can be thought of as an integrated continuum, whereby linguistic knowledge changes over time, and may be interconnected, separated or integrated at a single point in time. Extending Cook’s (1991) definition of multicompetence to relate it to sociolinguistics and education, it can be said that multicompetence, i.e. the knowledge of more than one language in the mind, is part of the individual capacity of the person and develops in interaction with his/her social or educational environment. Multicompetent individuals make use of their linguistic knowledge when interacting within a range of linguistic settings, including both multilingual and monolingual situations. Multicompetence is thus at the same time a tool and a state and relates to the complex, flexible, integrative and adaptable behaviour which multilingual individuals display. A multicompetent person is therefore an individual who controls an extended and integrated plurilingual repertoire, and who is able to select

European multilingualism


and use different linguistic varieties (both standard and non-standard) appropriately for different functions, occasions and interlocutors. In the research study reported here, we focus especially on the educational perspective, i.e. how and whether schools and classrooms promote multicompetence in this sense, and how and whether students see their school language learning as contributing to an integrated plurilingual identity. 3 Language education policies and traditions European society is increasingly multilingual, and this development is viewed as central to the success of European integration and the evolution of European identity: “Languages are the key to knowing other people. Proficiency in languages helps to build up the feeling of being European … Multilingualism is part … of both European identity / citizenship and the learning society” (European Commission 1995: 47). Because of globalization and associated migration movements, schools in many European settings are also becoming increasingly multicultural and multilingual sites (Duff 2002; Martin-Jones and Heller 1996). Within the last decades there have been numerous efforts by the European Commission and the Council of Europe to promote individual multilingualism (Breidbach 2002) through educational practice, stressing the need for citizens to “acquire the ability to communicate in at least two Community languages in addition to their mother tongue” (European Commission 1995: 47). Foreign language education is widely expected to fulfil this mission. Nevertheless, there has been considerable debate on whether it can fulfil this quest for multilingualism (see for example Rampton 1999). In the UK for example, despite efforts by the government and other bodies to boost the learning of languages, there are still concerns about students’ low achievement in foreign languages. There is also evidence from other European countries that the dominance of English restricts the learning of further languages. As Breidbach (2002) asserts: “The role of English within a framework of multilingualism … remains a complex one … the dominance of English makes it difficult to win learners over to the side of multilingualism” (page 276). Sociolinguistic critics of foreign language education have argued that there is no comprehensive theory of identity underpinning second and foreign language learning (Ricento 2005; Norton 2000), and noting that learners do not fully identify themselves with any of the taught languages. Despite these problems, foreign language education remains the main vehicle for formally promoting multilingualism, and the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and national bodies have taken relevant

212 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou initiatives accordingly. At the same time there is a noticeable shift in foreign language learning and teaching (Newby 2003) to include basic components of multilingualism such as intercultural competence and cultural awareness. The intercultural perspective in foreign language teaching and learning is increasingly being stressed as crucial for attaining plurilingual competence (Council of Europe 2001; Sercu 2004, 2005; Petneki 2001). It is widely accepted that language education policy reflects broader societal ideologies and values (Martin-Jones and Heller 1996). Thus, the choice of languages taught and rationales accompanying the teaching of languages are directly connected with issues of identity, national values, and economic and social factors. In our project we are questioning language education policy, to explore these underlying values. In order to do this we have taken as our starting point the status of German as an exemplar second/ foreign language in England, Italy and Hungary, examining its educational significance in each country and the way it relates to the European goal of multilingualism. 4 Attitudes and representations of multilingualism and multicompetence At least since Labov’s early work (1966), the study of speakers’ attitudes (especially in the form of subjective reactions to linguistic stimuli) towards languages and language varieties has become a fundamental component in the definition of speech communities. According to this, speakers belonging to the same speech community are supposed to share not only their linguistic repertoire but also the same attitudes towards languages. Moreover, as many researches have demonstrated, attitudes are much more uniform than actual speech productions (cf. for instance the well-known example of ‘r’ in New York, Labov 1966) and therefore form a powerful tool in the definition and delimitation of speech communities. Dialectal, sociolinguistic or ethnic borders usually become apparent from the patterning of a group’s reactions. This means in turn that a lack of uniformity in attitudinal reactions could provide a key clue to the existence of more than one speech community within a single, apparently homogeneous, area. Within the frame of our research, attitudes (especially students’ attitudes) have been considered firstly in order to understand how students conceptualize the speech community they are part of and how far second and foreign language education has become part of their linguistic environment. On a further level, we want to relate our idea of multicompetence to the kinds of attitudes that students have towards multilingualism and the chances they have to expand their linguistic potential.

European multilingualism


What we are dealing with here, however, are not (or not only) attitudes strictu sensu2, but rather opinions, that is explicit, verbalized statements on languages (Baker 1992: 14), explicit social constructions that emerge discursively. Thus, in our research we have worked especially on what are now referred to as “representations” (Gueunier 2003): “everyday form[s] of knowledge, shared socially, which contribut[e] to a vision of reality common to social and cultural groups”. The way representations are built by social actors is a key factor in our understanding of how perceptions of multilingualism actually work in speech communities. Different tasks have been devised in order to elicit attitudes and representations of language and languages from secondary school students of German in all three contexts: individual interviews aimed at reconstructing students’ social networks and, indirectly, gaining information on their openness towards other language groups; focus groups more directly addressing the topic of languages and multilingualism; and a questionnaire on motivation in relation to (foreign) language learning and becoming multicompetent. We will concentrate here mainly on the findings from the focus group data, although other relevant data from interviews and questionnaire will be considered as well.

4.1 Perceptions of the multilingual environment Despite the great differences in terms of societal multilingualism in the three settings under investigation, almost all the students had a concept of multilingualism, some through personal experience (as immigrant, multiethnic, and/or bilingual students themselves) and others from the languages they were taught at school and the multilingualism they encountered in their social networks. For instance students from the English context provided definitions of the term multilingualism, describing it as “to know more languages”, or associating it with multiculturalism: “everybody gets on even though they speak different languages”. Such neutral definitions, however, belong to a very general, notional domain. Quite a different matter is the definition of one’s own multilingualism or of one’s own multilingual

2 As mentioned above referring to Labov (1966), that is in the sense of subjective reactions to different linguistic varieties, or, in more general terms, “attitudes are latent, inferred from the direction and persistence of external behaviour” (Baker 1992: 11).

214 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou environment, as the following focus group findings from Italy and the UK will show. (Comparable data for this issue were not collected in Hungary). Nine groups of approximately six students each were asked to enumerate all languages that are spoken in Britain (six groups) and in South Tyrol (three groups). These groups were composed of same-age students (ranging from 12–13 in England to 18–19 in Italy) and were ethnically heterogeneous, so that groups composed of local students contrasted with highly multiethnic groups of immigrant origin. In Table 1, all languages mentioned by students have been arranged by group and according to a broad geographical classification. Languages are reported in the original form given by students (with appropriate translation in the case of Italian) in order to show the different degrees of appropriateness and precision attained by the different groups. Given the nature of the research, carried out in different national contexts by different researchers, the findings were not completely comparable: the common trends in the results are, however, very interesting, and will be considered first. a)

awareness of multilingualism: all groups mentioned numerous languages, students from South Tyrol more so than students from England, with a range from six to 25 languages (mentioned by group It_3); b) most groups recognized varied dimensions of multilingualism: localtraditional languages / dialects; cultural / international languages (English for Italians, German for the British, French for all, etc.); migration languages from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa; c) local and traditional languages or dialects were given more importance than other languages and were mentioned first in all focus groups. In our students’ beliefs, apparently, multilingualism is still strongly linked with regional languages and territorially-bound linguistic minorities, perhaps because these are given more visibility in public discourse and are generally associated with positive (albeit generic) values; d) there may be some contradictions between students’ perceptions of personal multicompetence and societal multilingualism. Consider the following two extracts from a focus group recording in a British school (UK_B2). Extract 1 shows that students’ personal linguistic background is very multilingual, both because of their family’s or their own migratory experience, and because of languages they have learned subsequently. However the listing of languages spoken today in Britain produced by the same students (Extract 2) is very limited, and does not include any of the students’ home languages.

W Europe



English French Spanish

Spanish Italian German Swedish French

French French Italian Italian Spanish Spanish Norwegian German

Italian Spanish

German German German Southtyrolean “Baccano” Ladin non non non non non non “Bolzanese” Ladin (rustic applicable applicable applicable applicable applicable applicable German [person]) Ladin

Local (South Tyrol)

(Continued )

Italian Portuguese

Welsh Irish Gaelic

National (Italy/ Britain)

English Welsh Irish

Scottish Welsh

Welsh Scottish Irish

Irish Scottish English Welsh

Italian North Italian dialect Roman Neapolitan Sardinian Sicilian


Italian Generic dialect Latin



Italian several North Italian dialects Roman Southern Italian







Table 1. Languages used in England and in Italy (South Tyrol) according to secondary school students

European multilingualism



E Europe

African Arabic Moroccan Chinese Indian Japanese

African Moroccan Chinese Indian Brasilian Cuban Spanish

Jamaican African Israelian Arabic Arabic dialects Kurdish Chinese Chin. dialects Japanese Urdu Hindi Punjabi

Russian Polish Macedonian

Croatian Bosnian Macedonian Albanian Gipsy

Romanian Albanian Slovac Gipsy





Turkish Japanese Chinese


Japanese Chinese


Turkish Indian Punjabi Jewish Gujarati Arabic

Albanian Polish


Chinese Indian



Table 1. Languages used in England and in Italy (South Tyrol) according to secondary school students (Cont.)



216 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou

European multilingualism


Extract 1: UK_B2 Researcher: What language (s) do you speak? S1: I speak English and Arabic, I am learning French and German S2: English, Iranian, German and French S3: German, Japanese and English S4: English, German and Japanese S5: French, English, German and Swahili S6: English, Iranian, German, French […] Researcher: What language (s) do you speak at home? S1: English and Arabic. S2: English and Iranian. S3: English. S4: English. S5: English and Swahili. S6: Iranian. Extract 2: UK_B2 Researcher: today? All Ss: Researcher: S2: S3:

can you name some languages that are spoken in Britain French, Italian, Spanish, German, Japanese, Chinese. anything else? everything. Latin sometimes, like translation and stuff (…)

The lists produced in the Italian focus groups are richer than those produced in the British contexts, and the differences were too great to be attributed to small differences in eliciting techniques. The participating students attending Italian schools live in a bilingual region (South Tyrol) where language and language policy are matters of daily debate, and identity is strongly associated with language and with the definition of language groups. This is presumably the reason why these students mentioned Italian in their lists, for example, whereas four British groups out of six omitted English, taking it for granted and not associating it with multilingualism. It is not surprising that in a region where language is of primary importance in people’s daily lives and choices, young people seem to be more aware of the presence of several languages in their environment than people living in a place where language conflicts do not permeate public discourse.

218 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou Besides, the South Tyrol is rather new to migratory waves and most people coming from abroad are first generation immigrants for whom “community” or “ethnic” languages are still very prominent in their language repertoires. In Britain however, belonging to a migrant group does not necessarily mean still using your home language(s), which may lead to lower awareness of some immigrant languages in Britain than in Italy. It is noticeable that three out of six British groups mention Polish, possibly because of the large wave of recent immigrants from Poland: recency of immigration apparently makes languages (as well as people) more visible. Being able to detect linguistic diversity does not necessarily mean knowing which specific languages are actually spoken. This appears very clearly looking at the list produced by a group composed exclusively of Italian speaking students from Bolzano (It_1): these students confuse glottonyms with ethnonyms and used the second for the first3, as well as using general geographical terms such as “African” or “Indian”, instead of the specific names of languages or of language groups. Much more precision could be found in some of the multiethnic groups, such as It_3. Finally, languages learned only at school do not seem to influence students’ representations of multilingualism significantly in the British context. In the data recorded among Italian students in South Tyrol, in contrast, German is a highly visible component of multilingualism. Here, the language is learned at school but it is also the main language within the region, a fact that the Italian community has to cope with daily. More interesting is the role of English, which is going to be dealt with in the next section. To return to students’ definition of multilingualism and to the values they associate with it, we can recall the generically positive statements mentioned at the beginning of this section (“to know more languages”, etc.) and compare this view with the view students have of multilingualism in relation to their own lives and their identities. It is perhaps not by chance that those groups that are the least characterized by multilingualism and multiethnicity (both in Italy and in Britain) are also those in which a negative (Extract 3) or an alien (Extract 4) view of multilingualism emerges.

3 Some examples: meridionale ‘Southern Italian’, baccano ‘rustic German’, zingaro ‘gipsy’ are derogatory terms used to define people, here they are metonymically extended to their language(s).

European multilingualism


Extract 3: It_1 Researcher:

S1: S2:

ma certo che per essere cosı` piccola Bolzano c’e` un mondo. Well, despite being such a small place, in Bolzano you find all the world. eh sı` eh perche´ tutti vengono su. Yes, you do, it’s because everybody comes up here. sı` pero` non so quanto contenti siamo eh sinceramente . Yes, but to tell the truth I don’t know whether we are very happy about this.

Although in the English context such direct and negative comments towards multilingualism and multiculturalism were not found, there were some significant differences in terms of attitudes between the monolingual and multilingual groups, and especially the two groups in the suburban white school. While the groups in the multicultural schools clearly stated that Britain is a multilingual country, the two monolingual groups expressed clear reservations, stating that not everyone knows more than one language and that British people don’t succeed very well with languages (Extract 4). Taking things a step further some of the students argued that those who do speak more than one language are not exactly English, pointing forward to matters of identity (Extract 5). Extract 4: UK_A2 S1:

I don’t think (Britain is multilingual) because we can be quite lazy in learning languages.

Extract 5: UK_A2 S1:

S2: Researcher: S3:

well everybody, not everybody people who speak different languages would have come from a different country, they are not exactly English. (that is true) (…) do you consider yourselves to be multilingual? no, I am English.

Two different sets of attitudes (possibly indexing the co-existence of different speech communities) thus seem to emerge in modern multilingual and multiethnic contexts, as we can see in these adolescent focus groups: one views multilingualism as a component of one’s own group identity, the other recognizes the existence of multilingualism in society, yet views it as a separate component in self-definition.

220 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou 4.1.1 The role of English A special case to consider in dealing with attitudes towards multilingualism and becoming multicompetent is the role of English in the two non-Englishspeaking contexts under investigation: Hungary and South Tyrol. In both contexts there were very strong attitudes in favour of English as a language that needed to be taught in schools, often overshadowing other second/ foreign languages, such as German: Extract 6: It_1 S1:

S2: S1:

secondo me il tedesco non serve a niente se/ cioe`/ serve solo qua eh parte se vai in Germania e in Austria o in Polonia anche, pero` se no non te ne fai niente, invece l’inglese German is useless, I mean it is useful only here and in Germany, Austria or Poland, otherwise you cannot do anything with it. English, instead e` una lingua internazionale is an international language esatto e quella va bene per tutto, pero` secondo me il tedesco e` una lingua inutile and it’s good for everything. I think that German is a useless language.

Being useful, international and a key to travelling and going abroad (in particular to America) are also the reasons mentioned by Hungarian students when asked about their motivations to learn other foreign languages (in this case, English). Besides, English appears to be a central concept in their definition of a European identity: when asked “Which language (s) does a European citizen speak”, the majority of them answered English, followed by German, one’s native language, French, and Spanish. All this points to the prevalence of instrumental against integrative motivations4 when participants consider formal second/foreign language learning. In particular (rather vague) personal and professional achievement seems to dominate over any need and desire to interact with neighbouring people. This is true both for Italians living in South Tyrol, and also for Hungarians. When asked, via questionnaire, which foreign languages they would like to learn (besides German and in some cases English which they already have at school), the Hungarian results again reflect a strong

4 See Baker (1992: 31–33) for a review of these notions.

European multilingualism


preference for English (41). Just four people mentioned Italian, Russian and Spanish each scored 3, and Chinese, Finnish, French, Japanese, Latin and Portuguese scored one each. The languages of neighboring countries do not appear at all among these expressed preferences. The prevalence of instrumental motivations in students’ learning of foreign languages has consequences also for English-speaking students. The fact that they can easily communicate around the world by using their mother tongue evidently has an impact on their motivation to expand their linguistic repertoire. For example when some groups referred to their planned trip to Germany, they expressed doubts whether they would actually get to practice the language since “everyone would speak English”. Finally, English is not only viewed as a language learned at school as a tool to achieve success and to be able to overcome one’s national borders. English also plays a relevant role in adolescents’ everyday life and in the participants’ identity as young consumers of pop culture, a role that cannot be overlooked when considering second or foreign language motivation. In Extract 7 a female student explains her inclusion of English among the languages used in South Tyrol, where she lives: Extract 7: It_1 Student:

inglese. si canta sempre inglese, o se andiamo a ballare cantiamo anche English, we always sing in English, or if we go dancing we also sing (English)

4.2 Representations of multicompetence In section 1.3. we posed the question as to whether educational systems were promoting among today’s students “an extended and integrated plurilingual repertoire”, and whether those students were able to select and use different linguistic varieties appropriately for different functions, occasions and interlocutors. More generally, we asked whether students’ school learning is contributing to the development of an integrated plurilingual identity. The fieldwork reported here so far suggests that students possess a practical functional awareness of their own language repertoire, whether monolingual or plurilingual. They are also aware in abstract terms of the concept of multilingualism, and have a practical acquaintance with the language varieties prevailing in their local speech community. However it seems their language attitudes and openness towards a plurilingual

222 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou identity are formed substantially outside the educational context, at home, in teenage leisure contexts, or in the wider community. (Thus for example, contrasting attitudes to German in England and in the South Tyrol relate essentially to the very different status and role of the language in the local community; enthusiasm for English in both South Tyrol and Hungary derives substantially from non-school influences.) Languages studied in school are not necessarily seen as socially significant (e.g. German in England). The multilingual first generation immigrant students who took part in our focus groups are most clearly multicompetent in a practical sense. However these students experience some contradictions in terms of their own linguistic identity and that of their speech community; e.g. the multilingual students interviewed in England did not claim for their heritage languages any full currency in the wider speech community. Students from monolingual backgrounds in both settings acknowledged the existence of societal multilingualism around them, but did not seem to deduce any personal consequences, e.g. they did not express any clear aspirations to developing a personal plurilingual identity. In Section 4 we explore how far contemporary second / foreign language classrooms may be said to be aiming to promote multicompetence, in the sense under consideration here.

5 Multicompetence and classroom practice The investigation into classroom practice was focused on German, as a language which was regularly taught in all three national contexts. From a policy perspective it is striking however that only in the South Tyrol, where German has social and legal protection as a regional language, is German maintaining a stable place as an L2 in language education. In Hungary German has been of considerable importance since the 1990s as a popular foreign language, due to its regional economic significance (Petneki 2006). However the recent policy decision to offer an entitlement to English for all students from 2010 heralds a significant planned downgrading of German. In England, German has been taught historically as a major language of European culture and science. However numbers of children electing to study German have declined very steeply in the 2000s, and it has been overtaken by Spanish, which is reputed to be easier to learn, and has a more attractive cultural image among young people. It seems that while German has a continuing future as a specialist/ minority foreign

European multilingualism


language neither a planned approach to language choice (as in Hungary) nor a more bottom up market driven approach (as in England) is effective in sustaining commitment to a major language (demographically speaking) of the European Union. Classroom research was conducted in all three settings, observing lessons in German as either a second or a foreign language (see Table 2). Although it was not feasible to focus on exactly the same age group of students, in all three settings classes from state-provided secondary education were observed. The analysis of classroom data focused on the linguistic knowledge and skills that were emphasized and promoted in each classroom setting, on language choice in classroom talk, and on the rationales and values that are articulated and expressed through language teaching. All lessons were transcribed and where needed translated, and data were analysed using a common set of themes and categories. A more detailed analysis of the observations is presented in Mitchell et al. (2008). Here we focus on the extent to which the teaching and learning of German could be interpreted as relating to the broader development of multicompetence among students. Table 2. Classroom observations conducted Country

Number of Type of School observations

Classes observed



8 lessons

3 state secondary schools: 1 suburban “white”, 2 urban “multicultural”

1 Year 7 class (12 year olds) 2 Year 9 classes (15 year olds)

Video (2) and audio (5) recordings, field notes

Hungary 2 lessons

1 vocational secondary school

2 Year 10 classes Video and (15 year olds) audio recordings

Italy (South Tyrol)

1 academic secondary school (liceo)

25th year classes (18 year olds) 13rd year class (15 year olds)

3 lessons

Video and audio recordings

As seen in Table 2, the classroom observations in the different countries were differentiated by age of students, and consequently by language level, with the English students at the most elementary levels of learning German (which they learned for the first time from year 7),

224 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou and the South Tyrol students at the most advanced level. In addition, the type of school visited also varied by country. The English schools visited were all comprehensive in nature, i.e. they accepted children without any academic selection. The Hungarian school was oriented towards vocational education, and the Italian school was an academically selective upper secondary school, with a distinctive curriculum (for example, classical languages were offered in addition to German, English etc). The German lessons observed in the three locations varied to some extent as might be expected, given the different language levels of the classes. The English learners concentrated mainly on sentence level activities, learning to ask and answer orally a range of basic everyday questions in German. The Hungarian learners were working in a more theme based way on the subject of ‘homes’, discussing the psychological significance of ‘home’, comparing different kinds of dwelling in Hungary and Austria, and also exercising their imaginations around the idea of a ‘dream home’. Their work was largely based around reading and discussing simple texts, fictional and non-fictional (with supporting images), and they were also expected to write a short piece describing their own ‘dream home’. The advanced Italian learners were working at a more challenging intellectual level; they were expected to select and read different items from current German language newspapers, and present and discuss critically the issues they had been reading about with the class, in German. There were other differences across the sites however, which it seemed had more to do with distinctive curriculum traditions in the different settings. The lessons seen in Hungary reflected a meaning-based approach to foreign language instruction, with a strong interest in the development of intercultural awareness (seen e.g. in the comparative study of ‘homes’ in different European settings). German was spoken almost exclusively by the teacher, and mostly German was spoken by the Hungarian learners. In England on the other hand, hardly any attention was paid to cultural matters. (Just one of the eight lessons observed contained any substantive content on life in Germany.) Here the lesson content related typically to the daily life of the students themselves, and great emphasis was placed on oral practice involving sentence building, with much active correction of grammar by the teachers, and use of English to comment on issues of language form. Extracts 8 and 9 are typical of the ways in which the teachers in these settings responded to a formal error made by a student, for example.

European multilingualism


Extract 8: Hungary Lesson 1 S:

T: S: T:

Im Traumhaus das Ku¨che ist sehr klein und in Wohnung das Ku¨che ist groß und hier steht ein Esstisch und Stu¨hle. In the dream house the kitchen is very small and in flat the kitchen is big and there are a dining table and chairs. Hm. Ja, bei dir auch? Hm. Yes, you have that as well? Ja. Yes. Du bist auch damit einverstanden. Was ich aufgeschrieben habe, ja, die Ku¨che ist klein im Traumhaus. You agree with that as well. What I wrote was, the kitchen is small in the dream house.

Extract 9: England Lesson 1B S: T: S: T: S: T: S:

ich habe eine – ich habe eine – langweilig – langweilig Schwester. I have a boring sister. Oh Dilan. Ist das richtig? Is that right? ((what)) ich habe eine – I have a – ein – a– langweilig Schwester? Boring sister? langweilige – eh Schwester. boring sister.

In Extract 8, the Hungarian teacher maintains a focus on meaning, while recasting an error of concord (“das Ku¨che”). In Extract 9, the English teacher does not react to the meaning of the student’s utterance, but points out that an error has been made and elicits a repair from the student. Like the lessons seen in Hungary, the lessons observed at the South Tyrol liceo also focussed very largely on fluency, though at a considerably more advanced level. The teachers at times discussed grammar very explicitly (in German), but their most noticeable attention to language was their consistent concern to develop their students’ vocabulary in relation to the topics under discussion. This included some commentary (in German) on issues of appropriacy and register, as seen in Extract 10.

226 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou Extract 10: S Tyrol Lesson 2 T: S: T:

S: T:



alles tut w(eh) everthing hurts kotzen to vomit kotzen ist umgangssprachlich / ja / kotzen ist umgangssprachlich fu¨r „sich erbrechen“ to vomit is colloquial / yes / to vomit is the colloquial ( form) for „to throw out“ also, wenn s, when mhm … ### sich erbrechen – E – eR mhm … ### sich erbrechen – E – eR (dictating to student who is listing new words on the board) ich habe schmerzen eh … auf den ich eh … wenn ich nicht genug schlafe i have pains eh … that i eh … if i don’t sleep well zum beispiel, wenn du nachts nicht gut schla¨fst for instance, if you don’t sleep well at night

Despite the various differences just summarised across the different sites, however, it was clear that the observed teaching shared a common core commitment to developing students’ mastery of the norms of standard modern German. This commitment was enriched with some elements which could be seen as helpful for the promotion of multicompetence. Thus for example, the lessons in England and Italy, both aimed to develop students’ ability to analyse and talk about target language structure, and to some extent this happened comparatively, as seen in Extract 11 (which in fact draws comparisons between three languages: German, Italian, and Greek). Extract 11: It Lesson 3 S1:

SS: S1: SS:

Paradox ist wie auf Italienisch + paradosso ++ Wiederspruch: habt ihr alle verstanden? Paradox is like in Italian, paradosso, contradiction. Have you all understood? ja. sind diese zwei Wo¨rter das gleiche? ++ weil Are these two words the same? [%laugh, embarrassed]

European multilingualism T: SS: T: SS: T: T: SS: T:


macht ihr Griechisch? Do you study Greek? ja. und (habt ihr es) Wort da gibt es eine Vorsilbe ‚para’ And there you have a prefix, [% together] para`. para` (…). dopo? After? [% speak among themselves] es ist (wo¨rterliches) selbst ein Widerspruch, ja? stimmt? Sprechen und wider, gegen. warum es ist ein Paradox? It is literally a contradiction, isn’t it? To speak and against. Why is it a paradox?

The commitment of the Hungarian lessons to crosscultural comparison could also be seen as a useful contextual contribution to the development of multicompetence. However, a number of other shared characteristics of these settings could be viewed as restricting or marginalising the growth of an integrated multicompetence on the part of the students. These characteristics were: a)

The restrictions placed on classroom codeswitching: for example German was spoken almost exclusively in the Hungarian and Italian lessons, with use of the students’ first language almost entirely restricted to solving lexical problems. (One consequence in the lower level Hungarian lessons was that students’ oral contributions were controlled, brief and simple, though the more advanced Italian students could express and debate opinions.) b) The focus on standard German: there was no acknowledgement in an classroom setting of variation in contemporary German, not even in South Tyrol where dialect variation is an everyday reality. c) The marginalisation of minority first languages: no attempts were seen in any classroom to exploit the presence of already multicompetent students, to draw on their past successful language learning experiences and strategies, or to use this wider range of languages for purposes of comparison and reference. Thus overall, while some elements of classroom practice could be seen as helpful to the development of multicompetence, there was no explicit coherent strategy in place to promote this, in any of the classroom settings where observations were conducted.

228 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou 6 Conclusion This chapter has set out to explore the concept of ‘multicompetence’, and its relevance to education in a range of contemporary European contexts. Our investigations into second/ foreign language education in secondary schools have indicated that development of competence in discrete valorised language varieties (in our case, Standard German) remains the main goal of language education policies and of students’ classroom experience. Similarly, our explorations of student attitudes and representations of multilingualism suggest that schooling has relatively little current influence, in promoting the adoption of an integrated plurilingual identity; students’ varied attitudes and perceptions of their own and other’s multilingualism mainly derive from other sources than the actual language instruction they receive. For this situation to change significantly, the political will would have to be found to support a range of policy changes, inter alia: •

To develop language pedagogies and curricula which approach language development in an integrated fashion (inclusively for the first language, English and other second/ foreign languages, and relevant community languages), and make the language classroom a site for critical comparative reflection on the nature of language, language variation and use, and on learning styles and strategies; Make the promotion of intercultural understanding central to the content of second/ foreign language education, in terms of both topics and practices; engage students in processes of cross-cultural critical reflection and imaginative activity, through the medium of all their languages; promote systematically educational visits and exchanges among students, in real life and via virtual means; Develop assessment schemes which reward multicompetence, intercultural understanding, critical reflection and metalinguistic awareness, in addition to discrete target language skills.

References Baker, Colin 1992 Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, Colin and Sylvia Prys Jones 1998 Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

European multilingualism


Bialystok, Ellen 2004 The impact of bilingualism on language and literacy development. In: Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Bley-Vroman, Robert 1983 The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: the case of systematicity. Language Learning 33: 1–17. Breidbach, Stephan 2002 European communicative integration: The function of foreign language teaching for the development of a European public sphere. Language, Culture and Curriculum 15: 273–283. Clyne, Michael 1998 Multilingualism. In: Florian Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 301–314. Oxford: Blackwell. Clyne, Michael 2000 Lingua franca and ethnolects in Europe and beyond. Sociolinguistica 14: 83–89. Cook, Vivian 1991 The poverty of the stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research 7: 103–117. Cook, Vivian 1992 Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42: 557– 592. Cook, Vivian 1995 Multi-competence and the learning of many languages. Language, Culture and Curriculum 8: 93–98. Cook, Vivian 1997 Monolingual bias in second language research. Revista de Estudios Ingleses 34: 35–50. Cook, Vivian (ed.) 2003 Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Council of Europe 2001 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Angelis, Gessica 1999 Interlanguage transfer and multiple language acquisition: A case study. Paper presented at TESOL 1999, New York City. De Angelis, Gessica 2005 The acquisition of languages beyond the L2: psycholinguistic perspectives. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 2–3: 397–409. De Angelis, Gessica 2007 Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

230 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou Dorian, Nancy C. (ed.) 1989 Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duff, Patricia 2002 The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity and difference: an ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics 23: 289–322. Gaser, Christian and Gottfried Schlaug 2003 Brain structures differ between musicians and non-musicians. Journal of Neuroscience 23: 9240–9245. Grosjean, Francois 1992 Another view of bilingualism. In: R. J. (ed.) Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals, 51–62. Amsterdam: North Holland. Gueunier, Nicole 2003 Attitudes and representations in sociolinguistics: theories and practice. International Journal of Sociology of Language 160: 41–62. Hall, Joan K., Cheng An and Matthew T Carlson 2006 Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27: 220–240. Jenkins, Jennifer 2007 English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jessner, Ulrike 2006 Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Johansson, Sverker 2005 Origins of Language: Constraints on Hypotheses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Labov, William 1966 The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. LINEE – Languages in a Network of European Excellence 2006 Project Proposal Annex 1 “Description of Work”. Unpublished. Lu¨di, Georges 1996 Mehrsprachigkeit. In: Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Szdeneˇk Stary´ and Wolfgang Wo¨lck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Contact Linguistics. Linguistique de contact, 233–245. Berlin: de Gruyter. Maguire, Eleanor A., Hugo J. Spiers, Catriona D. Good, Tom Hartley, Richard S. Frackowiak and Neil Burgess 2003 Navigation expertise and the human hippocampus: A structural brain imaging analysis. Hippocampus 13: 250–259. Martin-Jones, Marilyn and Monica Heller 1996 Introduction to the special issues on education in multilingual settings: Discourse, identities, and power Part I: Constructing legitimacy”. Linguistics and Education 8: 3–16.

European multilingualism


Mitchell, Rosamond, Elena Ioannidou, Silvia DalNegro, Gessica De Angelis, Gerda Videsott and Katalin Petneki 2008 Traditional Pedagogic Cultures in Foreign Language Education and the Need for Multicompetence. Unpublished Working Paper, LINEE Network. Newby, David 2003 The interface between theory and practice. In: David Newby (ed.), Mediating between Theory and Practice in the Context of Different Learning Cultures and Languages. Graz: Council of Europe Publishing. Norton, Bonny 2000 Identity and Language Learning. Harlow: Longman. Ofan, Renana H. and Ehud Zohary 2007 Visual cortex activation in bilingual blind individuals during use of native and second language. Cerebral Cortex 17: 1249– 1259. Petneki, Katalin 2001 Az interkulturalita´s idegen nyelvi tanterveink tu¨kre´ben. [Interculturality in the mirror of our foreign language curriculum] In: Magdolna Bartha and E´va Stephanides (eds.), A nyelv szerepe az informa´cio´s ta´rsadalomban. A X. Magyar Alkalmazott Nyelve´szeti Kongresszus elo˝ada´sainak va´logatott gyu˝jteme´nye, 137–143. [Language in the information society. X Hungarian Congress of Applied Linguistics, a collection of selected papers] Sze´kesfehe´rva´r: Kodolanyi Ja´nos College. Katalin, Petneki 2006 Mit e´r az idegen nyelv, ha nem angol? [What is the value of a foreign language if it is not English?] Modern Nyelvoktata´s 12: 50–56. Preisler, Bent 1999 Functions and forms of English in a European EFL country. In: Tony Bex and Richard J. Watts (eds.), Standard English: The Widening Debate, 239–268. London: Routledge. Rampton, Ben 1995 Crossing. Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman. Rampton, Ben 1999 Deutsch in Inner London and the animation of an instructed foreign language. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 480–504. Ricento, Tom 2005 Considerations of identity in L2 learning. In: Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 895–910. New York: Routledge. Selinker, Larry 1972 Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209–231.

232 Rosamond Mitchell, Silvia DalNegro and Elena Ioannidou Sercu, Lies 2004 Sercu, Lies 2005

Assessing intercultural competence: a framework for systematic test development in foreign language education and beyond. Intercultural Education 15: 73–89.

Foreign language teachers and the implementation of intercultural education: a comparative investigation of the professional self-concepts and teaching practices of Belgian teachers of English, French and German. European Journal of Teacher Education 28: 87–105. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001 Language Contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Chapter 11 “French is French, English is English”: Standard language ideology in ELF debates

Alessia Cogo

1 Introduction1 English is nowadays recognised as the most commonly used lingua franca, which puts it at the centre of international communication settings, makes it a symbol of globalisation, and detaches it from its historical associations with certain locations. However, this new position has not come about without raising questions, fuelling debates and spreading fears. Questions concerning the nature of English as a Lingua Franca (henceforth ELF), debates around English encroaching on other languages and cultures and the fears of diminishing linguistic diversity and declining (English) standards, just to mention a few. Such negative reactions towards ELF have been documented in recent studies investigating ELF attitudes of practitioners in applied linguistics and English language teaching (Jenkins 2007; Llurda 2004). These studies have shown the reservations and scepticism of the linguistic professionals towards ELF, and Jenkins (2007) has provided deeper insights into the origins of these feelings in standard language ideology. However, research so far has concentrated on attitudes in the professional linguist communities, but not much is known about the non-professionals and younger future players on the ELF scene.2 The purpose of this paper is to add to previous studies in this field by exploring the ELF perceptions of a different community – that of young school leavers in the UK – and how these are shaped by certain ideas of

1 I am grateful to Jennifer Jenkins for her suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. 2 A step to fill this gap has been made by Peckham et al (this volume), who have researched Erasmus student communities from various disciplines.

234 Alessia Cogo what a language is, where it comes from and who their legitimate speakers are. In other words, this paper proposes to delve deeper into the ideologies displayed in the participants’ understanding of ELF and explore different facets of linguistic ideologies, such as language differentiation, historical and grammatical relevance. I start by exploring the notion of ELF, ELF attitudes and their links with ideologies, especially standard language ideology and its implications. I then explore how these ideologies have influenced teenagers’ discourse in the focus group data. I conclude with highlighting how certain notions such as historicity and grammaticality have a powerful effect in resistant discourses of language variation and change.

2 ELF, attitudes and ideologies English as a Lingua Franca, perhaps the most influential, but also controversial, field of research in this area (see, for instance, Cogo 2008; Jenkins 2009), has been defined as “an additionally acquired language system which serves as a common means of communication for speakers of different first languages” ( This definition, while including native speakers of English, does not view English in lingua franca communication as being driven by their norms (see Jenkins 2006 for the distinction between ELF and EFL). Rather, ELF recognizes a plurality of forms of English as well as shared features of grammar, lexis, phonology and pragmatics3 which are driven by the context of communication and accommodation needs of the participants (Cogo 2009; Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2004, 2007). Research in ELF, thus, attempts to legitimise the power and creativity of non-native users of English and remove the exocentric “monolithic” language and communication norms associated with native English varieties (normally British and American). ELF also challenges the idea of “standard” and correct form of English, against which all other realisations are usually deficient, non-standard or at best dialects. In fact, the notion of standard language is in itself a social construction – given that a standard variety of language implies stability, uniformity and lack of variation, but in practice, when language is used, it is impossible to expect total uniformity and invariance (Milroy J. 3 Over the last few years, research into the description of ELF has gathered momentum and resulted in various publications (cf Mauranen and Ranta 2009) and the release of VOICE (Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English), which is freely available online (see

“French is French, English is English”


2001). As Widdowson puts it “The very idea of a standard implies stability, but language is of its nature unstable. It is essentially protean in character, adapting its shape to suit changing circumstances. It would otherwise lose its vitality and its communicative and communal value” (2003: 41; originally 1994). In this sense, language cannot stand still but needs to be adapted by its users in order to reflect and represent their changing meanings and knowledge, but also to adapt to changing times, such as in a period of globalization. This is the kind of “vitality” Widdowson is referring to. It is because of this fluctuating and unstable nature of language that the notion of standard language becomes an ideology, a reification of language that views it as independent of the speakers and community of users (Bex and Watts 1999). Similarly, the changeable nature of language also implies an idea of mastery or proficiency that should encompass change and fluidity – to master a language would involve to be able to change it according to the changing contexts, communities and audiences. Being comfortable with a language would involve working in accordance to certain parameters, to maintain intelligibility, but stretching the boundaries and pushing the rules to accommodate to changing circumstances. To use Widdowson’s words again, “You are proficient in a language to the extent that you possess it, make it your own, bend it to your will, assert yourself through it rather than simply submit to the dictates of its forms.” (originally 1994, 2003: 42). Proficiency then implies ownership of a language and this, in the case of English, is another of the concepts challenged by ELF research. That ownership of English should reside with its native speakers, rather than its majority users (i.e. bilinguals or L2 users all over the world) is an idea that contradicts principles of sociolinguistic research on language variation and change. Furthermore, decisions concerning proficiency in ELF communities cannot be taken with reference to a native speaker ideal representing a specific English speaking community and a “sociolinguistically marked variety” (Coleman 2006: 11), which would not be appropriate or acceptable in international contexts. And this native-speaker perspective overlaps with a monolingual ideology. In this ideology, the yardstick for measuring language competence in general, and for some people ELF competence too, is monolingual competence.4 On these grounds, bilinguals are seen as appropriate language

4 ELF researchers are by no means the first to challenge the ideology of monolingualism. For instance, Grosjean openly opposes any suggestion to see a

236 Alessia Cogo users only when they demonstrate monolingual competence in both languages. However, this view sees languages as separated and bounded entities that do not, or should not, interfere with one another. In ELF this container view of competence is challenged by the frequent and overall reliance by ELF speakers on a pool of linguistic resources, in ways that are commonly termed as code-switching or code-mixing. Language alternation of this kind is common in ELF communication (cf. Cogo 2009; Klimpfinger 2009) and, for some communities at least, these are seen as significant social practices which represent and signal community membership and identity. Language alternation, therefore, is seen as a widely-common strategy of multilingual communities, rather than a disorderly phenomenon of incompetent speakers, or a sign of language decay and impurity. As Garrett (2001) points out, most attitudes towards language focus on the superiority of one variety over another because of ideologies of correctness or purity. This is a trend identifiable in the “complaint tradition” of those who lament the loss of correctness in language (Garrett 2001: 628). Representatives of this position complain about language variation (i.e. any departure from the standard) leading to “falling standards” or a “decline in standards”, thus identifying the standard with the most correct and purest version of English. This is usually based on what Jenkins termed “nostalgia” (2007: 34), the idea that historical representations of English, the English spoken by certain people at a certain moment in time, are intrinsically better and correct. However, previous research has shown how adolescents tend to counterbalance the assumptions of prestige and authority associated with standard language ideology. For instance, Garrett, Coupland and Williams (1999 and 2003) found that teenagers’ perceptions of Received Pronunciation (i.e. the accent mostly associated with standard English) are negative compared to their teachers’ perceptions of the same accent. This is confirmed by Jenkins (2007), who discusses the language ideology that is implicitly or explicitly perpetrated by a number of linguists and by some influential applied linguistic publications. She emphasises the “persuasiveness of the ubiquitous standard language ideology” (2007: 89) when she explores the negative orientations towards ELF not only among the native-speaking ELT professionals, but, rather surprisingly, among the non-native-speaking teachers too. She also argues that “ELF speakers are deeply affected by the standard

bilingual as ‘two monolinguals in one person’ (1989), Romaine (1995) and Gafaranga (2007) also refer to more dynamic definitions of bilingualism.

“French is French, English is English”


language ideology that has resulted from these historical processes by virtue of the fact that their Englishes are (still) designated as ‘performance’ varieties that should look to Britain or North America for their norms” (2007: 33). The historical processes Jenkins is referring to are the processes of standardisation and legitimisation from which a standard language results by virtue of its history. In other words, the characteristic that makes a certain variety the legitimate standard is its history. The history of a certain nation and certain people legitimises the creation, or fixation, of a standard form which, therefore, needs to be preserved and protected by those same people, i.e. the native speakers. Before I move on to exploring how standard language ideology and its corollaries of historicity and grammaticality have permeated discussions about ELF, I will briefly overview the specificities of the data and the methodology used.

3 Methodology Silverstein in his pioneering paper defines “ideology” as a “set of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (1979: 193). Similarly, Lesley Milroy describes it as “a particular set of beliefs about language” (1999: 173) that is “historically deep-rooted and thoroughly naturalized – hence their resistance to analysis or argument” (2004: 167). In this sense, ideologies are constructed as natural justifications, taken-for-granted reasonings that people do not tend to question. From the researcher’s perspective, it is worth pointing out that ideologies usually go unnoticed, as they are so closely connected with and have become part of everyday life to the point that people take them for granted, as natural and unquestionable truths. Though unquestioned or implicit, ideologies nonetheless operate in very powerful ways as they dictate how the world is seen and interpreted. However, to say that ideologies are implicit does not mean to say that they are totally subconscious. Actually, they may be unexamined or unquestioned, but they can be discussed. ELF, as a controversial social phenomenon, is a topic that lends itself quite well to that kind of discussion. And since the general aim of the present research was to elicit British teenagers’ perceptions of ELF communication, the focus group discussion was chosen as the most suitable method. In fact, focus groups have been used successfully as a method of data

238 Alessia Cogo collection for marketing and public policy research, but they are still a relatively new method in other areas, including sociolinguistics and attitudes research (cf. Kitzinger 1994). This method is well suited to attitudinal research in that it allows for ideas, understanding and positions to be formulated, discussed and negotiated in groups. In this sense, it is the dialogic and collaborative interaction among the participants that increases the likelihood that the ELF paradigm is discussed in a deeper, more insightful way than by using individual interviews and questionnaires. In addition, and perhaps more importantly in light of the aim of this paper, focus groups are the means to explore participants’ shared knowledge, lay theories and ideologies that underpin explanations of social phenomena (Markova´ et al 2007; Puchta and Potter 2002). The emphasis is mainly on the co-construction of knowledge by the discussants and the idea that an evaluative and opinion-based discussion is discursively constructed in interaction by the participants, instead of being already present within the individuals. In other words, these are not stable, measurable and preformed ‘evaluations’ outside the context of discussion, rather they are performed in interaction, during the focus group discussion (Puchta and Potter 2004). The data analysed in this paper come from group discussions with school students in the London area.5 Three focus groups6 were conducted and each discussion lasted from a minimum of 40 minutes to about an hour. The students’ age ranged from 16 to 18 year old and a total of 16 students were involved in the project. The students’ population at the schools was divided into what they called “linguists” and “non-linguists”, the first category

5 The data explored in this paper were collected as part of LINEE Work Package 7a, which investigated the learning, use and perceptions of ELF in European contexts. The focus group stage of the project aimed to cover students’ perception of and orientations towards ELF communication and ELF speakers in two settings, i.e. Britain and the Czech Republic. The present paper focuses on the ideological underpinnings in the data from the first setting. 6 The most appropriate number of focus groups for each research project is a matter for debate. As Krueger maintains, 3 to 6 groups are an acceptable number in focus group studies (1994: 145), but this depends on the aims of the research itself. In the present investigation the aim is not to discover general trends, for which more focus groups would need to be conducted, but to explore the ideologies and lay theories that underpin the orientations towards ELF. For this kind of micro, time-intensive and transcript-based type of analysis 3 focus groups were considered sufficient.

“French is French, English is English”


being those that would continue studying modern foreign languages at A levels, the others being the students that had stopped studying them beforehand. Out of the three groups, two were mixed of an equal number of linguists and non-linguists, while one group was composed of linguists only. The general intention of the focus groups was to encourage a fairly open discussion among participants around the topic of English as a Lingua Franca. However, since the students were unlikely to be aware of ELF (as was confirmed during the discussions) a prompt needed to be used. The chosen prompt article was taken from the Guardian Weekly (a British national newspaper) written by Jennifer Jenkins and Barbara Seidlhofer entitled Bringing Europe’s lingua franca into the classroom (April 2001). The moderator introduced the task as a discussion around the topic of English and multilingualism in Europe, invited the participants to read the article and then discuss it among themselves. The article in itself is a challenging reading in that it explores the main concerns of ELF at the time of publication:7 for instance it provides examples of ELF situations, it mentions ELF in the context of globalisation and Europe, it explores features of ELF lexico-grammar and phonology, the idea that these could be considered in teaching and the concept of change of ownership. Though this may seem like an ambitious programme for such young students, the participants had little problem understanding the main ideas of the article as they all came to be discussed at some point in the focus groups. It is also worth pointing out that the kind of comments the participants made were certainly affected by the stimulus used, as they made explicit reference to certain concepts and features of ELF.

4 The focus group data In the following part, I analyse some extracts from the three focus group discussions in order to explore the dialogic co-construction of understanding in relation to the notion of ELF, and highlight how certain ideologies originate and are dealt with in discussion. I start from an analysis of the opening comments of the groups, where the participants show their “gut reactions” to the prompt-article and start forming alliances. I then proceed to 7 As research in this field has moved on considerably since 2001, the article, by admission of its own authors, would not be written in the same vein today. For instance, less emphasis would be placed on features and more on processes and strategies of ELF communication.

240 Alessia Cogo the analysis of some key terms, such as “perfect” and “proper”, which start more discussion around ideological notions, and finish with reflecting on how a particular group – the linguists – display awareness to certain orientations. Extract 1: opening comments of focus group 1 (mixed group) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Moderator Perry


so what- what do you think about it? ehm it’s quite interesting actually […]we allow other languages to work with our Engleh work with our way of speaking eh which is a sort of X it allows development in the language so words change and words die out other languages come into use. I quite .. it’s .. so for people speaking the language is probably quite useful to have a … to have a standard sort of a language isn’t-which is more like their own language .. so it’s quite useful to have a standard language and though even though as it says here declining in standards … it might it might seem that English has declining standards but it’s probably quite useful to Europe as a whole to have this sort of universal language which .. is more in keeping with their own languages .. quite interesting actually do you .. not think though that if you’re gonna make language more in a way they’re suggesting it would sort of debase English itself as a language I mean as it is we’re managing to make English to less of a language through evolvement as you say but … in a way I think that’s kind of bad because .. the whole thing about languages is that they have history .. the most interesting thing about languages is that you can look at the backgrounds behind words we’re gradually […] using the same word to describe everything I think if you’re gonna do that everywhere and make English not really English anymore then it’s a sort of a bad thing

“French is French, English is English” 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43



what it is is that it’s all like developments and in ten years time people will like say well this is how in this point in history English has developed […] it’s representative of our culture […] I think that we’d be wrong to say .. English needs to stand still I mean we don’t .. none of us speak in Shakespearian language anymore you know

To sum up, Extract 1 constitutes the beginning of the focus group, just after the participants have finished reading the article. The moderator invites them to express their opinions about it and Perry takes the lead and expresses some positive orientations towards ELF, as a phenomenon of natural development, which is useful to Europe. Perry’s favourable contribution is immediately followed by Sarah’s more guarded comments, who objects to ELF because it would “debase English itself” (22–23), and it would discard its “history” (28). After this, Mel takes Perry’s side by drawing on the natural development of language, which should change to be “representative of our culture” (39–40). At the beginning of the focus group, the participants are elaborating their understanding of ELF while at the same time creating their alliances. Perry sees ELF as sensitive to linguistic diversity and more receptive towards other languages, and Mel, who emphasises language change as a way to keep up with culture and identity, seems to agree with Perry’s idea that language spread needs change to adapt to other languages. Sarah, on the other hand, who associates ELF with debasing English, presents a purist counter-argument to Mel and Perry: ELF would involve getting rid of the base (de-basing), i.e. the history, the etymology and, therefore, simplifying the language. Their positionings are clearly negotiated and constructed straight from the beginning around the idea of development introduced by the first speaker: ELF as a process of natural development, which is useful and more appropriate in a European context, is also seen as more sensitive to sociocultural changes. Yet, even these positive orientations are not free of the same ideological implications that are challenged by the topic at hand: when Perry and Mel refer to “English” they make use of several possessive pronouns (“our English” in line 3; “our way of speaking” in line 4) which still emphasise the idea that English is owned by a certain group of people. These same people can decide to allow certain speakers to use English or not (“we allow” in line 2 and 3), and thus create differentiation between what is owned by some speakers and what is owned by others (“other languages” line 3; “their own language/s” in lines 11 and 18).

242 Alessia Cogo Ideological underpinnings aside, the more receptive orientations are contrasted and challenged by the comments that this development would compromise English standards. The standards invoked in the discussion are associated with history (“history … the most interesting thing about languages” in lines 28–29) and etymology (“backgrounds behind words” in line 30). In this view what is standard is best and is also what comes first chronologically, development and progress are considered a threat to history and to historically-constructed concepts, such as etymology and the standard language. I will return to the reference to historical relevance and standard as arguments of discussion in the following extracts of this paper, for the moment let me move on to analyse a very different opening. The opening of Extract 1 provides an interesting base for comparison with the opening of another focus group with the linguist participants, which is shown in Extract 2. While in the previous extract the participants were taking long turns and almost delivered short monologues outlining and contrasting their first opinions on the reading, in Extract 2, instead, participants make shorter contributions and seem to co-construct a common position on the topic. While in the first one participants try to find counter-arguments, in the second one the group perform a consensus-oriented discussion. Extract 2: opening of focus group 3 (linguists’ group) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13


Moder. Sophie


Basically they wanna make a language . like of English that is acceptable so that everyone in Europe can understand it (3) What else did you understand from the article Ehm I think they’re just sort of trying to summarise the mistakes – not the mistakes but the way like all the Europeans talk English like they would be sort of like Yeah you can see that they put like a lot of research into identifying like the main problems that come from European speaking English

In Extract 2 Ally takes the lead by explaining what she understood from the article, i.e. that they are making English more acceptable to Europeans (1–3). Sophie’s contribution points out that the examples in the article are mistakes (6–9), though she does not seem sure about using the term “mistakes” and rephrases her contribution by adding that this is the way “Europeans

“French is French, English is English”


talk”. Ally provides support to her indecision about the mistakes and brings in the idea of “problems” associated with the English spoken by Europeans (12–13). In this opening the participants are formulating their understanding of ELF in general and of the article in particular. They seem to agree on ELF being more acceptable to Europeans, but at the same time featuring the mistakes or problems of European communication. The idea of ELF as a conglomerate of mistakes, and the language as learners’ language, is not at all novel. This is actually a misinterpretation of ELF that dates back to the beginnings of research in this field and is embedded in the understanding that language is evaluated according to a native-speaker model, which has the authority to judge certain features as “correct”, if following the model, or as “mistakes”, if otherwise. However, there is a sort of ambivalence in Sophie’s argumentation of what she understands the article to be about. She starts using the term “mistakes”, but then she corrects herself and seems to struggle with finding the appropriate terms, the appropriate metalinguistic reference. This struggle with metalanguage recurs in other parts when participants discuss key terms, such as “perfect”. The idea of “perfect” knowledge is discussed at various moments in all the focus groups. In Extract 3 the moderator picks up on the last contribution and steers the discussion towards the question of what perfect knowledge of a language is (line 522). Extract 3: discussion of “perfect” in focus group 2 (mixed group) 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536

Katy Moderator Katy

Moderator Simon


you need to be in the country if you wanna get it perfect so what’s perfect then sounding fluent and people being able to understand you . well I’m not gonna be perfect in German but if I wanted to I’d go out there for a couple of months trying to learn as much as you can so is perfect getting all these grammar bits so yeah but then again you could say for a lingua franca English the grammar would be different from the normal English because of the way that sort of it’s understood by the people who use it yeah […] but then it doesn’t matter if it’s perfect or not I don’t think there’s gonna be such thing as perfect because noone really speaks their

244 Alessia Cogo 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552


Moderator Katy Lin

own language perfectly […] it doesn’t necessarily have to be perfect just understandable yeah I think it’s like a step down from what we speak really if you take back all the sort of little mistakes that deperfect our language then that’s what that language is so it’s a step down ? yeah well it’s not you it’s still the same you can understand it really like for us it seems a step down because it’s not because we know the language like .. wholly it would seem a step down but to other people it wouldn’t seem a step down just because it’s a more basic version of English it would seem a step down

In this Extract Katy starts elaborating on the moderator’s question of what consists perfect knowledge by associating this concept with fluency and understanding, but then she continues, almost in contradiction, by seemingly denying the possibility of achieving perfection (524–525) unless you go to the country where it is spoken, thus linking a language directly with the nation and a precise group of speakers. The moderator brings in the point of the grammar items (528) that had been previously discussed and Simon starts clarifying that an ELF grammar would be different from a British English grammar (529–539). After Simon’s contribution, Lin picks up the topic of the “perfect” knowledge and maintains that it is not relevant (“it doesn’t matter” in line 534), that perfection does not exist (535–536) and it is sufficient to be understood. Katy, however, does not seem to align herself with Lin and Simon when she affirms that ELF is a “step down” (540). After the moderator’s request for clarification she seems to contradict herself and have some difficulty in explaining her point (545–546). Lin comes in to help her by using elements of Katy’s talk, when she says that for British native speakers (“for us” in line 547) it may seem “a step down” because native speakers know the language “wholly” (548). But then Lin also contradicts herself by saying that ELF is a more basic version of English (551). This long passage contains all the trying out of arguments and understandings typical of focus groups as well as, of course, their contradictions, which can be exemplified in Simon’s and Lin’s contributions. On the other hand, Simon is able to separate ELF from ENL (English as a National

“French is French, English is English”


Language) when he refers to grammar, endorsing the possibility of a different ELF grammar and therefore different norms. On the other hand, Lin seems to support him at first by denying the possibility of one absolute perfection, or one fixed standard, but then she also contradicts herself when maintaining that it is enough to be understandable, and that ELF is native English simplified. In this last part, Lin is also using difference in language to create differentiation in the speakers. She creates two perspectives: “for us” (547), i.e. in the perspective of the British or native speakers, ELF is a step down; and the “other people” (549–550), that is the perspective of the non-native speakers for which “a more basic version” of English would be acceptable. In this respect, language difference becomes a way of “othering” in order to create differentiation and separation, where one version (the native speaker’s) is complete, the other is partial and basic. And completeness is only a matter for native speakers. There is a stark contrast between Simon, who has recognised difference and accepted that there may be different varieties of English, with possibly different norms, and Katy and Lin, who, though showing positive orientations to the topic in general, still compare ELF to native norms and see it as a simplified variety and ELF speakers as learners. The language that they are learning is associated with a certain country and the native speakers of that country. According to this, mastering a language involves going to the country where that language is spoken by native speakers, and spending a long time there. Otherwise, knowledge is not “wholly” complete, the language is known only partially and speakers are just understandable. Perfection, or mastery, of a language is therefore synonymous with mastery of a whole system of rules which are deposited and guarded by the native speakers. As in the previous extract, participants struggle to express themselves – both Katy and Lin struggle to find a role for ELF that would not involve reference to native or standard norms (is it a “step down” or is it not?). Their lack of metalanguage seems to lead them to comparisons between themselves (“we” in line 541 and “for us” in line 547), as British native speakers, and ELF speakers (the “other people” in line 548), and in these terms ELF is but a more basic and simplified version of standard English. The topic of knowing a language perfectly is a recurrent one in all the focus group discussions and is frequently associated with or followed by a discussion on the teaching or learning of English. In Extract 4, the participants are commenting on the need to learn English “properly”.

246 Alessia Cogo Extract 4: discussion of “properly” in focus group 3 (linguists’ group) 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400


Moderator Ally Tracy Ally Tracy Ally

for yeah going on holiday that’s fine it doesn’t matter if you make a couple of mistakes but if you do need it then you should learn it properly not .. not learning it in a way that’s been damped down so what is learning properly give me an example eh like correct grammar just like as it is spoken and it’s written and just like the correct use of it yeah what do they say different writing registers = =yeah= =knowing you know having to read up to date articles newspapers watch the news anything that can help you get up to date and familiarise yourself with the native speakers of that country

In this extract Ally distinguishes between using English for lecturing in genetics (example taken from the prompt-article), for which people should learn English properly, and the English used for tourism, in which case a couple of mistakes would be acceptable (382–385). When prompted by the moderator on what “properly” actually means (388–389) the immediate reaction is an association with “correct grammar” (390), with “native speakers” (399–400) and with one “country” (400). The discussion at this point is stirred by the moderator towards an elaboration of what “learning properly” means. Ally and Tracy stand together in linking “properly” to the notion of correctness, and it is only a matter of a few turns before the reference to native speakers is also invoked. It is clear now that the participants’ idea of what is proper and correct is directly linked with the standard grammar rules and native speaker ideology. The process of standardization is here completely obvious: the participants display loyalty towards standard norms of correctness and respect for these norms and how they are materialised, i.e. their written representation in the press (“articles newspapers” in line 397) and their oral rendition (“watch the news” in line 397). As Gal maintains, in standard language ideology “linguistic forms are accepted as languages only if they are written and have literature and norms of correctness” (2006: 15). And, in this sense, ELF is not to be considered language in its own right.

“French is French, English is English”


The idea of speaking a language as a native speaker, at various points in the discussions, is associated with mastery of certain grammatical features. In the extract below the participants start discussing which grammar points would be particularly important for ELF speakers. Extract 5: “grammar” in focus group 3 (linguists’ group) 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536


Ally Sophie Ally Sophie



Bob Ally

I’d say that like some grammar is more important than others then obviously saying things like he look whereas he looks I think that’s quit[e important it’s not like something [xxx yeah you wouldn’t learn the first thing you learn is the present [tense [yeah in any language yeah but I wouldn’t say like things like the subjunctive would be that important because we ne-we never use it anyway (.) d’you know what’mean like I don’t think it will be like the fact that the Americans are very good at like at using their subjunctives and English people aren’t relationally but ehm yeah I I still think subjunctive and things should be taught like they should be taught to us [at eh [I think we should be taught English I think we should have grammar lessons [in English

Sophie (516–527) introduces the topic of grammatical features, which was mentioned in the prompt article. She maintains that certain features are more important than others and she uses two examples: the third person -s and the subjunctive. She suggests that third person -s is “quite important” because, as Ally explains in the following turn, that is “the first thing you learn” (521). The subjunctive, instead, is an example brought in by the participant, which is not mentioned in the prompt-article, and receives a different treatment in the discussion. According to Sophie the subjunctive should not be taught because native speakers (“we” in line 526), the parameters of reference for what needs to be taught, do not use it. But Ally does not agree and mentions a piece of anecdotal knowledge, i.e. that Americans use the subjunctive (528–530), and by logical consequence she seems to imply that British people should use it too. In fact, this is the interpretation

248 Alessia Cogo Tracy makes when she expresses agreement with Ally, and suggests that the subjunctive should be taught and that learners should be taught the same grammar as native speakers. This extract is a crescendo of strong positionings towards grammar and grammatical relevance in language teaching and learning – from the mention of two grammar features to the suggestion that the participants themselves should be taught English (presumably grammar) and everybody should have grammar lessons. The participants put forward a series of ideas concerning grammar – that grammar that is taught first is necessarily important, but also the idea of the curriculum or textbook as the authoritative sources, so if certain grammatical items are explored in those sources then they must be of significance. Another interesting point is the comparison between English and other languages, which is here carried out through the reference to the subjunctive mood. It is interesting to note that the “subjunctive” is a technical term, one that students not taking languages would not probably know, but these students all take German A level and have probably come into contact with this term in their German classes. They import their knowledge of the subjunctive to the discussion about English. Here again two recurring themes: one is the idea of historical relevance, or what comes first is necessarily more important, and consequently certain grammar items are more important because they are learnt first, or they come first in the language teaching syllabus. The second is the emphasis on grammatical features as criteria of competence in a language, whereby knowing a language means mastering a set of features. This recalls the Chomskyan idea of competence and its focus on identifiable surface level structures, underestimating the Hymesian concept of communicative competence, or what is a complex and fundamentally a social practice.

5 The linguists Let’s now pay closer attention to the focus group that provoked the strongest and more dismissive reactions to ELF – the linguists. The group comprised only by the linguists consisted of students that had committed themselves to study languages up to A level and had already applied for university programmes that were language-related. While the distinction between the linguist and non-linguist group was originally set up by the researchers involved in the project in order to explore the possibility of

“French is French, English is English”


different orientations to ELF in the two groups, the students were not aware of any precise selection criteria. However, when it came to discuss some strong dismissive reactions towards ELF the linguist group seem to acknowledge that their representations had been dictated by their being linguistic professionals. Extract 6: “we love languages” 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717


Ally Bob

Ally Bob Ally

like we wanna do languages so we want to when we learn French or German or whatever we want to know exactly how to say it perfectly but if . if it is a designer that needs to get his design ideas across it shouldn’t matter that they drop the s […] I think it’s difficult for us to say [cause we [it IS difficult for us to say love languages and we are the sort of people if we were going and lived for three months in (0.5) Spain we would we’d either we’d probably force ourselves to get as good command of Spanish as we could because [we’re [yeah that sort of people that sort of people and if we were going to (1)

Here Bob is talking about “we”, i.e. the group of people involved in the focus discussion, who have chosen to take A levels in various languages and go to university on language-related degrees. According to Bob, the linguists should aim “to know exactly how to say it perfectly” (lines 702–703), their model being the native speaker. In his view, if you want to study languages for a career involving languages you would certainly want to aim for native speaker perfection. In this extract Bob and Ally are together constructing the participants in the focus group as different people, “the sort of people” that “love languages” and look after their norms. This group of linguists is explicitly identifying themselves as the “professionals”, and distinguishing their reactions to the topic from the possible orientations of the non-linguists, such as “the designer” (taken from the prompt-article), who may not need to use the third person -s. Their being language professionals is used as a reason to justify their dismissive evaluations of ELF, and more importantly for

250 Alessia Cogo them, to almost raise their profiles to the role of guardians of the linguistic standards. As we have seen, the nature of ELF calls for a reconsideration of the assumptions that speakers of English around the world should model their speaking on NSs. It is the linguists’ group in this research that is more resistant to this reconsideration, and the idea expressed in this group is that linguists are “that sort of people” that should set the example, should elect themselves to the position of repository of knowledge about language and norms, and, in other words, they should assume the role of guardians assigned to the preservation of standards. These orientations are taken even further in the following extract, where the participants are questioning whether ELF could become a “different form of English”. Extract 7: 308 309 310 311 312

Ally Tracy Ally

I don’t I don’t I think I think it’s hard to justify creating a whole= =mhm= =different form of English it’s like .. French is French English is English

In this extract Ally dismisses the possibility of ELF becoming a “whole different form of English” because “French is French English is English” (311–312). In their construction of the notion of language, a language can be clearly named, such as French and English, therefore it can be easily identified and separated from other languages. It can be created anew, but in order to do that it needs to be justified, the need for that language has to be legitimised. “French is French English is English” clearly encapsulates the idea that languages are separated, bounded entities which are also fixed in time. They differ from each other by a set of norms of correctness and respect for these norms is implied in a process of standardisation. In this process, people feel the norms are representative of a precise community of speakers and these speakers are in charge of them, have the right to change and amend them as they please. In other words, they own that language. This also involves a process of otherization, or differentiation, from the communities of speakers who do not have ownership and can only hope to resemble or come as close as possible to its owners, but will always fall short of perfection.

“French is French, English is English”


6 Conclusion The findings have shown how in both the mixed and the linguist groups receptive and dismissive orientations towards ELF are present, though in the mixed groups participants co-construct a more positive picture of some of the ELF implications (such as change of ownership, language variation in accordance to sociolinguistic context, etc), while in the linguist group participants display reservations towards most aspects of the themes discussed. However, given the limited number of focus groups, the overall tendency is only relevant in as far as it supports previous (larger) research on ELF attitudes- the findings of this paper support Jenkins’ (2007) investigation into linguistics professionals display more resistant orientations towards ELF, and also the findings from research (Ehrenreich 2009; Peckham et al, this volume), which relate the usefulness and applicability of an ELF paradigm in non-linguists’ communities of practice. This paper has focused on how ideological positionings inform certain perceptions of ELF among teenagers in the UK, and what specific language ideologies come to operate and influence constructions of language and linguistic diversity. I have demonstrated how the ideologies of standard language and native speakerness are intrinsically embedded into everything the participants discussed. Furthermore, these language ideologies also extend into various corollaries, such as the view that language is invariable, the belief in the notion of correctness which also leads to the concept of prestige and stigmatization. All these are co-constructed and negotiated in the data and strictly connected with ideas of grammaticality and historicity. In respect of the former, the participants evoke images and representations of language as an object of interest, as a system separated from its speakers and sociocultural contexts. The objectification process that language is going through in these discussions is also exemplified in the particular attention to lexico-grammar, whereby certain grammatical features seem to be essential because they are used by native speakers or because included in official teaching materials. Underpinning this position is the conviction that language systems consist of a finite set of patterns and that speakers need to master those features before mastering their communicative skills (cf. Dewey 2009; Leung 2005). In this view, learners need to learn the grammatical features as native speakers before they are allowed to communicate their own thoughts and ideas, and eventually even allowed to be creative. As for the latter, historicity, or the appeal to history as a legitimising factor, still seems to have an important influence on the ELF debates and

252 Alessia Cogo anti-ELF sentiments. The authority exercised by historical evaluations is invoked to make sure that varieties do not merely spring up “overnight like a mushroom” (Milroy J. 2001: 548), and only varieties which demonstrate a history of use can be considered legitimate, because their history can be traced back and associated with a certain (homogeneous) community of speakers, who alone have the authority to change it. As a field of research ELF has created controversy in various ways as it challenges some widely held assumptions. Jenkins maintains that accepting ELF requires a “change in mindset” (2007: 238) and the young participants in this research have already shown some steps in that direction. They orientate positively towards Europeans using ELF and they are even able to explore the inevitability of language change and variation, but inevitably show different gradations of ideological underpinnings in their discourse. Paradoxically, the ideology of standardization, with its emphasis on homogenisation, sameness and stability, contributes to creating difference, as it stigmatises certain speakers, increases separation and otherization (cf. Stevenson and Mar-Molinero 2006). This in turn limits creativity or confines creativity within the boundaries of standard (and monolingual) speakers. The data show that the ideological link between a community of speakers and a certain language is still strong, though the globalisation of English and its consequent deterritorialization would assume the opposite. Therefore the blind belief in the one language – one nation ideology may have distorted our understanding of what language is and may have dissociated it from its intrinsically sociocultural dimension. So much so that: “French is French English is English”, no variation allowed!

7 Transcript Conventions = … (0.5) [ underlining XX […]

latching (i.e. speech following the previous turn without a pause) short pause (unmeasured) measured pause beginning of overlapping speech used to highlight parts of the transcript discussed in the text unintelligible passage omitted transcript

“French is French, English is English”


References Bex, Tony and Richard Watts 1999 Introduction. In: Tony Bex and Richard Watts (eds.), Standard English: the Widening Debate, 1–10. London: Routledge. Cogo, Alessia 2009 Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: a study of pragmatic strategies. In: Anna Mauranen and Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings, 254–273. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Cogo, Alessia 2008 English as a lingua franca: form follows function. English Today 95: 41–44. Coleman, James 2006 English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching 39: 1–14. Dewey, Martin 2009 English as a Lingua Franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implications. In: Anna Mauranen and Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings, 60–83. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Ehrenreich, Susanne 2009 English as a Lingua Franca in Multinational Corporations – Exploring Business Communities of Practice. In: Anna Mauranen and Elina Ranta (eds.) English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings, 126–151. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Gafaranga, Joseph 2007 Talk in Two Languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Gal, Susan 2006 Migration, Minorities and Multilingualism: Language Ideologies in Europe. In: Clare Mar-Molinero and Patrick Stevenson (eds), Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices. Languages and the Future of Europe, 13–27. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Garrett, Peter 2001 Language attitudes and sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5: 626–631. Garrett, Peter, Nikolas Coupland and Angie Williams 1999 Evaluating dialect in discourse: Teachers’ and teenagers’ responses to young English speakers in Wales. Language in Society 28: 321–354. Garrett, Peter, Nikolas Coupland and Angie Williams 2003 Investigating Language Attitudes. Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Grosjean, Franc¸ois 1989 Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language 36: 3–15.

254 Alessia Cogo Jenkins, Jennifer 2009 Misinterpretation, bias, and resistance to change: The case of the Lingua Franca Core. In: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kolaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds), English Pronunciation Models: A changing scene, 199–210. Berlin: Peter Lang. Second edition. First published in Bern (Lang) 2005. Jenkins, Jennifer 2007 English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, Jennifer 2006 Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16: 137–162. Jenkins, Jennifer and Barbara Seidlhofer 2001 Bringing Europe’s lingua franca into the classroom. Online edition of The Guardian weekly, 19 April 2001. Kitzinger, Jenny 1994 The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness 16: 103–21. Klimpfinger, Theresa 2009 “She’s mixing the two languages together”- Forms and functions of code-switching in English as a Lingua Franca. In: Anna Mauranen and Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings, 348–371. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Krueger, Richard 1994 Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing. Leung, Constant 2005 Convivial Communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15: 119–44. Llurda, Enric 2004 Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an International Language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14: 314–323. Mauranen, Anna and Elina Ranta (eds.) 2009 English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Markova´, Ivana, Per Linell, Miche`le Grossen and Anne Salazar Orvig 2007 Dialogue in Focus Groups: Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge. London: Equinox. Milroy, James 2001 Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5: 530–555.

“French is French, English is English” Milroy, Lesley 1999 Milroy, Lesley 2004


Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the United States. In: Tony Bex and Richard Watts (eds.), Standard English. The Widening Debate, 173–206. London: Routledge.

Language ideologies and linguistic change. In: Carmen Fought (ed.), Sociolinguistic Variation. Critical Reflections, 161–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peckham, Don, Karolina Kalocsai, Emoke Kova´cs and Tamah Sherman (this volume) English and multilingualism, or English only in a multilingual Europe? Puchta, Claudia and Jonathan Potter 2002 Manufacturing individual opinions: Market research focus groups and the discursive psychology of attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 345–363. Puchta, Claudia and Jonathan Potter 2004 Focus Group Practice. London: Sage Publications. Romaine, Suzanne 1995 Bilingualism. Second edition 1995. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition. First published in Oxford (Blackwell) 1989. Seidlhofer, Barbara 2004 Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 209–239. Seidlhofer, Barbara 2006 English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In: Sabine Volk-Birke and Julia Lippert (eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings, 307–318. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Seidlhofer, Barbara 2007 Common property: English as a Lingua Franca in Europe. In: Jim Cummins and Chris Davison (eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching, 137–153. New York: Springer. Silverstein, Michael 1979 Language structure and linguistic ideology. In: Paul R. Clyne, William F. Hanks and Carol L. Hofbauer (eds), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Stevenson, Patrick and Clare Mar-Molinero 2006 Language, the national and the transnational in contemporary Europe. In: Clare Mar-Molinero and Patrick Stevenson (eds), Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices. Languages and the Future of Europe, 1–10. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Widdowson, Henry 2003 Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, Henry 1994 The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28: 377–389.

Part IV: Language and Economy

Chapter 12 Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe (An analysis of legal discourse)

Vı´t Dovalil

1 Introduction This article seeks to explore the problems concerning linguistic diversity and the relationships of these problems to the free movement of workers, goods and expertise throughout Europe. Using language disputes taken before the EU institutions, its main emphasis is to provide examples of concrete language-related barriers that affect the European market. Selected cases are analyzed that are characterized by common socio-economic features, i.e., the market participants’ economic motivation and their use of foreign languages. The article specifically addresses the question how these barriers are managed and reflected by the European Court of Justice. The paper demonstrates in which sense the language use in the European Union is not entirely free, but instead is regulated by legal discourse that unites the social practices of “law in action” and “law in books”. This regulation of differing interests pursued by different participants in their discourse both causes and reflects language problems simultaneously. The problems reveal themselves as an expression of socio-economic relations and political power. To address these issues, the paper is based upon Language Management Theory (LMT). It demonstrates how organized language management works and how the micro and the macro levels of social reality are interconnected in the domain of language law. The shift from the traditional industrial economy to the knowledge economy has had profound implications for language in society. Contemporary globalization is intertwined with the processes of deregulation in a wide range of human activities. Deregulation requires and contributes to the higher mobility and free movement of the labor force, goods, services, and capital. The implementation of these principles of European integration has essentially liberated the economy from the constraints of

260 Vı´t Dovalil individual state regulation. The four freedoms set out in the original EEC Treaty formed the basis of the Single Market that exists today. The subsequent sucessful mobility in the market depends to a large extent on the knowledge of foreign languages. Foreign language knowledge is required by employers. At the same time, the social reality of the European labor market is obviously influenced and regulated by Community law. Within this regulation, the participants in the European market pursue different interests, causing wide-ranging problems including language problems. The situation in every market is determined by two market forces – supply and demand. Language-specific commodities, knowledge and education can be taken for commercial products and considered a productive asset. Unlike most resources that deplete when used, knowledge and language skills can be shared and actually grow through application. Knowledge and information move to areas where demand is higher and barriers are lower. Their value depends heavily on context. Thus the same knowledge and language skills can have different values for different people, which can change rapidly in a short time (Grin 1999, 2003). The interplay between supply and demand for goods and services is limited by several factors, one of the most effective of these being the legal norms that are applied by the judiciary. This legal regulation holds true for language use as well. Unlike in the case of e.g. Common Agricultural Policy regulating the market with agricultural commodities, there is no “Common Language Policy” with comparable legally binding norms. It is EU member states that create legally enforceable language policies. Obviously, they have to comply with the Community law. The European institutions are conscious of the fact that inadequate knowledge of languages can significantly inhibit business activities of both small and middle entrepreneurs (cf. ELAN). For example, the Commission submitted a decision on the adoption of a multiannual program to promote the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society (the MLIS program) in November 1995. It was argued that industry and all other players must work out adequate solutions to overcome linguistic barriers if they are to benefit from the advantages of the single market and thereby remain competitive in the world. At the same time, the Commission addressed the fact that the private sector involved in international business consists mainly of small and medium-sized enterprises that face considerable difficulties in addressing different markets. These enterprises must be supported, especially when their role as a source of employment

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


is considered.1 No matter how much attention is paid to these questions by the European institutions, the European market generates various situations whereby language use reveals itself as the core of problems with consequences beyond the framework of “mere” linguistic analysis.

2 Theoretical background The analyses of some legal cases exemplifying the language problems and the regulation of the language use in the European Union are based on Language Management Theory. The presentation of the theory draws upon texts written primarily by J. V. Neustupny´, B. Jernudd and J. Nekvapil (Jernudd and Neustupny´ 1987; Neustupny´ and Nekvapil 2003; Nekvapil 2006; Nekvapil and Nekula 2006: 309–313; Nekvapil 2009: 1–11; Nekvapil and Sherman 2009). These texts present a cohesive theory. The authors’ accurate observations and analyses provide useful inferences applied in this article. The theory enables the incorporation of not only the whole of language, defined in the traditional narrow sense, but of a wide range of more general communicative and socio-economic problems that arise as a result of individual interactions: politeness, intercultural communication, speech therapy, language cultivation and standardization, or literary criticism. It is important to note here that two processes can be differentiated in language use. On the one hand, discourses are produced and interpreted, on the other hand discourses and their interpretations are managed. These metalinguistic activities, the object of which is the production and interpretation of discourses, demonstrate the forms of the behaviour toward language. Acts of language management can appear both in individual interactions at the micro-level, and in institutions and social networks of various complexity at the macro-level. The former kind of management is called simple management, while the latter is organized management (Jernudd and

1 Discussing this topic, it is interesting to take into account that the adoption of this program became a case that had to be solved by the European Court of Justice. The problem revolved around whether the question of the legal basis of such a program should have been only Article 130 (Industry) of the EC Treaty, or should be considered together with Article 128 (Culture). For more details, see the Case C-42/97 that was decided by the European Court of Justice on February 23, 1999.

262 Vı´t Dovalil Neustupny´ 1987). Organized management is characterized by the following features (Nekvapil 2009: 6): – more persons in social networks participate in the management process, institutions (organizations) are involved; – communication about management takes place; – management acts are trans-situational; – the object of management acts is not only language as discourse, but the object can become language as system; – theory and ideology intervene. Since these features are present to varying degrees, there is a gradual transition between the two extremes: simple and organized. LMT maintains that, in principle, language problems are identified by interlocutors in discourse, i.e. at the micro-level, and from there they can be transferred to the macro-level (Neustupny´ and Nekvapil 2003). That is, organized management arises from simple management. In turn, organized management influences simple management. This reflects the natural and realistic integration of macro and micro-approaches to the study of language problems. Language management acts are conducted in several phases. LMT presumes the existence of norms/expectations for linguistic behaviour, which different participants possess, in different situations. The first stage therefore involves the deviation from a norm/ expectation.2 The norm is a flexible entity, and, in fact, through the process of language management, we are able to observe the fluctuation of norms over time and space, within a given community. In the next stage of language management, a deviation from expectation may be noted, and the noted deviation may be evaluated. Subsequently, an adjustment plan may be selected. In the last stage the plan may be implemented. The process of language management may end at any point: a 2 The concept of norm can be conceived of as historically mutable contents of human consciousness with an intersubjective mode of existence based on reflection of social phenomena, the function of the norms being the regulation of language behaviour and expectations. These contents of human consciousness are related to communicative situations of the same type but of undetermined quantity. The norms consist of three parts. The first (the antecedent) is interpreted as the circumstances and conditions under which the second part (the implicate) can, or must, or must not be carried out. If the antecedent is provided, but the language behaviour in the implicate is not carried out, then the third part (sanctions) enters. The function of sanctions is to enforce the language behaviour as it is adequate with the implicate related to the respective antecedent (for more details see the analysis in Dovalil 2006: 20–27).

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


deviation from an expectation may be noted, but not evaluated; an adjustment plan may be neither selected nor implemented, etc. What language management seeks to investigate is the types of deviations that exist – where, when, and how they are noted and evaluated and the types of adjustment plans that are formed – where, when and how they are implemented. Power, ideologies and social inequalities can underlie all phases of language management. Thus, the implementation of the designed adjustments will typically depend on the more powerful participants (or networks). Whether a phenomenon is to be evaluated negatively (i.e. something has become a real problem that should be solved) or positively will also depend on power or ideology. Finally, ideological points of view may co-decide essentially about which language problems will be noted at all as deviations from (some ideologically-based) expectations. The four phases of the language management process (noting a deviation from the expectation, evaluation, adjustment design, and implementation) interconnect the micro and macro-level in various ways. As described by Nekvapil (2009: 7), first, ideally, the language problems experienced by ordinary language users are noted by linguistic experts. The problems can be solved and the adjustments designed by institutions (e.g. linguists) are implemented by ordinary language users (micro → macro → micro). Second, the problems experienced by ordinary speakers/writers are noted by experts, who are not able to find an appropriate solution or whose designed adjustments are not accepted by ordinary language users (micro → macro). Third, in institutions, experts design adjustments without considering actual language problems of ordinary users; nevertheless the designs are implemented at the micro-level (macro → micro). Fourth, problems experienced by interlocutors are solved only in ongoing interactions (micro only). Fifth, in institutions, experts hardly note problems experienced by ordinary speakers/writers; linguists pursue science for its own sake and design adjustments without considering their implementations at the micro-level (macro only). The management of language does not occur in isolation, but it is rather motivated by external socio-economic factors. The theory assumes that solutions to language problems should start with the solutions to the related socio-economic and communicative problems. According to LMT, the right sequence may be socio-economic management → communicative management → linguistic management (Neustupny´ and Nekvapil 2003). Thus, language management acts that do not take the socio-economic basis into account may fail to reach their goals. In other words, teaching foreign languages to the citizens of the EU (e.g. German in the Czech Republic, Irish in the Netherlands, Dutch in Spain) is conditioned by successful

264 Vı´t Dovalil communicative management, which means that common social networks with the respective language are established. This in turn draws upon successful socio-economic management (for example, providing jobs which could lead to the establishment of Czech-German and many other multilingual networks). Therefore in order to solve communication problems, it is first necessary to deal with them at the socio-economic level. This order of the management acts suggests that language problems always have a socio-economic basis. This fact is derived from differing interests of the participants reflecting the unequal distribution of power (and vice versa) in the various social networks. These inequalities in the social distribution of power are reflected in the language use. The acts of language management are encompassed by larger sequences of interaction without any clear beginning and end. In order to be able to describe such situations, LMT integrates pre-interaction and post-interaction management when potential language problems in future interactions are anticipated (for example looking up words and phrases in a dictionary or looking up norms of standard variety in a grammar, bringing along an interpreter, thinking out appropriate strategies for achieving goals, thinking out avoidance strategies) or when the problems are discussed after an interaction event (Nekvapil and Sherman 2009). Participants can learn lessons from past interactions for use in the next interaction. That is, a post-interaction management act can turn out to be a specific anticipation of a situation to come, i.e. an act of pre-interaction management at the same time. 3 Language problems in legal discourse The legal discourse of the language problems is described in this section. Herein, the concept of discourse is interpreted as a sum of communicative acts (texts) united by a common topic. The participants in this type of discourse conduct communicative acts to pursue their individual interests. These acts are observable both at the micro-level of individual interlocutors, and at the macrolevel of the institutions. As they are interrelated within the social network of the respective agents (both individuals, and organizations) they constitute the whole discourse as social practice (Fairclough [1989] 2001: 18–26). In legal discourses of language management, the focus of the legal regulation is language behaviour. The legal regulation of the use of language in the regions, member states and in the international organizations represents one type of organized language management. Language problems that are identified at the micro-level in individual interactions by individual interlocutors are delegated to organizations. Experts from these organizations

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


evaluate the problems and design the most appropriate adjustments. One of those organizations may be the judicial system. The solutions developed at the macro-level by experts are then implemented at the micro-level. New interactions among (the same or different) agents may demonstrate whether the original problem has/not been resolved. Judicial decisions affect everyday life with its problems: A judgment as a result of the language management process comes into being only if there is something to manage (i.e. if there is a language problem reflected in interactions). Feelings of discrimination are a good example. Obviously, it is a problem if someone applies for a job in the European labor market and the potential employer is not allowed to employ this applicant due to his/her poor knowledge of a (specific) language or for administrative reasons. One can imagine that these cases will be taken to court. However, not all problems are handled in this way. Language discrimination can initiate the process of language management that will end in the phase of negative evaluation. And although discrimination is considered to be a negative phenomenon, it is not always the case that an adjustment is designed to eliminate discrimination. Consequently, there is nothing to implement. The components of the whole legal discourse can be sketched as follows. Language problems are reflected in various ways:

suits, statetments and opinions presented to the courts, arguments of the plaintiff/defendant

textbooks/ lectures/journals on (European) law

law in action

texts of judgments, precedents, interpretation of the sources of law, law applied by the courts

Figure 1. The structure of legal discourse

law in books

sources of law, i.e. (unwritten) principles, texts of codified legal norms as EU-Treaty, Accession Treaties other acts, statutes and bills = sources from which the law is recognized

266 Vı´t Dovalil This legal discourse takes place against the background of the more general discourse(s) of language management/policy (for more details see Studer et al. 2008). These more general discourses contain more than merely legal elements (e.g. the phenomenon of socio-economic power and the ways in which this power is exercised, negotiation of political decisions before they are turned into legally binding norms). Hence, the background showing the plurality of these discourses is taken into consideration. As not all conclusions of political discourses become the sources of law, the social and political background in the model is not overgeneralized. All texts of the legal discourse refer to one another. The right-leftdivision of the ellipse is based both on different pragmatic functions of the texts, and on the difference between applied law and non-applied law.3 This division is an analytical one. Here, applying the law means obtaining one’s rights through a set of individual actions (i.e. language use). The line within the law in books is derived from the specific category of the sources of law. A text can become a source of law only on condition that it is approved by unique authorities (typically by parliaments in the member states, or by the Council and European Parliament in the EU) in a unique procedure, unlike what is accomplished through publication of textbooks or journals. As a result, its specific form turns an “ordinary” text into a source of law. This occurs in and through specific discourses and procedures. Apart from this fact, the model demonstrates the permeability between both types of law. Moreover, the model enables the identification of the agents constituting the social networks in which the language management process takes place. Consequently, the participants’ social roles and the power relations among them can be described. Thus, the discourse is shaped by those agents who take on the social roles of participants in a dispute (plaintiff and defendant), judges, other legal experts beside judges, and of the representatives of citizens. The representatives – typically members of parliament – are a part of the political elite who co-creates the legislation. The following description places emphasis on the position of the judges in the legal discourse because it is a judge who makes a final decision in a

3 These concepts are widely used in the theory of law as well as in the sociology of law (Knapp 1995; Ehrlich 1962). Law (in books), as formulated in the texts of the sources of law, should not be confused with the social reality of existing legal norms that regulate and influence the behaviour of people, including the acts of enforcement (law in action).

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


concrete dispute. The pragmatic functions of the various texts differ from each other.

3.1 The pragmatics of interests and persuasion – law in action I Law in action is based on the recorded texts of suits, statements, and opinions. These texts are formulated and used by two crucial agents – the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff aims at taking initiative and presenting a problem to court. Therein, the arguments are not formulated in a “neutral” or “objective” way. This interest-based approach also holds for the interpretation of the texts of the sources of law. The substance of the lawsuit sums up the data that are relevant for the plaintiff, whereby this participant in the discourse could win the dispute. The arguments of the plaintiff and the counterarguments of the defendant must be appropriately detailed if the court is expected to deal with them at all. Thus, crucial elements of the language problems stemming from the interactions are summarized for judicial purposes. As only selected details are necessary for the legal evaluation and decision-making (only those relevant for the final decision, i.e. noting), the judges need not examine the original interactions. The suits and related statements/opinions are the data source providing information about the interactional events at the micro-level. Organized language management depends on the preceding interactions in just this indirect way: Either relatively long sequences of repeated interactions may be summarized and reconstructed4, or the noting and evaluation are related to unique individual interactions (i.e. tokens). The texts of suits, opinions, and statements have a strong persuasive function. All these features are characteristic for the defendant, the only exception being the original initiation of the dispute. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have to refer to the sources of law in order to support their respective interests. The suit pre-determines the activity of the court later. If no suit is formulated and presented to the court, there is nothing to decide.5 The lawsuit ends with a suggestion of the formulation of the desired decision (demand for relief). 4 This methodological problem is acknowledged by the concept of management summaries (Nekvapil 2004). 5 This is reflected in the principle vigilantibus iura (i.e. only those who are vigilant have their rights).

268 Vı´t Dovalil 3.2 The pragmatics of “impartial” evaluation and decision-making – law in action II The texts of the judgments are primarily derived from suits themselves because the judges are allowed to make decisions that are related only to the suits (noting). The tie between the sources of law and the texts of judgments is very strong. Referring to the sources of law means being capable of interpreting the texts. Admittedly, different participants in the discourse may interpret the sources of law in different ways. However, unlike in the case of the plaintiff/defendant, it is the unique authority and power of the judges as the participants in the discourse that is brought to the forefront (according to the principle iura novit curia).6 Their evaluations and interpretations are the decisive ones. The pragmatic function of the texts of the judgments is to indicate the (final) decision that must be followed by all participants. The participants expect an “objective” or “impartial” judgment, which differs from the pragmatics of the plaintiff/defendant. In addition, once a suit is presented to the court, the judges must make a decision. The judgments are the most powerful component of the discourse for the implementation at the micro-level. Moreover, the effect of the judgments may go beyond the individual case as they may be used as precedent in future litigation, when the expert discourse among specialists refers to the past decisions that gained support. On the other hand, the applied law may reveal numerous practical problems that have to be solved by new codified legal norms. Although almost completely pre-determined by the sources of law, the evaluation is the key and the most independent activity of the judges whereas noting is simply derived from the suits. Moreover, it is not the evaluation carried out by the plaintiff/defendant, but the evaluation carried out by the judges that stops the language management process, or that moves this process further along. The adjustment design depends entirely on the sources of law. Implementing the judgment means managing the originally problematic language interaction through this decision. In other words: the organized management affects, and returns to, the micro-level because the judgment is enforceable even against the will of the unsuccessful party in the dispute.

6 This principle means that the court knows the law.

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


3.3 The pragmatics of information and instruction – law in books I The pragmatics of the lectures, textbooks, and journals consists primarily in informing and instructing. Herein, the agents – authors of these texts – take on the social role of experts. As all judges have studied and continue to study law, their knowledge of law has been shaped by this specialized literature in general (e.g. journals). The same kind of intertextual ties exists between the plaintiff/defendant and the discourse of textbooks and journals. Using the acquired knowledge based on the specialized literature is a universal component of their professional approach. The diagonal tie between the judgments and the textbooks demonstrates the recontextualisation of influential precedents in the textbooks.7 All phases of language management but implementation may be included.

3.4 The pragmatics of the pre-formulated adjustment designs – law in books II The pragmatic function of the sources of law is actually to provide adjustment designs as prepared solutions to language problems. They are the most visible expression of the overt language policy, and they can be conceived of as a specific kind of pre- or post-interaction management at the same time.8 The authors of these texts are representatives of the citizens. This fact contributes to the legitimacy not only of this unique type of text, but also – through their numerous ties between the law in books and the law in action – indeed to the legitimacy of the whole legal discourse. Legally binding norms as they are formulated in the sources of law are an expression of political power and underlying ideologies. The unique role of political representatives as agents of language management processes is that they are the most powerful 7 It is interesting to find out which cases are discussed in which textbooks written in which languages. Unlike in the literature written in German, the cases (e.g. the Kik case in Streinz 2005 or the Groener and Kik cases in Schu¨bel-Pfister 2004) are not mentioned in the Czech textbooks of Community law (Tichy´ 2006). 8 It does not mean that the existence of the covert policy is denied. At the same time, it cannot be inferred that the covert policy would be located “outside” the legal discourse automatically. All practices, or language management acts complying with the sources of law, are a part of law in action. Law in action, in turn, separates the legal practices from the illegal ones that – admittedly – may be noted and evaluated in covert language policy.

270 Vı´t Dovalil participants in the processes that create the designing of adjustments at the macro-level. The authors of the texts of the sources of law interconnect the legal discourse with a more general political discourse (and vice versa), the analysis of which would exceed the scope of this article.9

4 Law in action – analyses of the cases The language management process within the discourse of law in action can be presented in the following way: “Secondary” interactional data summarized by the parties in the case and presented to the court as suits, statements and opinions (i.e. noting at the micro-level; the respective party’s evaluation, and an adjustment design) is a condition for making judicial decisions (evaluation and adjustment design at the macro-level). They may lead to managed interactions (implementation) back at the micro-level eventually. In this part, five thematically different cases are selected.10 Nevertheless, they possess several common features: 1.

2. 3. 4.

All cases concern language problems at the European level. Not only did the judges in the member states deal with them, but these judges also needed to address the European Court of Justice to get some advice. The language problems contain, and are based on, the socio-economic components of the motivation of the plaintiffs’ actions. The plaintiff is not limited by his/her operation within the member states, but he/she participates in the European market. The plaintiff counts on the necessity of his/her mobility and flexibility in this market, which reflects the free movement of workers, goods, services, and capital.

9 The political representatives may be influenced during their own decision-making in too numerous and varying ways to analyze in this article. Also many more agents take part in the general political discourse on language policy (e.g. people in political parties, executive bodies as governments), of course. Unlike the policymakers from the legislative bodies, the acts of the policy-makers from the executive bodies depend on, and have to comply with, the legislation. In other words, for instance the acts of the members of governments must not exceed the competences predetermined by the members of parliament. This corresponds with a part of the complex checks and balances between the legislative and executive power. 10 The analyses reflect only the Community law as it was valid during the period of the respective case. Amendments are referred to only in connection with the cases of the labelling of foodstuffs (e.g. the Goerres and Piageme cases).

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe



The economically motivated effort of the plaintiffs to assert themselves in the market is limited by the legal norms of the member states and is related to the language use within the member states, which generates the need to evaluate the compliance of these legal norms with the Community law. In some cases, this problem has to do with the protection of minority languages.

Language Management Theory facilitates the unification of sociolinguistic analysis in that it is able to connect the micro and macro-level of the actions conducted by the agents. Moreover, it is possible to identify the point at which both levels meet (especially in courts). What comes during the evaluation is the most important moment for the transference of language management acts from the micro to the macro-level in dealing with the language problem.11 The management process goes on if the judges as decisive agents agree with the plaintiff that an issue analyzed has to be evaluated in another way than merely positively. The total number of all language-related cases that have been decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) so far is too complicated to reconstruct. The data on which these analyses are based comes from the database EUR-Lex ( Two of the cases (Groener and Angonese) show a language problem originating from labor law. Another two cases (Goerres and Piageme) concern language use in the labelling of foodstuffs offered in the European market and the question of a language easily understood by purchasers. The last case (Kik) demonstrates an attempt of an EU-citizen to call into question a valid language regulation in a European institution. The summaries of the cases can be found in the Appendix. 4.1 Groener and Angonese Cases The plaintiffs, Groener and Angonese, wanted to get a job. Both of them felt discriminated against for administrative reasons. In the Groener case, the reason consisted in the fact that Irish knowledge was required from a Dutch citizen (Anita Groener) who was going to teach full time in Ireland 11 This, however, does not mean that language problems cannot be noted by judges. As described above, the social role of a judge participating in such a problem as a plaintiff/defendant would be obviously different. Or admittedly, a judge may note a language problem as a judge, but will not act according to the social role, which will stop the language management.

272 Vı´t Dovalil at a public college in Dublin with English as the language of instruction, following experience teaching there part-time. At the micro-level, it turned out that the central problem of this case consisted in the use of the Irish or the English language: Mrs. Groener expected she could continue teaching her classes in English. A very apparent deviation from these expectations arose when she found out that it would not be possible. She noted and evaluated it negatively, as she addressed the Minister of Education. According to the expectation of this institution, she was supposed to be able to speak Irish. After Mrs. Groener had not succeeded in passing a required exam in some Irish, the courts were involved. She brought the language management process to the macro-level once more. In this phase, the language problem was evaluated by an Irish court first. It turned out that the evaluation conducted by the Irish court might not be clear enough, which caused this court to delegate the evaluation to the European Court of Justice as a reference for a preliminary ruling. An adjustment for further procedures was designed. This management act was derived from, and pre-determined by, the sources of law. It was stated that “a permanent full-time post of lecturer in public vocational education institutions is a post of such a nature as to justify the requirement of linguistic knowledge […] provided that the linguistic requirement in question is imposed as part of a policy for the promotion of the national language which is, at the same time, the first official language […]”. This adjustment design was the last phase of language management at the European level. In the Angonese case, an Italian citizen from the province of Bolzano speaking German as his mother tongue wanted to get a job in a bank. However, he did not possess a language certificate issued by the right authority of this province. This case provides a similar type of noting and negative evaluation as seen with the job-seeker on the micro-level in the first case. Unlike the Groener case, however, the substance of this case was more an issue of administrative procedure because what mattered was the authority issuing a language certificate, not the knowledge of the language. Unable to evaluate the problem in an unambiguous way, the Italian court also addressed the European Court of Justice. The management process continued through designing an adjustment by this Court. It decided that the Community law “precludes an employer from requiring persons applying to take part in a recruitment competition to provide evidence of their linguistic knowledge exclusively by means of one particular diploma issued only in one particular province of a Member State”. Thus, the minority language (German in South Tirol) was protected from administrative formalities (implementation).

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


4.2 Goerres and Piageme cases The common feature of the Goerres and Piageme cases consists in the choice of the appropriate language(s) for the labelling of foodstuffs. Mr. Goerres offered products for sale in his shop in Germany that were not labelled in German. He noted and evaluated negatively that an authority fined him for infringing upon the German law according to which the labels in German were required. The same problem was addressed in the Piagme case for the language used for labelling French and German mineral waters sold in Belgium. The Belgian law imposed an obligation to use the dominant language of the region in which the product was placed on the market (Dutch). According to the original Council Directive (valid at the time of the case), the foods were supposed to be labelled in a language easily understood by the ultimate consumer, which meant that no specific language was allowed to be pre-determined for the labels. The evaluation of the ECJ differed from German and Belgian administrative bodies. The ECJ did not agree to their restrictive interpretation of “a language easily understood by the ultimate consumer”. In the Goerres case it was decided that the European law did not preclude “national legislation which, as regards language requirements, prescribes the use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs but which also permits, as an alternative, the use of another language easily understood by purchasers. All the compulsory particulars specified […] must appear on the labelling either in a language easily understood by consumers of the country or the region in question, or by means of other measures such as designs, symbols or pictograms”. In the Piageme case it was decided that the European law precluded “a Member State, with regard to the use of a language easily understood by purchasers, from requiring the use of a language which is that most widely spoken in the area in which the product is offered for sale, even if the use at the same time of another language is not excluded. […] The ease with which this information supplied can be understood must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances in each individual case”.12

12 These two language problems were not the only ones related to the labelling of foodstuffs that had to be presented to the ECJ. As these issues continued (e.g. in France) the European Council decided to approve a new Directive 2000/13 EC that replaced the original one from the late 1970s. However, new cases appeared. For example in 2002, the European Commission formally asked France to bring its national law on the use of languages for labelling foodstuffs into

274 Vı´t Dovalil 4.3 Kik case In the Kik case, the plaintiff attacked the language regulation of the European Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). The language problem was in this case noted when the plaintiff Christina Kik found out that she would not be allowed to use Dutch in all parts of the administrative proceedings where she would have preferred. She claimed that the limited number of official languages used in this Office according to Art. 115 of the Council Regulation 40/94, was discriminatory (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian). Her negative evaluation, supported by Greece, drew upon the argument that as languages should be equal, it is unlawful to determine which of all EU official languages are admitted as official languages in administrative proceedings of the Office. However neither the Court of First Instance, nor the European Court of Justice shared this negative evaluation with her at the macro-level. They argued that the equality of languages was not a fundamental principle because it could not be derived from the EC-Treaty. Both courts followed the preformulated adjustment designs of the language regulation of the Office that determines which languages are to be used in which concrete proceedings. The European Court of Justice confirmed the validity of the language regulation of the Office and dismissed the lawsuit. The evaluation of the ECJ complied with the argumentation shared by the Council and Spain. The ECJ acknowledged that the solution to the expected language problems as was formulated by the Council in Article 115 (i.e. the adjustment design with five official languages) had to be evaluated positively and was more sophisticated than the original proposal of 1980 (one language). In this case, the language management ended with Ch. Kik’s negative evaluation. Her adjustment design, which would have meant a change in Article 115, could not be implemented.

line with the European law. As it stood, French law provided that any particulars on the label of foodstuffs imported into France had to be written in French. The Commission referred to the case law of the Court of Justice and repeated that, e.g. the Directive 2000/13 EC “would allow a carton of chicken wings sold in a fast food restaurant in France to refer to the product concerned in a language other than French, such as the term “chicken wings”, if the carton carried a photo clearly depicting its contents” (Commission Press Release (IP/02/1155), July 25, 2002). Thus, efforts of the European institutions to support the organized language management at the macro-level are being made.

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


5 Conclusions Community law, on the one hand, partially constrains national language policy and language law, but on the other hand, the active creation and implementation of language policy goes beyond the competence of the European Union. The European Union is not allowed to impose its own language policy on the member states without their agreement. Only the member states are authorized to implement their own language policy, whereas the European institutions determine where the implementation has to stop. The decisions of the ECJ show the concrete limits of the interplay of the member states’ language policy and the EU in individual situations. Thus, the cases analyzed prove the phenomenon of negative integration (Manz 2003). Noting and negative evaluation of the same language problems conducted by individuals may become relevant both for policy-makers in the member states (members of parliaments with legislative power), and for those in the EU institutions (the Council with its legislative power). Their common negative evaluation of problematic issues makes them formulate the texts of the sources of law, in order to avoid more complicated situations (pre- or post-interaction management). This legislation results from the first type of language issues in which the organized management acts originate at the micro-level and reach the macro-level. A part of the law in books is created in this phase. In other words, at least a contingent of the political decision-makers shares the problems with ordinary language users who had noted and negatively evaluated the problems. Nevertheless, the adjustments designed by the respective legislative bodies (e.g. the texts of the language law of the member states and the texts of the regulations of the Council, as mentioned in the individual cases) may differ from one another. If individual disputes of language users are presented to, and decided by, the ECJ, then the adjustment designs begin to be implemented. The macrolevel is split into two parts – one step of implementation can be recognized in the acts of the courts (or other executive bodies) within the member states, the other in the acts of the ECJ (including the Court of First Instance), eventually. Such language management acts demonstrate another type of event in which the transference of the acts from the micro to the macro-level occurs. Unlike in the “legislative” example above, in which the language management resulted in an adjustment designed by the legislative bodies at the macro-level, the acts in this example result in the implementation at the micro-level. Or, if not implemented immediately, then at least a more concrete adjustment is designed by the ECJ that will be

276 Vı´t Dovalil adopted by a court in the member state.13 The ECJ’s decisions have to be followed in the further phases of the proceedings in the member state. These decisions (including their implementation) result from the second type of language issues in which organized management acts originating at the micro-level reached the macro-level and returned to the micro-level. This exemplifies law in action. Apart from these theoretical and analytical conclusions, some other effects of the language policy in the European market can be found. The decision of the Groener case aimed to support Irish, which was the most apparent objective of the Irish language policy. However, the effect of the judgment could also be interpreted in terms of the protection of the Irish labor market. It is not known if A. Groener’s low command of Irish made her continue learning this language in order to pass the required exam, or if she found another job (in Ireland or elsewhere). The principle of free movement of workers did not predominate over the competence of one member state to enforce its language policy: A. Groener’s negative evaluation was not shared by the ECJ, which stopped her intended language management. This also held for Ch. Kik’s negative evaluation of the existing adjustment design of the Office for Harmonization. Her own adjustment design, supported by Greece, was dismissed. Like the Groener case, the organized management also ended at the macro-level and was stopped in the negative evaluation phase. In the Kik case, the language policy within the European institution (Office for Harmonization) was confirmed and defended by another European institution (ECJ). However, the decisions of the ECJ in all other cases demonstrate the negative evaluation shared by the language users and by this institution. The free movement of workers and goods as fundamental principles of integration predominated over the restrictions created by the member states. Language Management Theory shows how the differing evaluations of the parties in the disputes, i.e. the very cause of having the courts decide the cases, can be integrated into the dynamics of human behaviour towards language in a transparent way. Generally speaking, evaluation is reflected in many different studies on language policy but the position of the evaluation in the discourse appears somewhat undefined. (cf. individual examples in Cooper 1989; Grin 2003; Manz 2003; Liddicoat and Baldauf 2008). However, the position of evaluation can become more transparent in this

13 This is typically the case when preliminary questions that address the European Court of Justice are raised by the courts in the member states.

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


analysis because evaluation is a theoretically grounded phase representing a crucial point in which language management acts meet – both in terms of the micro-macro-connection, and in terms of what precedes it (i.e. noting) and what can follow (adjustment design). The adjustments designed for the respective cases make further conclusions possible. Some of them support language diversity (the Groener and Angonese cases), some others not necessarily (the Goerres, Piageme, and Kik cases). Thus, as demonstrated in the Groener case, the judgment was going to impose on the language user an additional language (Irish), whereas in the Kik case, the limited number of official languages as designed in the source of law was confirmed. The differences can be derived from the previous phases of language management. The original expectation in the Groener case was that fewer languages would be allowed to be used (only English). The deviation from this expectation consisted in the necessity to add one more language (Irish), which was repeated in the adjustment design eventually. However, the original expectation in the Kik case was that more languages would be allowed to be used for her purposes, and the deviation from this expectation consisted in the necessity not to increase the number of languages. In addition, the analysis of the cases shows that the implementation consists in various activities. On the one hand, the language users were supposed to act, e.g. to learn a foreign language (the Groener case). On the other hand, the language users were supposed not to act, e.g. not to abide by a rule being an administrative obstacle, or not to increase the number of languages used in specific domains (the Angonese, Goerres, Piageme, and Kik cases). The socio-economic basis of language management explains why the implementation in the Groener case failed. A. Groener used English in her social network at the Irish College of Marketing and Design, and she supported herself financially from this job. Although she did not require Irish in her everyday working life, the Irish certificate was imposed on her by the Irish Ministry of Education. However, it did not to pay off to learn Irish in her case. The attempt of Ireland to spread Irish in this way turned out to be an administrative impediment for Groener’s mobility in one sector of the Irish labor market (permanent jobs at public colleges). The market demand for Irish, however, remained low.

278 Vı´t Dovalil Appendix Summaries of the analyzed cases: The Groener Case: Groener/Minister for Education and the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee (C-379/87) In July 1984, Mrs. Anita Groener, a citizen of the Netherlands, applied for a permanent full-time post as a lecturer in an English program in art at the College of Marketing and Design in Dublin, which falls under the authority of the City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee. The Minister gave his approval on condition the applicant passed the special oral examination. The oral test took place on 28 May 1985 and the applicant failed. The College, her employer, sought authorization to employ her for the academic year 1985-86 as a full-time lecturer under a temporary contract. This was refused by the Department of Education on the grounds that she had failed the oral test. Finally, Mrs. Groener wrote directly to the Minister to ask for the waiver of the obligation to prove her knowledge of the Irish language. By letter of 27 September 1985, the Minister replied that the condition could not be waived under the terms of Circular Letter 28/79 since other fully qualified persons had applied for the post in question. After having informed the Commission of the European Communities and the European Parliament by means of a petition to its President, Mrs. Groener commenced proceedings for judicial review before the High Court, Dublin, against the Minister and the City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee. During those proceedings she maintained that the conditions imposed by the Minister in Circular Letter 28/79 and Memorandum V7 were contrary to Community law and in particular to Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68. Article 8 of the Constitution of Ireland codifies the status of the Irish language as the national language and the first official language of Ireland. English is recognized as a second official language. Article 23 of the Vocational Education Act (1930), as amended, provides that the numbers, qualifications, remuneration and appointment of all officers of each vocational educational committee must be approved by the Minister of Education. According to the Circular Letter 28/79 of the Ministry all candidates for permanent full-time posts as senior lecturer, lecturer or assistant lecturer in vocational education institutions had either to hold a certificate of knowledge of the Irish language or to take a special oral exam in the Irish language (‘An Ceard-Teastas Gaeilige’). The examination had to be taken before the candidate could be appointed to the vacant post. If the candidate

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


failed the examination, the institution was not allowed to appoint that person to a full-time or part-time permanent post. However, it was possible for it to appoint the candidate to a temporary post for the remainder of the academic year if it was not possible to fill the post in accordance with principles set out in the Circular Letter 28/79. Furthermore, the Minister confirmed a provision of an earlier memorandum, V7, whereby a derogation from the obligation to establish the required competence in the Irish language might be granted to a citizen of a country other than Ireland (or to a candidate born and educated in Northern Ireland) who possessed all the other necessary qualifications if there was no fully qualified candidate. The High Court in Dublin referred three preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice, the most important of them being: Is the term ‘public policy’ in Article 48(3) of the EEC Treaty to be construed as applying to the policy of the Irish State to support and foster the position of the Irish language as the first official language? And closely related to this: If so, is the requirement that persons seeking appointment to posts as lecturer in vocational educational institutions in Ireland, who do not possess ‘An Ceard-Teastas Gaeilige’ (i.e. the special oral examination as mentioned above), shall undergo a special examination in Irish with the intent of satisfying the Department of Education’s requirement of their competency in Irish, a limitation justified on the grounds of such policy? The European Court of Justice decided on 28 November 1989: A permanent full-time post of lecturer in public vocational education institutions is a post of such a nature as to justify the requirement of linguistic knowledge, within the meaning of the last subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council, provided that the linguistic requirement in question is imposed as part of a policy for the promotion of the national language which is, at the same time, the first official language and provided that that requirement is applied in a proportionate and non-discriminatory manner. The Angonese Case: Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (C-281/98) Mr. Angonese, an Italian citizen whose mother tongue is German and who was residing in the province of Bolzano, studied in Austria between 1993 and 1997. In August 1997, he applied to take part in a competition for a post with a private bank in Bolzano, the Cassa di Risparmio. One of the conditions for consideration for the competitive position was possession

280 Vı´t Dovalil of a type-B certificate of bilingualism (in Italian and German), which was to be required in the province of Bolzano for access to managerial careers in public service. The certificate is issued by the public authorities of the province of Bolzano after an examination which is held only in that province. It is usual for residents of the province of Bolzano to obtain the certificate as a matter of course for employment purposes. Obtaining the certificate is considered an almost compulsory step as part of normal training. The national court found, although Mr. Angonese did not possess the certificate, he was in fact perfectly bilingual. He submitted a certificate showing completion of his studies as a draftsman and certificates attesting to his studies of languages (English, Slovene and Polish) at the Faculty of Philosophy at Vienna University. He also stated that his professional experience included practising as a draftsman and translating from Polish into Italian. On 4 September 1997, the Cassa de Risparmio informed Mr. Angonese that he could not be considered for the position because he had not presented the certificate. (The requirement for the certificate imposed by the Cassa de Risparmio was founded on Article 19 of the National Collective Agreement for Savings Banks of 19 December 1994, which is the Collective Agreement). Mr. Angonese complained that the requirement to have and present the certificate was unlawful and contrary to the principle of freedom of movement for workers laid down in the EC Treaty (Art. 48, after amendment Art. 39). The European Court of Justice decided on 6 June 2000: Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) precludes an employer from requiring persons applying to take part in a recruitment competition to provide evidence of their linguistic knowledge exclusively by means of one particular diploma issued only in one particular province of a Member State. That requirement puts the citizens of the other Member States at a disadvantage, because persons from other provinces have little chance of acquiring the certificate of bilingualism, and it will be difficult, or even impossible, for them to gain access to the employment in question. The requirement is not justified by any objective factors that would be unrelated to the nationality of the persons concerned nor in proportion to the aim legitimately pursued. In that regard, even though requiring an applicant for a post to have a certain level of linguistic knowledge may be legitimate and possession of a diploma such as the certificate may constitute a criterion for assessing that knowledge, the fact that it is impossible to submit proof of the required linguistic knowledge by any other means, in particular by equivalent qualifications obtained in other Member States, must be

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


considered disproportionate in relation to the intended aim of the requirement. Therefore, the requirement constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality contrary to Article 48 of the Treaty.

The Goerres Case: Administrative penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef Goerres (C-385/96) This case demonstrates the difficulties in labelling of products (foodstuffs) launched on the Single Market. Specific products, such as pharmaceuticals are not covered in this case. Mr. Goerres ran a food market in Eschweiler, near Aachen. On 13 January 1995, he offered products for sale in his shop that were not labelled in German but only in French, Italian or English. On 6 July 1995, the Oberkreisdirektor imposed an administrative penalty of DM 2 000 on Mr. Goerres for infringement of Paragraph 3(3) of the Regulation on the designation of foodstuffs, i.e. some particulars have to appear on the packaging in German: the trade name, the manufacturer’s name and address, the list of ingredients, sell-by date. All these must be in a clearly visible place. Mr. Goerres lodged an objection to the penalty notice before the court in Aachen. He argued that the use of a particular language could not be imposed; that, under Article 14 of Directive 79/112/EEC, the decisive factor was the intelligibility of the labelling; and that, in the case of products which were well known to the public, the use of labelling in a foreign language did not adversely affect the consumer’s interest in receiving information. He further stated that he had placed in his shop, adjacent to the products in question, supplementary signs giving the required information in German. The European Court of Justice decided on 14 July 1998: Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer does not preclude national legislation which, with regard to language requirements, prescribes the use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs but which also permits, as an alternative, the use of another language easily understood by purchasers. All the compulsory particulars specified in Directive 79/112 must appear on the labelling either in a language easily understood by consumers of the country or the region in question, or by means of other measures such as

282 Vı´t Dovalil designs, symbols or pictograms. Placing a supplementary sign in a shop adjacent to the product in question is not sufficient to ensure that the eventual consumer is informed and protected.

The Piageme Case: Piageme and Others v Peeters NV (C-85/94) This case is very similar to the previous one. Herein, the plaintiffs (a group of companies called Piageme and others) imported and distributed various French and German mineral waters in Belgium. They considered that the defendant selling the mineral waters in the Flemish-speaking region infringed upon Belgian legislation because the bottles offered for sale were labelled either in French or German, whereas in that region, according to the Belgian Royal Decree of 13 November 1986, the labelling was supposed to be in Dutch. Article 11 of this decree provided that the labelling had to appear at least in the language or languages of the region where the foodstuffs were offered for sale. However, Article 14 of the Directive 79/112/EEC provided that Member States refrain from laying down requirements more detailed than those already contained in its Articles 3 to 11 concerning the manner in which the particulars provided for in Article 3 and Article 4(2) were to be shown. The Member States were only to ensure that the sale of foodstuffs within their own territories was prohibited if the particulars provided for in Article 3 and Article 4(2) did not appear in a language easily understood by purchasers, unless other measures had been taken to ensure that the purchaser was informed. This provision was not meant to prevent such particulars from being indicated in various languages. As the Court ruled, the expression a language easily understood used in Article 14 of the Directive was not equivalent to the official language of the Member State or the language of the region. The aim of Article 14 is to ensure that the consumer is given easy access to the compulsory particulars specified in the Directive. The consumer should be provided with information rather than imposed the use of a specific language. (By the way, this circumstance makes the Directive 79/112/EEC different from the Directive 92/27EEC according to which official language or languages of a Member State must be used when medicinal products are placed on the market). The European Court of Justice decided on 12 October 1995: Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer precludes a

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


Member State, with regard to the use of a language easily understood by purchasers, from requiring the use of a language which is most widely spoken in the area in which the product is offered for sale, even if simultaneously the use of another language is not excluded.

The Kik Case: Christina Kik against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (C-361/01 P) This case was an appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance dismissing an action brought by Christina Kik against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) in which she essentially sought to bring into question the rules governing the use of languages at this Office. Article 115 of Council Regulation 40/94 determines that the application for a Community trademark should be filed in one of the official languages of the EC. The languages of the Office shall be English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. Apart from that, the applicant must indicate a second language, which should be a language of the Office, the use of which he or she accepts as a possible language of proceedings for the opposition, revocation or invalidity proceedings. If the application is filed in a language which is not one of the languages of the Office, the Office shall arrange to have the application translated into the language indicated by the applicant. On May 15, 1996, the applicant Christina Kik, a lawyer and trademark agent in the Netherlands submitted an application for an EC trade mark to the Office. The trademark requested to be registered was the word “Kik”. In her application, which was written in Dutch, she indicated Dutch as the second language. In a decision from March 20, 1998, the Office dismissed the application on the grounds that the requirement concerning the second language (English, French, German, Italian or Spanish) was not satisfied. The applicant appealed this decision because she considered it unlawful as it was based on unlawful legislation. The Board of Appeal of the Office dismissed the appeal in a decision from March 19, 1999 (hereby referred to as the ‘contested decision’). The applicant appealed to the Court of First Instance seeking annulment or revision of the contested decision on the ground that the Office had infringed upon the principle of non-discrimination in Article 12 of the ECTreaty because it favors certain official languages and hence certain citizens of the EU. Kik argued that the language regime did not comply with the fundamental principle of equality of languages. Referring to Article 12 of

284 Vı´t Dovalil EC-Treaty, she pointed out that no discrimination could be justified on the grounds of practical convenience, and that even if the language regime could be justified in this way, it would not be proportionate. The applicant was supported by Greece, the Office by the Council and Spain. The Court of First Instance rejected the argument of the applicant and dismissed the action. So did the European Court of Justice when Kik appealed. In its judgment from September 9, 2003, the ECJ confirmed the arguments of the First Instance that Article 115 of Council Regulation 40/94 was not discriminatory. Both courts agreed that the regulation of language use was adopted for the legitimate purposes of reaching a solution to language problems in cases where opposition, revocation or invalidity proceedings between parties who do not have the same language preference and the participants cannot agree amongst themselves on the language of proceedings. Thus, the Council was pursuing the legitimate aim of seeking an appropriate solution to these language problems when it determined the official languages of the Community which may be used as languages of proceedings in opposition, revocation and invalidity proceedings. Similarly, even if the Council treated the official languages of the Community differently, its choice to limit the languages to those which are most widely known in the European Community is appropriate and proportionate. No principle that all official languages of the Community must be treated equally in all circumstances may be inferred from the EC-Treaty.

References Blommaert, Jan 2005 Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cooper, Robert L. 1989 Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dovalil, Vı´t 2006 Sprachnormenwandel im geschriebenen Deutsch an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/Main etc.: Peter Lang. ELAN 2007 Effects on the European Union Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills in Enterprise. London: CILT, The National Centre for Languages. Ehrlich, Eugen 1962 Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. New York: Russel and Russel.

Language as an impediment to mobility in Europe


Fairclough, Norman 2001 Language and Power. London etc.: Longman. Third edition. First published in Essex (Pearson Education Limited) 1989. Grin, Franc¸ois 1999 The notions of supply and demand in the economic analysis of language. In: Albert Breton (ed.), New Canadian Perspectives. Exploring the Economics of Language, 31–61. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage. Grin, Franc¸ois 2003 Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jernudd, Bjo¨rn H. and Jirˇ´ı V. Neustupny´ 1987 Language planning: for whom? In: Lorne Laforge (ed.), Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning, 69–84. Que´bec: Les Presses de L’Universite´ Laval. Knapp, Viktor 1995 Teorie pra´va. [Theory of Law]. Praha/Mu¨nchen: C. H. Beck. Liddicoat, Anthony J. and Baldauf Richard B. Jr. 2008 Language Planning in Local Contexts: Agents, Contexts and Interactions. In: Anthony J. Liddicoat and Richard B. Baldauf Jr. (eds.), Language Planning in Local Contexts, 3–17. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Manz, Viviane 2003 Schranken nationaler Sprachenpolitik durch das Gemeinschaftsrecht. In: Isolde Burr and Gertrud Gre´ciano (eds.): Europa: Sprache und Recht. La construction europe´enne: aspects linguistiques et juridiques, 189–198. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Manz, Viviane 2002 Sprachenvielfalt und europa¨ische Integration. Schriften zum Europarecht 23. Zu¨rich etc.: Schulthess Juristische Medien. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı 2004 Language biographies and management summaries. In: Hidehiro Muraoka (ed.) Language Management in Contact Situations, Vol. III. Report on the Research Projects No. 104. Gradual School of Social Sciences and Humanities, 9–33. Chiba: Chiba University. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı 2006 From Language Planning to Language Management. In: Ulrich Ammon, Klaus J. Mattheier and Peter H. Nelde (eds.), Sociolinguistica 20, 92–104. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı 2009 The integrative potential of Language Management Theory. In: Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil and Tamah Sherman (eds.), Language Management in Contact Situations. Perspectives from Three Continents, 1–11. (Prague Papers on Language, Society and Interaction). Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang.

286 Vı´t Dovalil Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı and Marek Nekula 2006 On Language Management in Multinational Companies in the Czech Republic. In: Current Issues in Language Planning, Vol. 7, No. 2 & 3: 307–327. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı and Tamah Sherman 2009 Pre-interaction management in multinational companies in Central Europe. Current Issues in Language Planning 10/2: 181–198. Neustupny´, Jirˇ´ı V. and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil 2003 Language management in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 4: 181–366. [Reprinted in: Richard B. Baldauf and Robert B. Kaplan (eds.), Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 2: The Czech Republic, The European Union and Northen Ireland, 16–201. Clevedon / Buffalo / Toronto: Multilingual Matters]. Schu¨bel-Pfister, Isabel 2004 Sprache und Gemeinschaftsrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Streinz, Rudolf 2005 Europarecht. Heidelberg: C. F. Mu¨ller. Seventh edition. First published in Heidelberg (C.F. Mu¨ller) 1992. Studer, Patrick, Felicia Kreiselmaier and Mi-Cha Flubacher 2008 Language Policy-Planning in a Multilingual European Context. Bern: Universita¨t Bern. (Arbeitspapiere 43). Tichy´, Lubosˇ, Rainer Arnold, Pavel Svoboda, Jirˇ´ı Zema´nek and Richard Kra´l 2006 Evropske´ pra´vo. [European Law]. Praha: C. H. Beck. Third edition. First published in Praha (C. H. Beck) 1999.

Chapter 13 Language use in multinational companies in Europe: A theoretical and methodological reframing

Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil

1 Introduction Europe’s economy is changing, and with it the nature of enterprises, jobs, skills, and most of all, strategies for solving problems. The industrial age has long since passed, and the direction of the current shift is toward that of the knowledge-based economy. This economy is defined as “one that encourages its organisations and people to acquire, create, disseminate and use (codified and tacit) knowledge more effectively for greater economic and social development” (Dahlman and Andersson 2000: 32). On the job market of the knowledge-based economy, there is an emphasis on dynamism as opposed to specific skills, processes as opposed to products, and knowledge is understood as something which is continually developed. This article explores one sector of this new type of economy, that is, the functioning of multinational companies. It is the nature of multinationals that they involve a range of people speaking different languages. This is a further step in the expansion of the study of the knowledge-based economy, moving from areas such as information and communication technology to include knowledge of various languages. Languages, particularly those used as a lingua franca, such as English, interact with state labor markets and create diglossic relationships between various international, national and regional languages. Labor markets no longer operate merely on a national level, but rather, due to globalization and the continual development of the free-market system, there are international corporations which are based at least in part on the mobility of people, hence they draw upon the European Single Labor Market, which, in theory, allows citizens of the EU to work in other EU countries without the necessity of

288 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil labor permits. We will use multinationals as an example of how language functions specifically in this economy, what role it can potentially play, particularly in conjunction with cultural and socioeconomic issues. We begin by reviewing two major studies on this very topic, ELAN and Talking Sense. We then suggest three ways in which findings from these studies can be theoretically and methodologically reframed. In consideration of the constantly expanding and changing nature of the knowledgebased economy in Europe, we use data collected in multinationals from two EU new member states, the Czech Republic and Hungary, as the empirical basis for the reframing.

2 Point of departure: ELAN and Talking Sense Given the connections between the knowledge-based economy, the expanding European and global markets, and the subsequent increasing need for foreign language knowledge, we will begin by briefly reviewing two studies conducted by the British National Centre for Languages (the former on behalf of the European Commission), to take a further look into the language issues in companies in Europe. The ELAN study (ELAN 2007), focusing mainly on small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) which engage in export, sought to map out the language issues that these enterprises encounter. The main questions were those of how exporting SMEs throughout Europe (nearly 2000 SMEs in a total of 29 countries) invested in language training, how much money could be potentially lost due to insufficient language knowledge, whether they felt they encountered intercultural difficulties, and what “language management” strategies they had implemented. Findings were verified through interviews with “national influencers”, i.e. figures such as “entrepreneurs, academics working in the business or language training disciplines, political and civil servants working in the business support field and representatives of business organisations such as the Chambers of Commerce” (ELAN 2007: 38). The study also looked for common denominators with large companies, and found that they reinforced many of the findings from the SME study, for example, that both types of companies recruit staff with specific language skills, and often the languages in demand were languages other than English. Large companies differed from SMEs in that they used English more exclusively as an intermediary language and they often even officially declared it as the corporate language (ELAN 2007: 7).

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


Finally, the ELAN study examined the relationship between “language management” strategies, e.g. having a language strategy, appointing native speakers, recruiting staff with language skills and using translators/ interpreters, and export success of the companies. If all four of these strategies were implemented, the export sales proportion was calculated at 44.5% higher than when they were not (ELAN 2007: 7). A second CILT study, the Talking Sense study, begins from the point of departure of UK companies and their belief that the English language was sufficient for their business needs and the fact that this belief was disproven by another study (The Nuffield Foundation 2000), and the subsequent formation of a UK government strategy for language learning (DfES 2002). The study methods consisted of “two parallel and inter-related exercises, one telephone survey of major multinational companies involving approximately 50 respondents in each of the UK, France and Germany, and one series of interviews with senior personnel in six UK-based companies identified as examples of best practice.” (Talking Sense executive summary, page 1). On the basis of these methods, the study determined that, in comparison with Germany and France, UK companies, though they had what the study called “language capacity”, lacked in what the study referred to as language responsiveness, awareness and management. In other words, UK companies presumed that much of their trading would be done in English and were more oriented toward short-term goals than their French and German counterparts were, and their strategies reflected this. The results of such large-scale studies provide a certain background for the investigation of language use in the business world. We intend to undertake such investigation in the following sections of this paper. First and foremost, however, we must point out that our topical scope is slightly different: ELAN’s focus is (primarily) on SMEs and our focus on large multinational companies, and Talking Sense’s focus is on the United Kingdom vs. two large “continental” countries, Germany and France. However, both of these studies point strongly to another, more universal element of the knowledge-based economy: what is generally understood in both studies as “language strategy” and its ultimate success or failure in an economic sense.

3 A new framework The various ways in which the concept of “strategy” is used and exemplified in both studies clarify the need for a theoretical and methodological

290 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil reframing in order to explore the language in economic contexts in a more qualitative, linguistic and ethnographic manner. The large-scale data from these studies must be somehow integrated with data from the everyday operation of company branches. It is necessary to look at corporate and national policies vs. local and ad hoc situated policies. Thus, using the example of multinational companies in Central Europe, in this article, through the analysis of recorded interactions, interviews, participant observation, written documents from the companies, and statistical data from other sources, the reframing addresses the following: 1)



The regional nature of some of the companies’ practices, as opposed to the European or national levels which form the basis for the ELAN and Talking Sense studies. The complex nature of the relationships between speakers of various languages as concerns power, history, and the economic value of individual language knowledge. The practices and processes of dealing with language problems in multinationals.

This reframing, and its third aspect in particular, invites the use of Language Management Theory or LMT (Jernudd and Neustupny 1987; Neustupny´ and Nekvapil 2003; Nekvapil and Sherman 2009c; see also Dovalil, this volume and Vasiljev and Nekvapil, this volume), as a theoretical basis. LMT, which we offer as an alternative to the concepts of “language management” discussed in the ELAN study, views behavior toward language as a process complementary to the generation of language, a process beginning with the noting and evaluation of a deviation from a norm at any level of language generation. The negative evaluation of norm deviations (i.e. a language problem) may result in the design of an adjustment and the subsequent realization or implementation of this design. When this process occurs at the level of the individual utterance, e.g. self-correction, it is called simple management. When it transcends the utterance level, occurs repeatedly in a number of situations, thus becoming the subject of discussion, reflection, and even of ideological considerations or acts of policy or “strategy”, such as the determination of the language to be used for meetings, it is called organized management. In the next sections, we will show how the management of language in multinational companies considers and reflects several relevant phenomena, beginning with the nature of the data collected.

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


4 Data The research involved interviews, recordings, participant observation and document analysis in four multinational companies with branches in the Czech Republic or Hungary (see also Nekvapil et al. 2009) The history of the companies varies: while some companies were directly founded by foreign companies, others are the result of foreign company purchases or privatization of local companies. Still others have changed owners, from one foreign company to another, larger one. The larger research project also investigated further companies, e.g. companies from Asia, and locally-owned companies which are oriented toward foreign markets further east (Russia, Ukraine) or are supported by foreign capital. We also draw upon data from earlier research on similar topics (e.g. Nekvapil 1997a, 1997b; Nekula, Nekvapil, and Sˇichova´ 2005a, 2005b; Nekvapil and Nekula 2006; 2009a, 2009b; Nekula, Marx, and Sˇichova´ 2009). A total of 34 interviews were conducted in the companies by a multiethnic team, consisting of native speakers of Czech, Hungarian, German and English. A brief description of the companies follows: Company A manufactures car components. It is a branch of a German company with other branches and clients all over the world. The branch of Company A which is the subject of our research is located in Eastern Moravia (Czech Republic), and production here began in 1996. As of June 2007, the branch had 2182 employees, most of whom were Czech, but who were also Slovak, Polish, and of other origin. All “expatriates” or “delegates” (German and Austrian nationals sent by the parent company to the subsidiary) working in the branch (10 persons) occupy top management positions. Originally, the corporate language of this branch was German, but as a consequence of the merging with another Germanbased company operating more world-wide, English has been officially introduced. Company B manufactures rail transportation products and is a part of large international concern with headquarters in Germany. The branch in question is located on the outskirts of Prague. The company began operations in the Czech Republic in 2002, when it took over and restructured the production of a Czech company. There is no officially declared corporate language, but both German and Czech are claimed by the employees to have this role. The company employs over 1000 people. Technical experts and managers are sent from the parent company in Germany, and there were approximately 20 such individuals working there at the time of the research.

292 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil Company C manufactures rubber products and the branch under study is located in southeastern Hungary. It was formerly a German company with headquarters in Hamburg. In 2004 it was bought by another German multinational company with English as its corporate language. There were no expatriate employees in the company, but rather, the local employees were responsible for communication with the parent company and with other companies throughout Europe. Company D is an electricity company with a branch in southeastern Hungary. It was founded in 1951, and remained in Hungarian state ownership until 1995 when it was privatized and bought by a French company. Since then both French and Hungarian experts have executed the management tasks at various levels in the company. There has thus far been no declaration officially about an official corporate language, though both English (by the HR department) and Hungarian (by the local employees) have been mentioned as candidates for this classification. Finally, statistical data were collected to provide a picture of the local context in which the multinationals are situated. They will be discussed in the next section. 5 Languages and regions The ELAN and Talking Sense studies focus on the European, national and global levels, with a special emphasis on export. However, the practices of some multinationals still manage to have a distinctly regional character. We will discuss this character below. One important aspect of multinational companies throughout Europe is that companies decide to establish subsidiaries in particular places for various reasons, many of which may have to do with language and cultural considerations, not only in regard to the selected country (for example, the Czech Republic or Hungary), but also to the selected region (e.g. a capital city, or a region with a dense population of national minorities, or a border region). Local companies, local educational institutions (secondary schools, universities, language schools) and authorities may play a considerable role in this. Local conditions influence the professional skills and knowledge of languages of the local employees of the subsidiary. At the same time, language skills of the local employees influence their positions in the company and on the regional job market in general. In this vein, it is important to consider the “regional innovation systems” in operation (Williams 2006; Braczyk, Heidenreich, and Cooke 1998; Cooke, Heidenreich, and Braczyk 2004). According to this concept, localized or regionally-based

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


sources of knowledge and learning sustain innovative capabilities in the new economy, because tacit knowledge is more easily and inexpensively transferred within a regional or local level. Social capital may also be conditioned by regional culture – regions can display a distinct system of innovation differing from both the state norm and the systems of other regions. For example, in Company A above, the German parent company decided to establish a plant in the particular region of the Czech Republic due to the high level of skilled workers being educated there, as the following quote indicates: (1) It wasn’t an accident, first, of course, the production was transferred, that means there were projects here that were transferred from the high cost areas of ((German city)), ((German city)) here to ((Czech city)) for startup programs like finding out what our cost situation was, well, they found out of course that from the point of view of production it was very advantageous for them and it wasn’t such a problem to move it. And so this thought arose – okay, where exactly is this ((Czech city))? Aha, it’s near ((Czech city)), near the airport, near the universities, near ((Czech city)) where they can test things … and so on and so on and all of a sudden they realized that there was enormous potential there in terms of education, in terms of the accessibility of the machines and facilities. (Czech developer, Company A – translated from Czech)1

There are two important types of statistical information that help to paint a better picture of the conditions for regional innovation systems. These are: the foreign direct investment (FDI) in the given countries, and the extent to which different foreign languages are taught in these countries. As concerns the FDI in the Czech Republic, overall, there are almost 4,000 foreignowned companies operating in the country (see CNB 2007). Of the total foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Czech Republic, amounting to 79.8 billion USD as of December 2006, the largest share comes from the Netherlands (27 per cent), followed by Germany (21 per cent), Austria (11.3 per cent), Luxemburg (6.1 per cent), France (5.9 per cent), Spain (4.8 per cent), United States (4.3 per cent), Switzerland (3.8 per cent) and Belgium (3.1 per cent). Other countries contribute a combined total of 12.8 per cent. In Hungary, there were 20,000–25,000 “enterprises with foreign equity participation” at the end of 2005 (MNB 2007: 11). The cumulative total

1 All quotes have been translated from the original language into English, with the original language version in the appendix.

294 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil FDI for Hungary was over 60 billion EUR as of 2009 (ITD Hungary2). The country with the greatest volume of FDI transactions in 2005 (47%) was the United Kingdom. Germany followed with 19.9%, followed by Austria with 12.2%, Sweden with 4.7%, Finland with 4.5%, the USA with 3.1%, Switzerland and Italy with 3% each, the Netherlands with 2.9% and France with 2.6% (MNB 2007: 36). There is also significant participation from Asian countries such as Japan and Hong Kong. In terms of stock investments, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and France are considered to be the most significant investors in Hungary (MNB 2007: 17): Germany for its investments in the most sectors of the country, Austria for its geographical proximity and historical traditions, the Netherlands and France for the growing nature of their investments. The numbers listed above cannot be taken as absolute and, in fact, often require further explanation. One example of this is that foreign investors from the USA and Japan invest in the Czech Republic through third countries (which partly explains the very high share coming from the Netherlands). Another is that the high percentage of FDI from the UK in Hungary in 2005 is attributed primarily to the privatization of Budapest airport. This is one element the two countries have in common: both have been undergoing the process of privatization since 1989, and foreign capital is often involved in this. Nevertheless, FDI is a good starting point for selecting the types of multinationals worth researching. However, with respect to the topic of our study, these types should be established not only on the basis of the volume of FDI in the Czech Republic and Hungary, but also by the position of the parent company language in the education system of these countries (with a clear distinction for example, between the position of Japanese and French therein). The position of English in a multinational (with a clear distinction for example, between the position of English in an American firm and in a German firm) could be another criterion. We will now look briefly at the position of various foreign languages in each country. Knowledge of foreign languages represents an important condition for the successful functioning of regional innovation systems in general and of multinationals in particular. Central Europe is a region in which historical and political conditions, especially those of the 20th century, are significantly reflected in the languages taught and used. For example, let us comment on one of the few citations from the ELAN study that touch

2 Hungary: Business Brief. (2010, April) Hungarian Investment and Trade Development Agency. See e-mail for addition.

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


upon this issue slightly: “The backlash against Russian which was noticeable in the former Soviet Bloc countries at the end of the last century is not in evidence and Russian is extensively used in Eastern Europe as a lingua franca (along with German and Polish).” (ELAN 2007: 5) To elaborate on this further: in many former Soviet bloc countries (including the two which are the focus of our study), Russian had been a mandatory subject in all schools since the regime of state socialism was established (although, as interviewees in both countries pointed out, and as is popularly claimed, this does not mean there was a significantly high competence in it). However, German had been commonly taught during that period as well (and is the language of an acknowledged national minority in both countries), and the number of pupils learning English and French was also considerable. Following the political changes of 1989, Russian ceased to be a compulsory subject in the Czech and Hungarian education systems. The following tables will provide a more detailed picture of the changes that occurred thereafter.

5.1 Czech Republic Table 1. Pupils learning foreign languages at primary schools between 2000/01 and 2005/06 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 English

435,918 456,265 477,071 492,727 497,391 503,215


300,563 274,522 246,787 218,033 187,285 166,808






























Classical Greek

Other European languages

Other languages











Source: The Yearbook of the Development of the Educational System – Education in the Czech Republic in 2000/01–2005/06, Tab. B6.2.1

296 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil Table 2. Students learning foreign languages at secondary schools between 2000/01 and 2005/06 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 English

334,672 345,752 360,043 376,294 388,747 399,351


319,423 313,791 310,253 308,210 298,563 287,799




































Classical Greek







Other European languages







Other languages







Source: The Yearbook of the Development of the Educational System – Education in the Czech Republic in 2000/01–2005/06, Tab. B6.2.3

In the Czech Republic, the principle of free choice of a foreign language was declared following the political changes. However, most students (98 per cent in 1997–98) chose only German or English. Being the current ‘neighboring’ language and historically a language spoken in the Czech lands for many centuries, German was initially the choice of more pupils at the beginning of the 1990s. During the 1997–1998 school year, however, English surpassed German in total number of learners, and the gap between them continues to grow (Nekvapil 2007). Currently, the choice between English and German is largely regiondependent. The percentage of pupils learning German increases in the areas bordering on Germany and Austria. This choice also correlates with professional ambitions: German tends to be offered to and/or chosen by those who prefer more practically-oriented professions, and English tends to be offered to and/or chosen by students pursuing academic secondary (and university) education. The management of foreign language selection in the Czech Republic also takes an organized form at the level of governmental intervention. In 2006, the Czech Ministry of Education implemented the National Plan for the Teaching of Foreign Languages, which stipulates the mandatory

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


teaching of two foreign languages, with the obligation that one of these two has to be English. One potential result of this management act is that the gap between English and German will continue to widen.

5.2 Hungary Table 3. Pupils learning foreign languages at primary schools between 2001/02 and 2006/07 2001/02


































Other languages







Source: Statistical Yearbook of Education 2006/2007

Table 4. Students learning foreign languages at secondary schools between 2001/02 and 2006/07 2001/02








































Other languages

Source: Statistical Yearbook of Education 2006/2007

In Hungary, the teaching of English has gradually increased as well following the political changes, and in all types of schools. The school systems in Hungary and the Czech Republic are slightly different, but some important parallels can be drawn. The first of these is the significant increase in English, which varied in percentage depending on the type of school. Both English and German were widely taught even in 1989, and as can

298 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil be observed from the tables – both have continued to increase. The second parallel is that after 1989, Russian is taught to a very low degree and even less than French. Interesting about these numbers is that the decrease in the teaching of Russian has continued in Hungary, whereas in the Czech Republic there is again a rising amount of Russian taught in all kind of schools. One explanation for this could be that Hungarian is not a Slavic language and there is no ease of communication or learning between the two languages. As can be observed from the tables, both English and German were widely taught even in 1989, and both continued to increase after that. The number of students learning English in tertiary institutions in Hungary had doubled by 2007, and the number of pupils learning it in primary schools had increased by more than tenfold. Trends from the previous era, however, remain highly visible and relevant in a large part of the adult employable population in both countries. One case in point is that in multinational companies operating in them, we find a large number of older “white collar” employees over 40 years old who did not start learning English until later in life, and thus find themselves with limited capacity to realize their own interests both on the job market and in negotiations with senior management in multinationals. This issue was pointed out in particular by local managers working in Company A and Company D. There are also many cases of employees who, after being initially required to learn and use German, were made to learn English (Company A, Company C). Given the distribution of multinational companies in the Czech Republic and Hungary and the languages taught in the schools, there are a number of points to be considered. One is that a reasonable percentage of foreign investment comes from German-speaking countries. In both countries, the number of pupils learning German is gradually dropping, which raises the question of whether there is an expectation developing that it will eventually no longer be necessary to speak German with German native speakers. Also, there is a significant percentage of FDI that comes from countries whose inhabitants are typically very proficient in English (particularly the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland) or where English may be expected as the medium of conversation due to the great distance between the languages and cultures (such as Japan). Given the growing rate of English teaching in the both countries, it is probably presumed that most of the English the pupils learn will not be used with native speakers, but rather, will serve as a lingua franca. As the data on FDI in the Czech Republic and Hungary demonstrates, geographical proximity is still relevant as concerns the investment of

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


foreign capital, and German-speaking countries remain the major investors. In continuation of the question posed above, it is also relevant to ask whether the German companies expect the local employees to speak German, or whether they prefer to conduct all business in English, and how such decisions will be explained by those making them. We will address these questions in the following sections.

6 Power and historical relationships between languages Examining the sociology of language in a single company unit, or, in fact, in a group of such units involves the question of “who is expected to speak which language to whom, when, where and why” which was implicated in the previous section. This leads us back to another observation from the ELAN and Talking Sense studies: in essence, these studies are apolitical, ahistorical, and lack the issues of power and ideology. The studies generally present “foreign languages” as representations of some sort of autonomous societal values without placing them in other contexts. This is accompanied by the assumption that all states in the European Union are economically equal. Why, then, are some languages taught, learned, and used in business more frequently and comprehensively than others (a fact which both studies confirm)? This question can be answered, in part, using the example of the Central European region. This region includes, at present, the border between EU old- (Germany, Austria) and new-member states (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland). All of these countries have national languages which, in turn, are official languages of the European Union, as well as a number of officially declared minority languages. In addition, languages of migrants living in these countries are widely spoken in the respective communities. Finally, there are the languages which currently and historically have been taught as foreign languages in the various countries. The nature of relationships between speakers of these languages is complex as concerns power, history, and the resulting economic value of individual language knowledge. At any level (e.g. national, local, community) and in any domain (e.g. school, family, workplace), there are established, yet constantly adapting practices for language use, for communication, and for semiotics, among others. Multinational companies, and in particular their regional branches or plants, are a typical example of this, constituting “communities of practice” (Wenger 1998; Barton and Tusting 2005). Having common goals, the employees work together over an extended period to share ideas, find

300 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil solutions, and build innovations. In this framework, there is a distinct difference between “codified” and “tacit” knowledge, or, roughly, the type of knowledge contained in manuals, books and instructive courses, measurable through some sort of testing, and the type of knowledge which is not elaborated in any organized form, but rather, is acquired through experience in specific situations. These two types of knowledge may, on the one hand, be connected to competence in various languages and how it is acquired at the various stages of a career, i.e. in multinationals with branches in new member states there is the local language (in this case Czech or Hungarian), the language of the company headquarters (in this case German or French) and the international language of business, English. For example, the state of the organization of “codified” foreign language knowledge in the Czech Republic and Hungary was discussed above. Company language policy may include the supplementing of this codified knowledge through the teaching of languages to employees, the example of this being the teaching of English to older employees in former Soviet bloc countries. Yet it may also be possible for these same employees to function in their positions without possessing codified knowledge of a given language, but rather, while possessing tacit knowledge regarding how to manage situations where a foreign language may be required. For example, machine operators in Company A, when asked by a researcher about the fact that there was software in German on a computer in their manufacturing space, stated that it was not the case that they would “know” or “use” German, but rather, that they had learned over time and with the use of manuals “where to click”, without actually mastering the language outside the given situation. At the same time, knowledge of the various languages can function in the transfer of information and knowledge between colleagues, or conversely, can prevent such transfer. Also of interest is how and to what extent issues of power influence the building of communities of practice of varying complexity. Multinationals in Central Europe thus involve a varying distribution of local languages, parent company languages, and English as the potential conflict of four particular functions, first described in detail in Nekvapil and Sherman (2009a) as concerned language use in one particular German company in the Czech Republic: language for communication vs. language as a symbol, language for communication vs. language for social purposes, language for communication vs. language for emotion, and language for communication vs. language for privacy (in regard to this final relation, see also Vaara et al. 2005). It is the first pair of these functions –

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


language for communication vs. language as a symbol, which we will now expand upon below. One important distinction is that between the language of a parent company, which symbolizes economic power, and the language of most of the employees in the subsidiary, particularly when the two languages belong to an older EU state and an EU new member state. To add to this, contact between languages in Central Europe is marked by hundreds of years of history, not free from conflicts, involving multiple nations. Languages such as Czech, Hungarian, German, French or Russian symbolize national identity, and their use in multinational companies is no exception to this. At the time the research was conducted, several trends could be observed: 1) Companies which were originally nationally-based had gone global, and subsequently established English as the official corporate language, because it had become necessary to communicate with company branches all around the world – for example, an originally German company may have plants in the Czech Republic, Brazil, the United States, France, the Philippines, India, etc. One side effect of this is that the subsequent actual use of English weakens the symbolic positions of national languages in the company, particularly the position of German. Situations are thus created in which nobody is speaking his or her native language, and, theoretically, neither side has an advantage. The use of English as opposed to German by Czechs or Hungarians reflects neutrality in power relations: the local group is “freeing” itself from the German language (“and the Germans” as a Czech top manager put it). This is, however, largely a discursive issue, as the establishment of English as a corporate language still does not create a level playing field. It is easier for some local employees to “free” themselves from German than it is for others, and the knowledge of English on both sides may not be the same. For example, as observed earlier in this chapter, the teaching of English in the former Soviet Bloc countries is currently in what we might call a “catching up” phase, as the previous section of this article has demonstrated. Older employees may be at a disadvantage when learning and using English (as discussed in Nekvapil and Nekula 2006). In addition, some older German employees may have weaker English language skills and still prefer German. 2) Despite the trend observed in the point above, in the case of German companies in the new member states in particular, to a certain degree, it is still observable at the management level that the local employees are expected to speak the language of the parent company (Engelhardt 2008a, 2008b, 2011) as a possible alternative to English, with the rationale being

302 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil that the company values a national identity highly as well, or rather, that the language of the country where the daughter company is located (e.g. Czech or Hungarian) should not be used in certain domains, as the following quote (taken from Engelhardt 2009a) demonstrates. (2) Above all it must be stated that we are a German company. That means that we have a German parent company, and insofar that you have to come to terms with the fact that we also have to provide information to the German mother company in some form – then in whichever language, but certainly not in Czech. (German manager, Company B)

The German manager from Company B (speaking to a German interviewer here) indicates that language use in the company (in particular in communication with the parent company) must occur in a language that the German employees know (typically German or English). Czech is considered inappropriate for such communication. Unfortunately, this reinforces the older historical relationships between Czech and German, as discussed in the next point. 3) Regardless of the language of the company ownership, it is observable that other issues are still relevant as concerns language choice. The Czech Republic, for example, has in the past been dominated by Germany to the west and the Soviet Union (with Russian as its major official language) to the east, and recently, Czech companies such as Company A have expanded into Russia, establishing branches or plants there or providing technical expertise. Though the Czech companies find themselves in a greater position of power in these situations, this does not, however, mean that the Russian colleagues have acquired Czech – historical relationships still remain, and the issue of small and large languages is still relevant. The result is that Russian, regardless its symbolic value, is still used with older Czech employees, and with younger ones, English is used or interpreters are employed. Discursively, some younger Czech experts interviewed in Company A dismissed the idea that Russian could be used in the communication between the Czechs and Russians, despite the fact that it is a Slavic language and theoretically could be easy to learn, or that situations of semi-communication (either Czech-Russian or English-Russian) could be employed, as the following excerpt indicates. (3) I think they [the Russians] didn’t understand English at all. Czech, when we spoke Czech, they picked up some little bits but it was very very weak … Russians seem to me like they’re going to stick to Russian and those among

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


them who have studied at universities they have a high level of English. So the interpreter who was there [at the branch of the Czech company in Russia], her English was perfect, I have to say, and she had only studied it at school. So her level was high and she made up for it. (Czech manager, Company A)

4) The clash of language functions remains an issue relevant principally to the top management levels and areas such as logistics and development. Even if an official corporate language is declared or if there are delegates from the parent company present, not all local employees receive training in the language(s) of the parent company or even in the official corporate language. For example, in Company A, out of over 1000 employees, only 100 were attending English classes financed by the company and only 40 were learning German in this way. As concerns blue-collar workers in the company, more research needs to be conducted regarding their understanding of the functions of different languages, because the symbolic function of language and the ability to overcome it are very much connected to issues of power and position in the company. As these points demonstrate, regardless of the transformation in hierarchical relationships between companies, subsidiaries, plants, and other units, there is no extensive movement toward the use of smaller languages (Czech, Hungarian) in intercultural communication, and the use of larger languages such as English or German are limited to the top management levels. These observed functions of languages in the multinational companies demonstrate that there are various acts of language management occurring regularly within the everyday operations of the company, such that the employees are able to consciously point to them, and have developed strategies for dealing with various language issues. This will be discussed in the next section.

7 Practices and processes The ELAN and Talking Sense studies mention certain forms of what they refer to as “language management”, such as recruiting native speakers with language skills, website adaptation, the use of translators and interpreters and offering language training (ELAN executive summary 2). However, they do not offer specific examples of the ways in which these “management” tools are used, and the situations in which they are required. In this section, we will discuss how both local employees and expatriates deal with language, communication and sociocultural problems occurring

304 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil in specific situations, and primarily, how they try to prevent them. We will begin with the following observation about British companies. UK companies spend heavily on recruiting internationally, paying premiums for employees with language skills, and using external interpreters and translators. From this it is clear that UK companies do place a value on language skills. However, rather than building language capacity in the company, preferred practice among those major UK multinationals surveyed for this exercise seems to be to wait until a language gap emerges and then take corrective action to plug it. (Feely and Winslow 2006: 13)

In the same section of this report, it is pointed out that German companies employ more long-term strategies. Also, in comparing the degree of “language responsiveness” of French, German and UK companies (page 15), the UK companies had the lowest degree, followed by the French, and then the Germans. On the basis of this, we can predict that the less commonly spoken a language is in the world, the higher “language responsiveness” its country’s companies will have, and that this will apply further to the Czech Republic and Hungary. In other words, the parent company (based e.g. in Germany) would have a lower “language responsiveness” than the daughter company based, for example, in the Czech Republic. In this vein, we have elaborated the LMT model described above to include the potential for analysis of this “language responsiveness”. We call this elaboration “pre- and post-interaction management.” Pre-interaction management (first introduced and discussed in detail in Nekvapil and Sherman 2009b) is the language management process (noting of a deviation from a norm, evaluation, adjustment design, implementation) done in anticipation of a future interaction, or more precisely, in anticipation of potential problems in a future interaction. This can include looking up words and phrases in a dictionary or textbook, consulting language concerns with a language expert (e.g. a teacher hired by the company), or, even “avoidance strategies” such as preferring written communication to oral communication, bringing along an interpreter, or avoiding the interaction altogether. Pre-interaction management can be targeted, i.e. oriented toward a specific future action, or generalized, i.e. oriented toward a multitude of similar interactions. In an analogous manner, we define post-interaction management as the language management process (noting of a deviation from a norm, evaluation, adjustment design, implementation) which takes place after the given interaction. Post-interaction management consequently

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


also takes place before future interactions. The difference between the two types of management lies in the fact that while pre-interaction management is oriented to an upcoming specific interaction or generally, to a particular set of upcoming interactions, post-interaction management is oriented to what has happened in the previous interaction without the speaker’s immediate considerations of future interactions. It is post-interaction management which appears to correspond directly to the Talking Sense category of “language responsiveness”. In the data from the multinationals located in the Czech Republic and Hungary, two main types of pre-interaction management have been observed. These are individual language management and corporate language management. The strategies for individual pre-interaction management mentioned in the interviews included avoidance strategies, e.g. the preference of e-mail to face-to-face or telephone contact, the anticipated use of foreigner talk, and what we have termed “inserting native language pauses into meetings”, discussed in the excerpt below: (4) So as I said, the Czechs among themselves then talk of course in Czech. So it may sometimes happen that we discuss a problem, then they first talk, and I also don’t know what they’re saying and when they agree, those three among themselves, one of them comes to me and asks me then in German, and then I know aha, they have discussed a problem there and don’t know how to go on. And then I give them of course the help, also in German. And then maybe they discuss my answer again in Czech, and then they finally solve it, and then there’s a way out that makes sense. (German manager, Company B, taken from Engelhardt 2011)

For telephone conversations, strategies observed include avoidance – using e-mail instead of calling (Company A), the use of a telephone expert – establishing beforehand the person who should call abroad or the person who should be asked for on the other side (Company D). In written communication, there are two observed strategies, so-called “language for unspecified addressee”, or the use of either German or English (as opposed to Czech) for the preparation of documents such as software instructions or e-mail for an unspecified addressee (Company A, Company B), and the use of language class for the preparation of actual work materials (Company C, Company D). Corporate pre-interaction management can include the outward presentation of names on a company website (including the elimination of diacritic symbols from Czech names) or the advertisement of positions with

306 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil requirements of certain foreign language knowledge. For example, in Company A, it was common to place job advertisements which listed “English required, German an advantage”, and for positions in the area of logistics (which involves direct dealing with clients), German and other languages (e.g. French) were required (for details see Nekvapil and Sherman 2009b). 8 Concluding remarks In this article, we have gradually presented an approach to the study of multinational companies which reframes that of large-scale and highly influential studies such as ELAN and Talking Sense. First, using data from the Czech Republic and Hungary, we have deemed it relevant to examine the origin of the capital invested in a country and its relationship to the teaching of foreign languages in that country. In this way, we have emphasized that it is not enough to survey companies only in the context of their national affiliation, as the large-scale studies do, but that company subsidiaries and branches must be seen as a part of the local, regional context in which they find themselves. Second, we have responded to the ELAN and Talking Sense focus on the degree to which companies were promoting the knowledge of different languages by their staff. We have emphasized that language knowledge is a complex phenomenon which cannot be separated from the historical and current political situations of the countries in question and the multi-faceted relationships between individual countries. Effective communication within multinationals does not merely concern finding a common communicative code to be used in all company domains. Rather, the situation is complicated by the fact that languages can symbolize national identity, power relationships and are used to fulfill particular communicative tasks. Our research in the multinationals operating in Central Europe has demonstrated that the varying distribution of languages can be described as the potential conflict between different functions. Profit-oriented multinationals are interested in finding the most effective medium of communication, suitable for most participants involved in the economic process. We have observed that though this function is often assumed by English, it would be errant to view the adoption of English as a corporate language as a universal solution. It is evident that the relationship between individual communication situations and official language policy is influenced by the changing economic and social climate in central Europe, and this also determines the functions of the individual languages used.

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


Finally, we have described the concepts of pre- and post-interaction management and presented several examples of strategies used in the collaboration of the local employees and expatriates in multinationals in Central Europe. In doing so, we have reframed the concept of “language management” used in the large-scale studies. The findings here lend themselves to several considerations for organized language management, both by the companies themselves and by higher organs on both the national and European-wide level. The companies may more closely examine the strategies their employees use to deal with language problems in order to constantly seek new communicative innovations which can be codified as (written) company policy. We have observed that what the “Talking Sense” study refers to as “language responsiveness” is indeed present in multinationals located in the Czech Republic and Hungary, and that it may take the form of pre- and post-interaction management. The further elaboration of processes through which these situations and policies operate is an appropriate subject for future research. Appendix (1) “Na´hoda to nebyla, prvnı´ se samozrˇejmeˇ transferovala vy´roba, to znamena´, byly tady projekty, ktere´ se prˇesunuly z haj kost, to znamena´ z vysokona´kladove´ oblasti ((name of German city)) ((name of German city)) sem do ((name of Czech city)) pro vy´beˇhove´ programy jako zjisˇteˇnı´ jak na tom vlastneˇ na´kladoveˇ jsme, no zjistilo se samozrˇejmeˇ z hlediska produkce, zˇe to je na´kladoveˇ pro neˇ vy´hodne´ a nebyl to takovy´ proble´m to prˇesunout. A zrodila se ta mysˇlenka, dobrˇe kde prˇesneˇ ten ((name of Czech city)) vlastneˇ je? Aha, poblı´zˇ ((name of Czech city)) poblı´zˇ letisˇteˇ, poblı´zˇ univerzit, poblı´zˇ ((name of Czech city)), kde mu˚zˇou testovat … a tak da´le a tak da´le a nara´z se zjistilo, zˇe tam je obrovsky´ potencia´l ve smyslu vzdeˇlanosti, ve smyslu dostupnosti vsˇech stroju˚ a zarˇ´ızenı´.” (2) “Also zuna¨chst muss man mal sagen wir sind ein Deutsches Unternehmen. Das heißt wir haben eine deutsche Mutter, und insofern muss man sich damit abfinden, dass wir in irgendeiner Form auch immer der deutsche Mutter berichten mu¨ssen. In welcher Sprache auch immer, aber auf keinen Fall in Tschechisch.” (3) “Myslim si, zˇe ((Rusove´)) nerozumeˇli vu˚bec jako anglicky. Cˇesky, kdyzˇ sme se bavili cˇesky, to sme taky zkousˇeli, tak neˇco ma´lo pochytili, ale

308 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil velice slabeˇ … Oni jsou rusove´ mneˇ prˇipada´, zˇe sou spı´sˇ takovy´ opravdu zˇe oni si budou drzˇet tu rusˇtinu a ti co uzˇ potom majı´ vystudovane´ ty vysoke´ sˇkoly, tak zase maj vysokou u´rovenˇ i te´ anglicˇtiny. Takzˇe ta prˇekladatelka co tam byla, tak perfektnı´ meˇla anglicˇtinu, to musim rˇ´ıct, a studovala jenom na sˇkole. Takzˇe ta u´rovenˇ byla vysoka´ v jejı´m prˇ´ıpadeˇ a ta na´m to suplovala.” (4) “Also wie gsagt, die Tschechen unter sich unterhalten sich natu¨rlich dann Tschechisch. Also es passiert schon mal dass wir ‘n Problem ero¨rtern, dann unterhalten sich die erst einmal, und ich weiß auch nicht was die reden, und wenn sie sich dann alle drei unter sich einig sind, dann kommt einer zu mir und fragt mich dann auf Deutsch, und dann weiß ich aha, die habn da ein Problem diskutiert und kommen nicht weiter. Und dann geb ich denen natu¨rlich die Hilfestellung, auch auf Deutsch. Und dann kann’s sein dass sie meine Antwort nochmal auf Tschechisch diskutieren, und dann aber auch lo¨sen, und dann geht’s sinnvoll weiter.”

References Barton, David and Karin Tusting (eds.) 2005 Beyond Communities of Practice. Language, Power, and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braczyk, Hans-Joachim, Martin Heidenreich and Philip Cooke (eds.) 1998 Regional Innovation Systems. London: UCL Press. CNB – Czech National Bank/Cˇeska´ na´rodnı´ banka 2007 (March) 2005 Foreign Direct Investment. Prague. Cooke, Philip, Martin Heidenreich and Hans-Joachim Braczyk (eds.) 2004 Regional Innovation Systems. The Role of Governance in a Globalized World. London/New York: Routledge. Second edition. First published in London (UCL Press) 1998. Dahlman, Carl J. and Thomas Andersson 2000 Korea and the Knowledge-Based Economy: Making the Transition. Washington DC: The World Bank, OECD. DfES – Department for Education and Skills 2002 Languages for all: Languages for life. London. ELAN 2007 Effects on the European Union Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills in Enterprise. London: CILT, The National Centre for Languages. Engelhardt, Oliver 2008a Nationale Zuordnungen (in) einer Firma in der Tschechischen Republik. bru¨cken – Germanistisches Jahrbuch TSCHECHIEN SLOWAKEI 16: 315–334.

Language use in multinational companies in Europe


Engelhardt, Oliver 2008b Die Sprachpolitik eines deutschen Industriebetriebs in der Tschechischen Republik und ihre Verwirklichung. Paper presented at the conference VII. mezina´rodnı´ho setka´nı´ mlady´ch lingvistu˚, Olomouc, Czech Republic, May 13, 2008. Engelhardt, Oliver 2011 Management of multilingualism in multinational companies of German origin in the Czech Republic. In: Garzone, Gı¨uliana and Gotti, Maurizion (eds.), Discourse, Communication and the Enterprise. Genres and Trends (Linguistic Insights 134), 111–129. Feely, Alan J. and Derek Winslow 2006 Talking Sense: a research study of languages skills management in major companies. London: CILT, The National Centre for Languages. Jernudd, Bjo¨rn H. and Jirˇ´ı V. Neustupny´ 1987 Language planning: for whom? In: Lorne Laforge (ed.), Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning, 69–84. Que´bec: Les Presses de L’Universite´ Laval. MNB = Hungarian National Bank/ Magyar Nemzeti Bank 2007 Foreign Direct Investment Hungary 1995–2005. Nekula, Marek, Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil and Katerˇina Sˇichova´ 2005a Sprachen in deutsch-tschechischen, o¨sterreichisch-tschechischen und schweizerisch-tschechischen Unternehmen: Ein Beitrag zur Wirtschaftskommunikation in der Tschechischen Republik. Sociolinguistica 19: 128–143. Nekula, Marek, Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil and Katerˇina Sˇichova´ 2005b Sprachen in multinationalen Unternehmen auf dem Gebiet der Tschechischen Republik. Mu¨nchen: Forschungsverbund Ost- und Su¨dosteuropa (forost). Nekula, Marek, Christoph Marx and Katerˇina Sˇichova´ 2009 Sprachsituation in Unternehmen mit ausla¨ndischer Beteiligung in der Tschechischen Republik. Sociolinguistica 23: 53–85. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı ¨ berwindung der tschechisch-deutschen 1997a Die kommunikative U ethnischen Polarisation. Deutsche, deutsche Kollegen, Expatriates und andere soziale Kategorien im Automobilwerk Sˇkoda. In: Steffen Ho¨hne and Marek Nekula (eds.), Sprache, Wirtschaft, Kultur. Deutsche und Tschechen in Interaktion, 127–144. Mu¨nchen: Iudicium. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı 1997b O komunikacˇnı´m prˇekona´va´nı´ cˇesko-neˇmecke´ etnicke´ polarizace [On overcoming Czech-German ethnic polarization in communication]. Prˇedna´sˇky z XL. beˇhu LSˇSS, 43–57. Praha: Univerzita Karlova. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı 2007 On the language situation in the Czech Republic: What has (not)

310 Tamah Sherman, Oliver Engelhardt and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil happened after the accession of the country to the EU. Sociolinguistica 21: 36–54. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı 2008

Toward a general theory of language management. Paper for Sociolinguistics Symposium 17, Amsterdam, April 3–5. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı and Marek Nekula 2006 On language management in multinational companies in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 7: 307– 327. Reprinted 2008 in: Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. and Anthony J. Liddicoat (eds.), Language Planning in Local Contexts, 268– 287. Clevedon, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Nekvapil, Jirˇi and Tamah Sherman 2009a Czech, German and English: Finding their place in multinational companies in the Czech Republic. In: Patrick Stevenson and Jenny Carl (eds.), Language, Discourse and Identity in Central Europe, 122–146. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Nekvapil, Jirˇi and Tamah Sherman 2009b Pre-Interaction management in multinational companies in Central Europe. Current Issues in Language Planning 10: 181–198. Nekvapil, Jirˇi and Tamah Sherman 2009c Language Management in Contact Situations. Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. ´ gnes Ta´pai-Balla and OliNekvapil, Jirˇi, Tamah Sherman, Erzse´bet Balogh, A ver Engelhardt 2009 Interakcio´ elo˝tti menedzsele´s multinaciona´lis nagyva´llalatokna´l Ko¨ze´p-Euro´pa´ban. [The pre-management of interaction in Central European multinationals]. In: Istva´n Lanstya´k, Jo´zsef Menyha´rt and Gizella Szabo´miha´ly (eds.), Tanulma´nyok a ke´tnyelvu˝se´gro˝l. [Studies in Bilingualism]. Dunaszerdahely: Gramma Nyelvi Iroda. Neustupny´, Jirˇ´ı V. and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil 2003 Language management in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 4: 181–366. Reprinted 2006 in: Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. and Robert B. (eds.), Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 2.: The Czech Republic, The European Union and Northern Ireland, 16–201. Clevedon etc.: Multilingual Matters. The Nuffield Foundation 2000 Languages: the next generation; the final report and recommendations of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry. London. Vaara, Eero, Janne Tienari, Rebecca Piekkari and Risto Sa¨ntti 2005 Language and the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies 42 (3): 595–623. Wenger, Etienne Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. 1998 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, G. 2006 Regional Innovation Systems and Communities of Practice: Two themes in search of knowledge. Sociolinguistica 19: 168–184.

Chapter 14 Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management: The case of the Vietnamese migrant community in the Czech Republic

Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil

1 Introductory remarks Our research of emerging multilingualism in the Vietnamese migrant community in the Czech Republic presented several challenges. For one thing, the community is socially and demographically strongly diversified and so are the situations in which members of the community interact linguistically (“language situations”). Most adult members, however, are essentially monolingual, speaking a very different language amidst a monolingual host country. On the other hand, as most of them are people involved in private small businesses, we worked with the assumption that economic factors played an important role in all aspects of their lives. Therefore, we paid special attention to economic factors underlying and co-framing this variety of language situations that generated a number of different language management responses and strategies. With such a research perspective, we were (1) particularly sensitive to the ongoing discourses on Bourdieu’s concept of “linguistic capital” or “cultural capital” (to the extent it is concerned with language) and (2) very careful about our ways of using economic terminology in dealing with language problems. As a matter of fact, we wanted to make sure that our economics-related terms were used in their truly economic rather than some metaphoric sense (see Grin 2000, referring to Bourdieu 1982). Trying to make sense of the complicated picture of language situations at hand and the intricacies of current terminology, we ended up rethinking some basic concepts in the Language and Economy field. Whatever the legitimate reasons for Bourdieu to have developed his concepts of “cultural capital”, “symbolic capital” and “linguistic capital” and

312 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil shown the ways they can relate to “economic capital”, one thing has become clear: what Bourdieu had in mind, were linguistically coherent societies where language varieties were conditioned only by class or region within a nation state (Thompson 1992). However, the case of Vietnamese migrants in Czech society is very different, and, therefore, it is difficult to employ Bourdieu’s concept of “linguistic capital”, with all its implications and functions, as a useful analytical tool. As a matter of fact, the competence of individual migrant speakers in the language of the host country and their ensuing communicating performance was in most cases more or less severely limited. Most benefits associated with “linguistic capital” as described by P. Bourdieu were out of those speakers’ reach. Yet, irrespective of this, many of them were economically successful in the market niche they were able to cut out for themselves in Central Europe, and we have found little evidence that economic success is directly linked to language competence or vice versa. This being so, we prefer to strictly distinguish a successful acquisition of another language from a successful business performance in the market place where that language is dominant. The concept of linguistic capital in such a language situation loses its explanatory force. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that competence in the language of the host country or in other important Western languages is highly valued by members of the Vietnamese migrant community. In many cases, though not always, there is a significant demand for products that can enhance language competence. This suggests that language competence and communicative competence or skills, however limited, should be seen as having economic value. The appropriate economic category that includes all kinds of skills is labour. It is in the nature of skills that they have to be acquired or learned and that they can vary in degree of possession. The practical value of language skills, unlike many other practical skills, consists in that they increase the flexibility of their bearer. In the case of monolingual individuals in their own monolingual country better language skills bring about higher flexibility in terms of class and profession or job. We would call this “vertical flexibility”. Competence in a foreign language can also add to a person’s vertical flexibility within the society of his or her own country, but in the case of actual or potential migrants or expatriates it brings about larger territorial (may be even global) flexibility that we would call “horizontal” (see also Deprez et al.

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


2004)1. At the same time, it is clear that neither vertical nor horizontal flexibility is the sole result of language competence. Many other skills are required to successfully move on any of the two scales. Some of those skills are being acquired through language, some are not. But seeing language as part of the skills field is of advantage in analyzing complicated language situations brought about by the arrival of migrants from distant languages and cultures. As far as the relationship of these skills to economic capital is concerned, there is no direct link. However, skills recognized as valuable in the market can be sold and bought for their respective market value, thus becoming goods exchangeable for money. Any monetary income can, of course, be converted into investment, or economic capital. This process, however, requires special skills that have little to do with language. The association of language skills with social mobility, rather than with immediate economic success, does not imply that language is less important in the lives of economic migrants. On the contrary: Economic success (decent and sustainable income) is in most cases seen as but the first step on the ladder of social mobility, stretched over decades and often two or three generations. The bigger the difference of the migrants’ own language and that of the host country, the more difficult it is for the migrant to acquire language skills permitting to climb the social ladder. This social endeavour is almost by definition a matter of individual planning and management. Because language is central to its success, language planning and language management take a very important place in the lives of individual migrants and families, as it will be demonstrated in the section on language management. Another source of inspiration underlying our approach has been the concept of Knowledge Economy and its close association with the process of globalization. On the one hand, we were constantly confronted with observations and analyses of language situations brought about by the global movement of capital in the form of investment to many regions of the Czech Republic, thus giving opportunity to local people to engage with the Knowledge Economy (Nekvapil and Sherman 2009a). On the other hand, we directly observed other language situations in the same territory that were clearly created by flows of people due to the workings of some

1 When analyzing the language autobiography of a young Philippine girl, Deprez et al. (2004: 32) bring to attention “cette association entre la mobilite´ ge´ographique et mobilite´ (ascension) sociale”.

314 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil other aspects of the globalization process. These language situations seemed to occur beyond the fringes of the Knowledge Economy. However, discovering various language strategies used or designed by Vietnamese migrant families in order to acquire higher flexibility in both directions, horizontal and vertical, we came to understand that due to global movements of both capital and labour, the Knowledge Economy is bound to have not only a high-tech core but also a low end periphery. One can put it the other way around, claiming that major language situations are brought about or substantially shaped by economic factors or processes. The point is that this can be seen not only on the global scale, as mentioned above, but on all levels down to the family and the individual speaker, as will be documented below. However, the lower the level on the vertical scale of language situations, the higher participation of various social – not purely economic – and even psychological factors can be observed in the workings of such situations. Another strain of thought, inspired by F. Grin (2000), made us think of demand and supply of language-related products and services as part of particular language situations (Vasiljev 2008) and understand that supply of language-acquisition and communication-facilitation services may not be exclusively or always directly market-bound as it may depend on broader general- or language-policy considerations.

2 Data sources and methodology One of us has been in quasi constant contact and interaction with Vietnamese citizens in former Czechoslovakia and in the present Czech Republic for fifty years (since 1959) and is well known to many members of the Vietnamese community as a fluent speaker of Vietnamese, a scholar familiar with Vietnamese language, history and culture and a rather frequent visitor to their country. Due to these circumstances, frequent contacts, often very informal, with a number of members of the community and on various occasions have been possible. Such occasions included casual meetings with shop owners in shops, unplanned encounters on bus or train stations and on trains, family gatherings with relatives and friends on death anniversaries of an ancestor, community Lunar New Year or the Children’s Festival of the mid-Autumn Full Moon celebrations, negotiations with Czech owners of shops or apartments, up to participation in formal meetings of the Association of Vietnamese citizens in Czech Republic with visiting Vietnamese state dignitaries.

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


Having in mind that the main purpose of our research is to understand the various economic and other factors bringing about the existence of certain language situations that call for certain language management responses on the one hand, and to explain how certain levels of language competences make it possible or not to take part in various economic processes on the other hand, we found ethnographic methods to be the most efficient way to elicit data relevant to our subject. The method most used was either simple observation including listening to interactions in Vietnamese or in Czech, or participant observation in which the researcher became himself a partner in interactions, while observing the circumstances in which the interactions occurred.2 Taking notes as soon as possible after the participation in interactions was crucial. Notes have been kept in a field diary written in Czech, sometimes with relevant quotes in Vietnamese. Voice recording was rarely possible, but it was occasionally used in more formal settings, as in a focus group discussion with Vietnamese high school students in Cheb. Semi-structured interviews were used to establish language biographies in order to understand the evolution of language competences in individuals as well as a means of reconstructing language situations that existed only in the past. Data were analysed mainly to elicit relevant content. Where necessary and technically possible, additional information and clarifications were gathered through follow-up interviews or further participant observations. Some data (statistics, descriptions of events, documents, comments) were gathered through desk research of publications and web sites in Czech as well as in Vietnamese.

3 The foundations of the Vietnamese migrants’ economic success The presence of Vietnamese citizens in the Czech Republic and former Czechoslovakia has a history of over fifty years. Based on various cooperation agreements between the governments of the two countries, it eventually comprised undergraduate and post-graduate students, vocational students and last but not least, since 1980, thousands of guest workers. Groups of Vietnamese vocational students doing their three years practical 2 An example of our participant observation, as recorded in our field diary, can be seen in Note 12.

316 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil training as qualified labour along with organized groups of guest workers spread throughout the country. “Wherever there is a factory chimney, there is a group of Vietnamese workers” ran a contemporary saying much repeated in Vietnamese circles in Czechoslovakia. The various classes of Vietnamese students had acquired rather good Czech communication skills at the Czech schools. Unlike them, the guest workers had almost no formal Czech language acquisition courses, relying solely on the services of Czech speaking Vietnamese organizers and translators, in most cases former vocational students, and their own communication efforts amidst Czech co-workers. The presence of Vietnamese citizens was strictly managed by governments of both countries, nobody was allowed to overstay their four-year or seven-year contracts (of guest workers and vocational students, respectively), and no interethnic marriages were encouraged or supported. Fifty percent of their earnings were allowed to be sent back to their families in form of goods bought in the Czech market. Most Vietnamese workers were known as very hardworking people, ready to work long hours to earn higher wages or to tailor jeans trousers for sale to their Czech co-workers. There was no stable Vietnamese community in the usual sense of the word, but there was a considerable amount of bridging social capital (Sirova´tka and Maresˇ 2008 with reference to Woolcock 1998) accumulated on both, Vietnamese and Czech, sides. The Vietnamese were also a highly visible minority, as they moved around the country on weekends to visit their relatives, former co-students or coworkers, co-members of military units or same-area compatriots. Although their number was estimated at about 30 thousand throughout the 1980s, the rumour spread that they were half a million. Then, together with the change of the political system and the transformation of the Czechoslovak economy at the end of 1989, this system collapsed. Most of the guest workers and vocational students returned, at least for some time, back to Vietnam during the next three years. There are no reliable statistical data, however, about how many stayed behind. At the same time some also came over from neighbouring countries, as from Germany. Those who stayed lost their original jobs. They quickly decided to turn to a completely different type of activity: private business. Many of them spoke Czech well enough to be able to join efforts with managers or co-workers of Czech factories who felt that they also may soon lose their jobs and started to look four new avenues. While their Czech partners had the advantage of having a solid legal existence as Czech nationals, their Vietnamese counterparts brought in important business skills, money and goods that could be sold in the Czech market.

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


In fact, Vietnam had a head start in market economy of at least five years, officially since the Communist Party of Vietnam introduced their new market-oriented economic policies in 1986, but practically even several years before that. And most importantly, many urban families in North Vietnam had a century old experience that private business is the only way for a family to make a fortune. Vietnamese guest workers and former vocational students were deeply aware of this sentiment and took practical part in their family endeavours by sending back goods that their family in Vietnam would use to sell. On the other hand, even skilled workers had little chance to get a good job in Vietnamese state-owned factories struggling with lack of financial resources. And with the change of the official policies, factories in Vietnam were allowed to export goods on their own. They started to look for agents abroad, very often their former employees, to sell their production, mostly garments. A Vietnamese factory hand from a small town in Central Bohemia told us proudly in 1991, amazed at seeing that many Vietnamese officials in charge of guest workers were starting their own companies: “I have been doing foreign trade for the last three years!” His use of the official term “ngoai thương”(foreign trade) for his activities that could not have been legal by˙ any standards of the time is highly significant. In Vietnam at that time the currency of all real estate transactions was gold and that of private business operations the US dollar. Vietnamese workers who could not convert all their earnings into goods to be officially shipped back to their families bought US dollars on the Czech black market. “The single biggest mistake of Vietnam’s government in the 1980s was,” a successful Vietnamese businessman and former guest worker told us recently “that they had not negotiated with the Czech government for us to be payed in US dollars, the same way as the Cubans were. We would have been much better off.”3 With the movement of goods back and forth an inofficial system of clearing operations by telephone developed between Vietnamese citizens in the Czech Republic (and, no doubt, elsewhere) and their families in Vietnam, whereby a family would pay the agreed amount to another family in Vietnam, while their respective members abroad would exchange goods upon the reception of telephone confirmation that the mutually agreed transaction between their families in Vietnam has, indeed, been performed. The key elements in these operations were family bonds and trust. Other important

3 Interviewed in Vietnamese on May 19, 2008.

318 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil skills and attitudes were also at hand: knowledge how to calculate margins, understanding the market forces, ability to bargain, to press business associates and clients to pay whatever they failed to pay, and above all, to work hard in adverse weather or under other difficult conditions and to develop business by careful steps. This can be considered their “transcultural capital” as conceived by Meinhof and Triandafyllidou (2006). A necessary and very essential element was, of course, the very liberal policy of the Czechoslovak (in 1991 – 1992) and Czech (since 1993) governments encouraging foreign nationals to do private business in the Czech market. So the Vietnamese succeeded to cut out for themselves a niche in the market: sale of inexpensive garments to the low end Czech customer in open-air markets at a time of rising unemployment and income insecurity of many elderly people. But the most lucrative markets developed at border transition points between the Czech Republic and Germany or Austria, where the bulk of the customers were coming over from those two countries. A former guest worker who built a romantic wooden restaurant on stilts on a river side in Central Vietnam and a two-storey brick family house that could fully compare to family houses in Czech towns, told one of us in his home town in 2000: “I and my Czech friend near Domazˇlice are so grateful to president Havel who allowed us to get that prosperous.” Some language skills were, indeed, needed in establishing this business network, but they were by far not the most essential. In fact, some fortunes were made by people who understood very little Czech, but had money to invest and business skills as described. In the open-air markets themselves goods could be sold with a very rudimentary knowledge of language, Czech or German, often heavily mispronounced. So when family members were brought over in the process of re-uniting families, or more importantly, with business permits of their own, they could easily find work and earn their living alongside their long established families and friends, even when they did not have any formal Czech language training. In matters of language acquisition Czech authorities were no less laissezfaire than they were liberal in their attitude towards private enterprise. No government-initiated Czech language courses were organized. Moreover, contact with Czech customers in open-air markets and supermarket style shops, where goods are displayed for the customer freely to choose without any need to ask for additional information, gives only a limited opportunity to learn the local language (basic greetings, basic cardinal numerals, words for sizes, colours, some few foods, etc.).

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


Most, if not all Vietnamese private businesses in the Czech Republic are family based. On the one hand, family members can best be trusted and, on the other, they are the least expensive and most useful work force, too, because they can help out not only in business facilities, but also with household chores and they can stay with the family in the same apartment.4 There is also often pressure from the larger family back in Vietnam to create opportunities for some of their off-spring to get exposure to foreign cultures by staying and working with their relatives abroad. When the businesses expand, such additional help is not unwelcome. However, this can create a vicious circle: the need to keep or create jobs for relatives who already came over. To conclude this section: A fairly large part of the Vietnamese community in the Czech Republic is Vietnamese monolinguals. However, each family business has at least one core member who speaks enough Czech to be able to organize their business. These people are usually former students and vocational students. As for more sophisticated contacts with Czech authorities many of them have to rely on the assistance of professional translators, most often former students or vocational students who had served as interpreters responsible for guest worker groups in the 1980s. Both these groups can be seen as Vietnamese and Czech bilingual speakers. Some family members speak a little Czech, which they were able to learn over many years of dealing with Czech customers. Many family members who arrived later speak very little Czech just to be able to oversee their goods and customers at garment stalls or shops. The same goes for their ability to communicate in German in language situations that require them to communicate with German-speaking customers. Therefore, young people of the next generation sometimes combine their studies in high school with afternoon and weekend work as shop assistants in their family business. Czech customers then appreciate their good Czech.5

4 Observations in a Vietnamese shopkeeper family in Cˇeske´ Budejovice during September 2007 – June 2008. 5 Several participant observations of Miss H. in charge of her mother’s shop in the afternoon hours in Cˇeske´ Budeˇjovice, while she was student at a local grammar school, and during weekends after she started her university studies in another city, over spring 2006 and during 2007.

320 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil 4 Demographic data: General At present, the Vietnamese are the third-largest immigrant community in the Czech Republic and the largest from outside Europe. Their numbers have been steadily growing from 9633 in 1994 to 34170 in 2004 (Kocourek and Pechova´ 2006: 104) and up to 55991 persons as at May 31, 2008,6 thus easily surpassing the peak of Vietnamese presence (some 30 thousand persons) in former communist Czechoslovakia.7 This growth can be explained by the fact that on the basis of commercial success a new stable Vietnamese resident community came into being in the Czech Republic. This community consists mostly of small business people and a limited number of rich entrepreneurs. The community has been steadily rising due to a process of reuniting families by bringing over family members from Vietnam and to a process of natural growth by giving birth to children in the new homeland. Since 2006 some impoverished business people turned to working as factory hands. Czech industry rediscovered the Vietnamese as a useful work force and also exporters of labour in Vietnam started to show interest in the Czech labour market.8

6 Czech Statistics Office: Foreigners in the Czech Republic. The corresponding numbers shown at the official website of the Ministry of Labour and Social Issues are, for 1997: 20950, 2000: 23556, 2005: 36832 and 2006: 40779. This data does not include ethnic Vietnamese who have become Czech nationals. According to a recent estimate by a senior Vietnamese community organizer, there may be, at present, up to 6000 Czech nationals of Vietnamese origin who ere allowed to quit the Vietnamese and to acquire the Czech citizenship at their request. Such data is, however, not officially available. Children born from mixed Czech and Vietnamese parents cannot be statistically accounted for. The latest estimates put the number of Vietnamese citizens currently staying in the Czech Republic at about 60 thousand. Thus, their number almost tripled over the last 8 years. With slightly over 60% of permanent residence of, the Vietnamese are currently the second most stable foreign community (only surpassed by the Chinese with ca 65%. However, the number of the latter is only about 8% of the former). 7 It should be noted that Czechoslovakia was a country with some 15,5 million inhabitants, while the Czech Republic has a population of no more than 10 million. 8 According to data quoted by the Czech-Vietnam Society, more than 14 thousand Vietnamese citizens arrived to Czech Republic during 2007–2008. Bringing guest workers from Vietnam became suddenly a lucrative business for mediators in Vietnam and in the Czech Republic where profit of the mediators seems to

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


5 Demographic data: Second generation The most notable development was the steady rise of a Vietnamese second generation. The second generation came into being from two groups of young children: a)

Children who had lived in Vietnam and were brought to the Czech Republic in pre- school or early school age in the process of re-uniting families (sometimes referred to as the first-and-a-half generation), and b) Infants born in the Czech Republic. According to the data of the (Czech) Institute for Information in Education, there were 4036 Vietnamese children at Czech elementary schools in the school year 2003/2004; while in the year 2005/2006 there were 3473 students at elementary schools and 1031 students at high schools with 1167 children going to kindergartens. It is difficult to say, how many of these children belong to the first-and-a-half generation, the second generation or even the first generation. The authors tend to class as first generation immigrants all youth arriving in the Czech Republic as advanced teenagers though they may still start going to a Czech elementary school. The reason for us to do so is that the likelihood of being able to acquire flawless competence in Czech decreases with every year of age. As far as the first-and-a-half generation is concerned, they may be safely classed as second-generation immigrants as far as their competence in Czech is concerned, but they would have fewer problems with maintenance of their mother tongue. Statistically, however, these two subgroups are indistinguishable, unless individual language biographies are established. The dynamics of development of the student population at a grammar school in Cheb (Eger), a town with the highest ratio of Vietnamese residents, is, nevertheless, rather revealing. According to data drawn from

have become the primary driving force. Most guest workers have been coming on a business visa without any intention or means to do business. In many cases they discovered upon their arrival how difficult it was to find a job. The situation was exacerbated in late 2008 with the beginning of the worldwide economic depression and drastic cuts in workforce, especially foreign. The presence of thousands of Vietnamese workers who do not speak any Czech and who, being heavily indebted as they often had to pay up to 12000 USD for the visa and journey, are unable and unwilling to go back to Vietnam, suddenly became a serious social problem.

322 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil the statistics of the school9 the number of their Vietnamese students is growing as is shown in the following table: Table 1. Statistics of Vietnamese students at Cheb grammar school School year

Vietnamese students

School year

Vietnamese students

















Because grammar schools receive students after their 5th grade at elementary school, the earliest students must have started their elementary education at the age of 6 in 1994–1995, thus being part of the first-and-a-half generation. Therefore, it is safe to expect that the earliest students born in the Czech Republic would have started their elementary education perhaps in 1999/ 2000 and come to grammar school five years later, in about 2004/2005. Since then there would be a mix of both groups. This corresponds well with the data we have gathered at an elementary ˇ eske´ Budeˇjovice. All their Vietnamese children, 11 in 2005/ school in C 2006, were born in the Czech Republic, the earliest two in 1993, eight in 1996 or later. The total number of students at the school was 1035 with only few individuals from ethnic backgrounds other than Czech (or Vietnamese as mentioned). There are over a dozen elementary schools in Cˇeske´ Budeˇjovice with one, two or three Vietnamese students each.

6 Language situations 6.1 Scattered settlements The main demographic feature of the Vietnamese migrant community in the Czech Republic is still the fact that Vietnamese citizens are scattered all around the country. Up-to-date statistical data about the number of foreigners per region and nationality not being available, we can only base our conclusion on our own calculation from older data already quoted above.

9 Our field research at the Cheb grammar school was done in May 2007.

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


The distribution per county10 of the 4036 elementary school students in the school year of 2003/2004 (equivalent to 100%) was the following: ´ stı´ nad Labem Pardubice 20.9%, Prague 15.1%, Karlovy Vary 14.8%; U 12.3%; Plzenˇ 8.0%; South Moravia 6.5%; Moravia-and-Silesia 5.7%, Central Bohemia 3.8%; South Bohemia 3.7%; Olomouc 2.2%; Liberec 2.2%, Hradec Kra´love´ 2.1%; Vysocˇina 1.4% and Zlı´n 1.3%.11 These data can no doubt be associated with the number of Vietnamese families in each region. Before the recent surge in immigrants who have been coming as guest labour, most individual immigrants newly arriving from Vietnam depended on their family members and had to join them. Therefore, we can hypothesize that the influx of new immigrants tended to be evenly distributed between the existing families in each region. So the percentage of immigrant families per county should stay more or less the same.12

10 The Czech Republic consists of 13 counties and Prague, the capital. 11 Calculation based on data of the Institute for Information in Education quoted ˇ ernı´k (2006: 172). by Jan C 12 One of us witnessed such an arrival of two new immigrants from Vietnam. We will quote from his field notes: „Sitting in a coffee bar at the Plzenˇ main train station on April 21, 2008, at about 7 p.m. I saw a slender Asian man, aged about 30, entering the bar and showing the young bar tender a small piece of paper. The girl shook her head as if she did not know or refused to answer. At this moment, I approached the man immediately and greeted him in Vietnamese. The man turned out to be Vietnamese, indeed. He showed me the piece of paper, a used train ticket from Prague to Plzenˇ with a lot of hand-written notes on it. There was a series of separate syllables written at the top part of the ticket in Vietnamese spelling: de ne dơ đa đu đa. It couldn’t make any sense to anybody not familiar with Vietnamese spelling rules and phonetics. It was obviously something noted from the sound of it. Thinking furiously, I concluded that it must be a name of a town or train station and guessed that it may mean Zˇelezna´ Ruda, a Czech town near the border with Bavaria, Germany (Eisenstein in German). I noted the right spelling on the man’s ticket…. After explaining that I had learned Vietnamese at university in Czechoslovakia and have been to Vietnam, he took his mobile phone, dialled a number and talked in Vietnamese to a woman, saying: “I met a Taˆy (Westman, colloquial for European) who speaks Vietnamese”, and then passed the phone to me. I greeted the woman in Vietnamese and asked her in Czech whether she spoke Czech. “Yes, a little,” she answered in Czech. Then I asked if she was in Zˇelezna´ Ruda. Indeed, she was. I told her in Vietnamese that we were now in Plzenˇ and I will show the man how to get there … I invited the man to the ticket counter and asked the clerk which was the right train for Zˇelezna´ Ruda. She answered, go to Klatovy and change

324 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil The dispersal of the Vietnamese community and its spread over many places in the country has not only its historical roots, but also its present economic background. Up to 2000, most Vietnamese families used to sell in open-air markets, where Vietnamese stalls were located in clusters. When the Czech local authorities intensified their crack down on open-air markets, citing hygiene and respect for the traditional municipal environment as the main reasons, many families started to rent separate premises in town and moved their shops into “stone houses”. Such Vietnamese shops are now found in every large or small town. The economic reason behind this is the inability of many Czech shopkeepers to pay the high rents at a time when cheaper goods sold by supranational competitors such as Ahold, Billa, Tesco, Delvita, Spar, Kaufland and other chains undermine their income, the ability of many Vietnamese families to do so and the natural desire of house owners in lucrative high street locations to have reliable tenants. The particular mix of inexpensive but often good quality garments, cigarettes, spirits, footwear and various other consumer goods made in China is so characteristic that the first shop signs read just “Vietnamese shop”. We can see these shop signs up to the present in many places, such as Ta´bor or the suburbs of Cˇeske´ Budeˇjovice, though most shops now carry more sophisticated signs focused on such notions as “inexpensive” or “fashionable”. All the sign boards, except those of the “nails studios”, the concept

the train there … You have just four minutes left to catch the last train today, platform 2. North. The man bought two tickets to Zˇelezna´ Ruda. I wanted to take the shortest way to the trains via a subway but the man pointed to the other hall on top of the large stairs. So I rushed there with him to discover another Vietnamese, a short, plump man with three large handbags at his feet. The first man took two pieces and we rushed to platform 2. I verified the train with the flagman who showed us the right train and said: ‘Change trains in Klatovy’ which I translated into Vietnamese. (Participant observation by Ivo Vasiljev on April 21, 2008). It was obvious that the two men, not speaking a word of Czech or any other language apart from Vietnamese, must have arrived in Prague by air or train, then connected by phone with their relative or friend in Zˇelezna´ Ruda, noted down the name of the target town, having no idea of its spelling in Czech, and managed to buy the ticket for Plzenˇ, the right direction to go on. We have seen more of such travellers at Czech railway stations during 2008, though in most cases family members would rather come to the airport to meet their relatives.

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


and hardware of which were brought in 2007 and 2008 by Vietnamese business people from the USA, carry inscriptions in Czech.13 On top of the traditional shops with inexpensive garments and other consumer goods, Vietnamese business people also started a number of East Asian fast food outlets, even a chain called “Panda”, regular restaurants, fruit and vegetables stalls; the latter being especially appreciated by Czech customers. Even a chain of large sports wear and sports inventory shops named Sportisimo is owned by a rich Vietnamese entrepreneur, who also owns a fashionable East Asian restaurant in Prague. The on-the-floor employees seem to be only Czech, the style of the outlets having nothing to do with traditional Vietnamese garment shops. Some families operate groceries (dubbed “boˆ´t” in local Vietnamese after the Czech word “potraviny” = food), especially those working long into the evening hours, called according to local Czech custom “Vecˇerka” (Evening shop). One shop owner in Cheb showed even ingenious creativity in Czech language calling his shop “Zapomneˇnka” (What-you-may-have-forgotten shop). While having their shops in town centres, many Vietnamese people stay in rented houses in the suburbs or in the adjacent villages. A local Vietnamese interpreter who used to be responsible for a group of guest workers in a local factory explained this behaviour: “When Vietnamese people live in apartments, they often encounter criticism and reproaches that their apartment has a bad smell. The Czech people cannot stand the smell of fish-sauce, seafood in general, etc. That’s why they prefer to rent separate country houses, where no such annoyance happens.”14 The Czech landlords whose grown up children have already moved out of their parents’ houses are only too happy to get an additional income. And the Vietnamese tenants are known for honouring their rental obligations and for keeping the premises in order.15

13 As will be mentioned below, the situation in Cheb and in the markets near the border crossings to Germany and Austria is different. Most customers being German, the presence of German inscriptions on the shop signs and showwindows is very prominent. 14 Participant observation on May 21, 2008. Explanation given to a Vietnamese visitor from Vietnam. 15 Interview with a Czech elementary school teacher in Cˇeske´ Budeˇjovice on April 21, 2006, interview with a Czech house owner in Cˇeske´ Budeˇjovice on April 20, 2009 who described the regularity and exactitude his new Vietnamese tenant shop keeper paid her monthly rent as “fantastic”.

326 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil This behaviour of Vietnamese families means that their offsprings go to local kindergartens and, for five years, to suburban or country elementary schools with ideal conditions for total immersion at school, and in their free time, they play with their Czech schoolmates and friends. In addition, these scattered Vietnamese families pay great attention to all weekend markets in nearby districts, organized in villages that have their own church, on and around the name day of the Catholic patron saint of the local church. Local fairs are traditionally held on those days with thousands of visitors coming mainly for amusement attractions and shopping. These fairs, called “poutˇ” (originally: “pilgrimage”) invariably attract dozens of Vietnamese families who sell their traditional goods in rented stalls. The importance of this activity is shown by the fact that the Czech word “poutˇ”, mispronounced as “baˆu”, has become part of the Czech variety of Vietnamese.

6.2 Trade centres – foci of high immigrant concentration The SAPA Trading Centre (Trung taˆm Thương mại SAPA) in Prague 4 – Lhotka that we are familiar with is situated in a space that previously belonged to a Czech meat-producing factory and is now owned by a consortium of rich Vietnamese shareholders. It is divided into many stalls rented out to individual Vietnamese (and some Chinese) companies and families who sell wholesale to Vietnamese shop and stall owners who come on each Saturday or Sunday from many places all over the country to replenish their stock for the coming week. Occasional customers may be Czech, Russian, Ukrainian or other business licence owners. The area is closed and guarded by Czech guards employed by the Vietnamese management so that access is accorded only to business customers (free access is, of course, guaranteed to Czech police, customs and business control officers). The area also includes a number of Vietnamese restaurants and offices of a number of Vietnamese and some Chinese companies as well as translation and IT centres, publishers of five weekly magazines in Vietnamese16, beauticians, travel agencies, a nursery, at least four private Vietnamese language teaching 16 They are: Tuaˆ`n tin mới (Weekly news), EU Van Xuaˆn (Ten Thousand Springs, ˙ 7th Century, the acronym EU the name of a Vietnamese independent state in was added to the name some time after the Czech Republic joined the EU in May 2004 to show that the weekly’s target readership included members of the Diaspora in the EU countries), Tuổi trẻ (Youth), Xa xứ (Far from Homeland) and, since September 2008, Sức soˆ´ng (Strength of Life).

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


centres and classes helping Vietnamese students of Czech schools prepare for examinations in Czech language, mathematics and other subjects. Offices of the Association of Vietnamese Citizens in the Czech Republic, the Association of Vietnamese Entrepreneurs in the Czech Republic, the Association of Vietnamese Buddhists and other organizations within the Vietnamese community in the Czech Republic are located here. This was the place of an official meeting of Prime Minister Nguyen Jan Dung with the Vietnamese community in September 2007 and of the Speaker of the Vietnamese National Assembly in April 2009. A small Buddhist shrine was consecrated here in August 2008 and a large plot of land purchased in the immediate vicinity of the area in order to build a proper Buddhist temple in the foreseeable future. The predominant language in dealing with customers here and the working language of most residing companies and institutions is Vietnamese. Most inscriptions in public places inside the area or facing the outside street are in Vietnamese or in Vietnamese and Czech. People who work here, except for managers and people in translation services, rarely need to speak Czech. Therefore, this environment is not conducive to the acquisition of Czech language skills. There are two large trade centres of this kind in Prague. Outside Prague, the best-known centre is the Dragoun Market in Cheb. However, people do not live in these centres, their homes are scattered over the city and nearby villages. There is, nevertheless, a concentration of Vietnamese school children in a Czech elementary school near SAPA (Meteorologicka´ 181, Praha 4), with almost 50 Vietnamese students, i. e. more than 10 percent of the total student population, who are otherwise, with few exceptions, Czech. Additional Czech classes are organized for Vietnamese children and youth who recently arrived from Vietnam, thanks to a grant by the Czech Ministry of Education, the only case of such an official grant in the Czech Republic (Sˇumsky´ 2004: 1). This concentration of Vietnamese students in one school is due to the fact that children are brought along by parents who come to work at the SAPA Trading Centre.

6.3 Vietnamese markets at border crossing points There are a number of Vietnamese open-air markets at border crossing points into Germany, Austria or Poland, such as Svaty´ Krˇ´ızˇ near Cheb or Potu˚cˇky near Nejdek in the same region, Dubı´ near Teplice in the North

328 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil and Stra´zˇny´ near Prachatice in the Southwest, all on the border with Germany, Varnsdorf near the border with both Germany and Poland, Znojmo in South Moravia and Ostrava in Northeast Moravia near the border with Austria and Poland, respectively.17 These markets have been the focus of negative media attention for years due to regular crackdowns of Czech customs and police forces on various forms of illicit trade (with non-licensed cigarettes or alcohol and fabricated designer garments). According to an estimate by a Vietnamese businessman the amount of Vietnamese trade done in those markets surpasses fifty percent of their total trade in the Czech Republic.18 The bulk of their customers there are German-speaking. All advertisements of goods being offered at the stalls are written in German. This environment offers the same basic communication opportunities as mentioned above, this time in German. According to our observation, some Vietnamese families, who do business at the border markets also operate shops and live in regional centres. Stra´zˇny´ is thus ˇ eske´ Budeˇjovice etc. connected to Strakonice, C

6.4 Czech schools Czech schools of all types should also be regarded as oases of a special type of language situations in which Vietnamese young students interact with their teachers and schoolmates, and more often than not, even with each other only in Czech in a highly stimulating learning environment. These 17 A new Czech study of one of those markets (Martı´nkova´ 2009: 37) listed 26 of such markets along border crossings to Germany (markets on borders with Austria and Poland not being included). 18 A Vietnamese businessman interviewed in Cˇeske´ Budejovice on May 19, 2008. There are, however, serious efforts by the Czech customs and other authorities to stop these traders from selling unauthorised wares. According to the Czech media, raids by customs officers and police are carried out on at least a weekly basis in one market or another. More stringent measures by the Czech authorities against selling of pirated goods at these Vietnamese markets were promised by the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Topola´nek, to the visiting trade minister of Bavaria, Ms. Emilia Mu¨ller in January 2008 (Nordbayerischer Kurier, January 19–20, 2008 – for this information we are indebted to Dr. Gudrun Ludwar-Ene). This may account for the increasing number of bankrupt Vietnamese business people who look for jobs in Czech factories (as confirmed by a Vietnamese business woman interviewed in Cˇeske´ Budeˇjovice on July 25, 2008).

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


micro-societies can rightly be considered a true example of what has been called Communities of Practice (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998) or Learning Communities (Deirdre 2005) where formal as well as implicit knowledge and skills are being transmitted and exchanged in both formal and informal ways. These are also environments where Vietnamese students of all ages acquire knowledge of foreign languages, especially English, followed by German and, at high school, by French and Spanish.

6.5 The town of Cheb This town (known as Eger in German), with about 33 500 inhabitants, is very special in the Czech Republic due to the highest concentration of Vietnamese migrants. Their number is officially estimated at between 2,000 and 5,000.19 This extraordinary discrepancy in estimates must be due to the fact that there are Vietnamese citizens in many towns and villages in the region between Cheb and the adjacent markets at border crossings, so that there is a constant movement of people between all those places. In fact, many owners of “stone house” shops in Cheb seem to be registered in other townships in the region.20 The township is also well known for its historical monuments and attracts the attention of many visitors from Germany. The Vietnamese markets and street shops are said to enhance the arrival of tourists from Germany. Some Vietnamese as well as Czech shops in the centre of the town advertise their goods in Czech as well as in German. Some of the local Vietnamese business people here are trilingual, though their knowledge of both Czech and German is rather limited.

7 Language management21 The language and communication problems of Vietnamese migrants are exacerbated by the fact that Vietnamese and Czech (or, to a lesser extent, 19 Our interview with the mayor of Cheb, Dr Svoboda on October 9, 2007. 20 Our observation on October 8, 2007. 21 This section draws on the language management framework as elaborated by Jirˇ´ı V. Neustupny´, Bjo¨rn H. Jernudd and others (see e.g. Neustupny´ and Nekvapil 2003; Nekvapil and Sherman 2009b).

330 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil German) are typologically, phonetically, lexically and culturally as different as any two languages can be. Therefore, the speakers of Vietnamese encounter severe difficulties in pronouncing Czech words and sentences, in encoding and decoding utterances, in understanding the speech of native speakers, in identifying Czech words and phrases and understanding them, in crossing language-specific cultural barriers. Due to the structural differences it is often very difficult to match functionally equivalent words and phrases of the two languages. The only existing advantage is that both languages use the Latin alphabet, though they differ in spelling rules. It must be obvious that under the existing circumstances, simple management processes enter the picture in almost every single interaction between a Vietnamese migrant of the first generation and his or her Czech-speaking counterpart, if such interaction transgresses the limits of very basic daily routine. However, too much simple management in interactions is a doubleedged sword. A Vietnamese girl student who arrived to the Czech Republic in September 2005 often complained that her female school mates tried to avoid speaking with her, because she did not understand what they said and would repeatedly ask questions about so many words and mispronounce the words so much. Management of language, communicative and socio-cultural (including socio-economic) problems is a daily matter of concern of most if not all members of the community. Most have been or are, at present, formally trained just in one language: the first generation of immigrants in Vietnamese, during their elementary school attendance and high school or even university studies in Vietnam, the second generation, in Czech at all levels of the Czech education system. Notable exceptions are the now ageing former university and vocational school students, who had some substantial formal training in Czech, and some members of the second-and-a-half generation, who spent the first years of their compulsory education at their elementary schools in Vietnam. The hard fact of their life in the immigration country is that knowledge and skills are, in the long run, required in both languages, while all formal education has been, or is being provided only in one language and none in the other. Thus, all linguistic, communicative and socio-cultural problems regarding the other language and culture have been left to the family or, in some cases, to the individual to manage. This is true even at present when the Czech government decided that starting in January 2009 all migrants except those from EU member countries will be required to pass a

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


compulsory Czech language examination as one additional condition for being granted permanent residentship.22 One of the most, if not the most important strategy of organized language management at the family level is the decision to bring over young children and to send them to Czech schools. The process of reuniting families is, of course, an important social process, but it has a substantial language management side, too. Vietnamese families soon became aware of the fact that young children brought over from Vietnam could master the Czech language in one or two years time so that they could soon communicate like Czech native speakers and could follow classes at Czech schools as well as their Czech class mates. Speaking a very different language amongst the essentially monolingual population of the host country, growing steadily in numbers and being not pressured, nor given the opportunity, to acquire better competence in Czech, the Vietnamese migrants, often rather well educated, were trapped in their menial jobs in a social environment deeply polarized around the question: do they represent a blessing or a threat? – (most of the media being, until recently, more inclined to assume the latter). The only window of opportunity for integration and social ascension open to them has been the Czech education system, compulsory and free even for children of parents with temporary resident status. So they combined their emotional needs (family reunion) with expectations that their children, going to Czech schools, would learn the difficult language, so obviously impossible to be mastered by their parents, and invested all their efforts and resources into bringing their children over and sending them to Czech schools. With the emotional backing and traditional upbringing by their families, with a clear target to eventually enter high school and university, most Vietnamese students are among the best achievers in their schools, not only in science, but also even in Czech and all the foreign languages offered by the Czech high school curricula (English and German followed by French or Spanish). This was again made possible by the education policies of the Czech Republic, which require all foreign nationals, even those with temporary residence (one year, renewable), to send their children to school in a system that is both compulsory and free of charge.

22 No free language courses are offered to applicants. The examinations being compulsory, only the first try is exempt of fee, any next try must be paid for by the applicant.

332 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil To quote just one example, Mr. F. and Mr. T., former guest worker group interpreters brought over their wives and five-year old daughters H. and L. from Vietnam in early 1992. After 14 years at kindergarten, elementary school and high school they passed their A-levels with flying colours and are, at present, fourth year undergraduates of Law and Business Administration, respectively.23 Investing into the education of their children became the overall goal of Vietnamese families. As one father put it: “We undergo all this hardship only for our children’s sake.”24 Such statements by Vietnamese parents in the Czech Republic can be heard frequently. The Czech language became the main tool for the 2nd generation to achieve vertical flexibility that has been out of reach of their parent’s generation. As for their endeavours towards more horizontal flexibility we can observe two strategies: One of these strategies consists of the effort to maintain and develop the mother tongue competence of the second generation. This is being done not only for emotional or symbolic reasons. The position of the immigrants not being very secure, socially as well as economically, ties with their families in Vietnam and with their country in general are very important. Losing their mother tongue would cut off the second and third generation immigrants from those vital links, at a time when business in the Czech Republic is gradually becoming more difficult and some of the local Vietnamese businessmen look back to their country for investment opportunities. Vietnamese is also important as a vehicular language enabling to maintain and develop links to other parts of the worldwide Vietnamese Diaspora. The strategy is being carried out through various forms: a daily family gathering at supper with Vietnamese food and talk, watching the Vietnamese TV4 channel on a TV set available in most families, socializing with friends who can speak little Czech, inviting grandparents from Vietnam to stay with the family for some time, and/or sending their children to visit their grandparents in Vietnam from time to time. Recently, maintenance and development of the mother tongue competence of the second generation has been advocated by various social institutions representing the Vietnamese community. In October 2003 the Second National Congress of Vietnamese Citizens in the Czech Republic made

23 Miss H. and Mr. T. were interviewed in Cˇeske´ Budejovice on August 30, 2006 and January 8, 2006, respectively. 24 Interviewed on August 26, 2008.

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


enhancement of mother tongue education one of their priorities, making the first attempt at organized language management. The first mother tongue classes were opened in 2004 at the SAPA Trade Centre in Prague mentioned above. Since the summer of 2006 the Association of Vietnamese Citizens in the Czech Republic started to call for the recognition of the Vietnamese community as an official national minority, the status of which would give them access to seven different language rights (Nekvapil 2007: 42). In September, 2007 the Association presented this claim to the visiting Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung who, in turn, approached the Czech Prime Minister M. Topola´nek, on this matter during his March, 2008 visit to Vietnam. However, the proposal is seen as controversial by some people in the Czech administration and, therefore, it is not likely to be officially handled any time soon. As a very recent development, on April 7, 2009 a Czech and Vietnamese private company acquired the licence to launch a satellite transmitted Ethnic TV covering the whole territory of the Czech Republic. The broadcasts in Vietnamese with Czech subtitles were effectively started on May 14, 2009, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Czech subtitles are said to be inserted to facilitate learning of the Czech language that is expected to enhance the integration process into the Czech Society.25 The other strategy consists of trying to use all opportunities offered by the curricula within the Czech education system as well as extracurricular activities organized by their schools to start learning English or German as early as possible, often at the age of six, adding another one or two foreign languages, usually French and/or Spanish, available at high school. In fact, many high school students have the intention to continue their studies at foreign universities. Nevertheless, whatever their future careers and countries of residence will eventually be, the uncontested first language of the second generation of Vietnamese migrants is Czech26, a consequence of their parents’ 25 Participant observation at the launching ceremony in Prague on May 11, 2009. 26 This was confirmed by explicit statements of some of the students taking part in a focus group discussion with Vietnamese high school students on June 12, 2007 in Cheb. Spectacular examples of this language competence manifested “out of the blue” by a handful of Vietnamese bloggers caught the attention of thousands of readers of the on-line edition of one of the big national dailies, iDnes. The very first essay (Vietnamese girls) by a first-time blogger, a female high school student Do Thi Phuong Thuy, published on March 6, 2008 at http:// was read by an unprecedented number of 23859 readers.

334 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil generation’s decision to make a living in the Czech Republic and of the language situation this essentially economic decision has brought about.

8 Concluding remarks The Vietnamese in the Czech Republic are usually portrayed by the Czech media as a very closed and isolated community on the brink of social exclusion. We have been trying to show that, quite to the contrary, their successful implantation in the Czech Republic was the result of their ability to rapidly adjust to the radical socio-economic change that occurred there in the early 1990s and to combine their financial and other material resources with the remarkable good will and bridging social capital they possessed in many quarters of the Czech society as well as with their transcultural capital. They were thus able to cut out a niche in the Czech and central European markets that provided jobs for numerous family members, even though they had very limited or no knowledge of the local language. Equipped with business licences issued in line with the liberal business enhancement policies of the Czech government and working as family teams, they did not need any work permits that would have meant more restrictions on their immigration flow at a time when the Czech economy went through a process of restructuring, causing high rates of unemployment. On the contrary, importing and selling inexpensive garments to the suddenly inflating market segment of poor pensioners, unemployed workers and struggling small entrepreneurs, they answered exactly the needs generated by the flow of events. We have defined the general framework of these developments as global trends representing a peripheral, though important part of the workings of the global Knowledge Economy. The centre of the globally operating knowledge-based economy and its periphery are closely interrelated. While its central mechanisms induce global movements of capital, goods and highly sophisticated experts, its peripheral wake brings about massive migrations from continent to continent and country to country to fill in gaps This blogger and two other Vietnamese girl students in different parts of the Czech Republic, who opened their blogs for the first time during the same week, prompted a special article by the iDnes editorial board under the heading “A Vietnamese girl charmed the readers of iDnes” at on March 13, 2008 accessed by more than 40000 readers.

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management


in the respective labour markets. These movements, though not uncontroversial, are in the best interest of both sides: if inexpensive labour does not move in, the capital is likely to move out in search of cheaper labour markets. In any case, however, these trends have important implications for language management both by the migrants themselves as well as by their host countries. This is all the more true, because menial jobs, as observed amongst Vietnamese and other migrants, regardless of their kind, do not require quality knowledge of the host country’s language, nor do they motivate the migrants to strive for better language acquisition or even enable it to happen. However, under the laissez faire policies of the Czech government, the Vietnamese migrants had to fully rely on their own efforts and resources, without getting any institutional socio-cultural support (e. g. Czech language courses) by the host country. The case of Vietnamese migrants in the Czech Republic demonstrates that the participation of social actors in the knowledge-based economy cannot be taken for granted. Our research supports the conjecture that some groups of people living in Europe are excluded from participation in the knowledge-based economy because of their socioeconomic status associated with their competence, or the lack of it, in certain languages. Having demonstrated the controversial nature of economic factors, which can either stimulate or discourage language acquisition, we suggested a more realistic view of the role of language in the global market place as skill enabling both vertical and horizontal flexibility of individuals. This understanding of language seems to be a more useful analytical tool in the capital driven market place of the migrant communities than the concept of “linguistic capital”. Unlike language situations generated by traditional territorial ethnic minorities, the language situations described in this paper have been developing spontaneously without any regulation or assistance through any existing national language policies or planning. The language problems that arise in these situations are being felt and managed by the participants themselves in ways that can be understood through the language management framework. We have shown that socio-economic management can work, to a fairly high degree, independently of language management, while communication management, as a mediating link between the socio-economic and language managements, can be done by various professional or voluntary go-betweens, proficient in both languages (certain adult family members, interpreters or children).

336 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil Our research has proven that organized language management comes to exist because there exist problems in individual interactions, and its main point is to remove these problems. These problems, however, are not only language problems (e.g. the absence of linguistic competence), but also communication and socio-cultural (including socio-economic) problems, the three dimensions being, moreover, interrelated. Socio-cultural or socio-economic management is, of course, not primarily an issue for linguists, but our research has demonstrated that the awareness of these interrelated aspects allows us to get a deeper insight into the issues under investigation as well as giving a more realistic view of the linguistically oriented work. If the situation and behaviour of the Vietnamese community in the Czech Republic can be considered as typical of certain migrant communities, it can be taken as a reference point for studies of similar Vietnamese migrant communities in some other new EU member countries (like Poland or Hungary) or in such EU neighbour countries like the Ukraine or Russia. Another useful target for comparison would be, e.g., the Turkish community in Germany.

References Bourdieu, Pierre 1982 Ce que parler veut dire: l’e´conomie des e´changes linguistiques. Paris: Fayard. Cˇernı´k, Jan 2006 Vietnamsˇtı´ zˇa´ci na za´kladnı´ch sˇkola´ch: Na´cˇrt proble´mu˚ a prˇ´ıstupu˚ [Vietnamese Students at Elementary Schools: An Outline of Problems and Approaches]. In: Jirˇ´ı Kocourek and Eva Pechova´ (eds.), S vietnamsky´mi deˇtmi na cˇesky´ch sˇkola´ch, 169– 178. [With Vietnamese Children at Czech Schools]. Praha: H&H. Deirdre, Martin 2005 Communities of practice and learning communities. Do bilingual co-workers learn in community? In: David Barton and Karin Tusting (eds.), Beyond Communities of Practice, 139–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deprez, Christine et al. 2004 „Comment j’ai capture´ les mots“, Re´cit d’apprentissage. In: Rita Franceschini and Johanna Miecznikowski (eds.), Leben mit mehreren Sprachen/Vivre avec plusieurs langues. Sprachbiographien/Biographies langagie`res, 23–46. Bern: Peter Lang.

Markets, know-how, flexibility and language management Grin, Franc¸ois 2000


Exploring the Economics of Language: Supply and Demand as Analytical Tools in Language Policy. The Department of Canadian Heritage – Le ministe`re du Patrimoine canadien [internet]. Kocourek, Jirˇ´ı and Eva Pechova´ (eds.) 2006 S vietnamsky´mi deˇtmi na cˇesky´ch sˇkola´ch [With Vietnamese Children at Czech Schools]. Praha: H&H. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger 1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martı´nkova´, Sˇa´rka 2009 Krusˇnohorsky´ drak aneb Vietnamci v Potu˚cˇka´ch [The Ore Mountains Dragon or the Vietnamese in Potu˚cˇky]. Bulletin Klubu Hanoj 3: 24–37. Meinhof, Ulrike H. and Anna Triandafyllidou 2006 Beyond the Diaspora: Transnational Practices as Transcultural Capital. In: Ulrike H. Meinhof and Anna Triandafyllidou (eds.), Transcultural Europe: cultural policy in a changing Europe, 200–222. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı 2007 On the language situation in the Czech Republic: What has (not) happened after the accession of the country to the EU. Sociolinguistica 21: 36–54. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı and Tamah Sherman 2009a Pre-interaction management in multinational companies in Central Europe. Current Issues in Language Planning 10: 181–198. Nekvapil, Jirˇ´ı and Tamah Sherman (eds.) 2009b Language Management in Contact Situations. Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Neustupny´, Jirˇ´ı V. and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil 2003 Language management in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 4: 181–366. [Reprinted in: Richard B. Baldauf and Robert B. Kaplan (eds.), Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 2: The Czech Republic, The European Union and Northern Ireland, 16–201. Clevedon / Buffalo / Toronto: Multilingual Matters]. Sirova´tka, Toma´sˇ and Petr Maresˇ 2008 Social exclusion and forms of social capital: Czech evidence on mutual links. Sociologicky´ cˇasopis/Czech Sociological review 44 (3): 531–555. Sˇumsky´, Bohumı´r 2004 Nasˇe opatrˇenı´ ve prospeˇch vietnamsky´ch zˇa´ku˚. [Our actions in favour of Vietnamese students]. Praha: Obcˇanske´ sdruzˇenı´ Bambus. Thompson, John B. 1992 Editor’s introduction. In: Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, 1–31. Cambridge: Polity Press.

338 Ivo Vasiljev and Jirˇ´ı Nekvapil Vasiljev, Ivo 2006

Vasiljev, Ivo 2008

Postavenı´ a komunikacˇnı´ kompetence vietnamsky´ch zˇa´ku˚ na ˇ esky´ch Budeˇjovicı´ch (Cˇa´st 1: pohled ze strany za´kladnı´ sˇkole v C sˇkoly, doplneˇny´ o rozhovory s zˇa´ky). [The standing and communication competence of Vietnamese students at an elementary ˇ eske´ Budeˇjovice (Part 1: The teachers’ perspective, school in C complemented with student interviews)]. A Research Report based on our fieldwork at the school in April–June 2006, 22 pages. In Czech – unpublished. Jazyk jako prˇedmeˇt nabı´dky a popta´vky [Language as Object of Supply and Demand]. In: Alena Jaklova´ (ed.), Cˇloveˇk – Jazyk – Text, 173–176. Cˇeske´ Budeˇjovice: Jihocˇeska´ univerzita.

Wenger, Etienne 1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woolcock, Michael 1998 Social capital and economic development. Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society 27 (2): 151–208.




accommodation 191 – 2, 234 acquisition (see language acquisition) agency 161 Ager, Dennis 119 – 20, 161 Alsace, France 165 – 6, 168 – 9 Alsatian dialect 166 Anderson, Benedict 52 – 3 attitudes 163 (see Bourdieu) and representations 212 – 13 and ideology 30 – 1, 234 – 5 and dilemmatic thinking 119 toward ELF 181, 233 – 6 toward language 31 toward language varieties 180 – 1, 212 – 13, 236 toward native and non-native speakers 188

capital (see Bourdieu) cultural 182, 196 – 7 economic 312 – 13 linguistic 88, 311 – 2 social 139 transcultural 318 Castello´, Spain 137, 139 – 41, 145, 149 – 50 Catalan language 138, 140, 146 – 8 CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis) 28, 89, 91 Cheb, Czech Republic 315, 321, 325, 327, 329, 333 citizenship 12, 137 – 9 acquisition of 138 – 41 British 144 – 5 Catalonian 146 – 7 European 53, 211 and (language) testing 138 – 9 multi-layered 29 policies 137 right-based vs. traditional 146 communities 63 minority language communities 69 – 72 multilingual 209, 236 communities of practice 33, 180, 299 – 300, 329 ELF 181, 194, 235 Erasmus 191 – 3 community profiles 163 communicative competence inter-/multicultural 27, 28, 212 (native) language 32, 190, 204, 206, 312 – 3, 235 (see native speaker ideology) monolingual (see language policy) multi- (see multicompetence) multilingual 37 plurilingual 208 – 9, 212

B Baldauf, Richard 6, 80, 159, 161, 276 Balkans 59 – 60, 62, 102 Barcelona, Spain 137, 139 – 40, 145 beliefs 31, 119, 237 vs. practice 129 belonging 29, 54 bilingual minds 205 – 7 bilingual regions 57, 165, 217 bilingualism 23, 180, 235 – 6 Blommaert, Jan 11, 87, 89 – 91, 94, 139 border enlarged EU 137, 299 language 165 national 1 crossings 328 – 9 Bourdieu, Pierre 6, 34, 87 – 9, 100, 105, 139, 182, 311 – 12 Bozen/Bolzano, South Tyrol 74, 203, 272, 279 – 80 British citizenship (see citizenship)

340 Index Conceptual discursive analysis 116 – 18 Cook, Vivian 14, 36, 180, 205 – 6, 210 Cooper, Robert 13, 72, 159 – 60, 164 – 5, 276 Council of Europe 2, 6, 50, 57, 61, 70 – 1, 147, 158, 204 Croatian language 92, 95 – 6, 98 – 9, 102 – 4 debates 95, 99 – 100 Czech language 182, 186, 195 – 6, 291, 300, 302 – 3, 316, 318 – 19, 322 – 3 Czech schools 316, 327 – 8, 331

multilingualism 23 – 25 values 55, 57, 61, 63 European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages 2, 75 European Commission 2 – 3, 51, 70, 128, 273, 288 Europeanness 51, 60, 66, 118

F Franconian, Lorraine 166 – 7, 169 – 70 Frenchification 168, 171 Freyming-Merlebach, Lorraine 165, 167, 169

D discourse 28 language ideological 13, 31, 89, 100, 124, 138, 141, 236 – 7 diversity cultural 61, 65 linguistic 2 – 3, 5, 158 unity in 54, 56 – 7, 124 and good governance 3

E ECJ (European Court of Justice) 35, 259, 261, 270 – 6, 279 – 82, 284 ELAN (Effects on the European Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills in Enterprise) 260, 288 – 89, 294 and Talking Sense 289 ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) 13, 180 – 1, 190 – 2, 194, 233 – 6 attitudes (see attidudes and ideology) communities (of practice) (see communities of practice) perceptions of (see attitudes) ELF speakers 190, 236 Erasmus (see communities of practice) European culture 51, 53 – 5, 57 – 8, 60, 64, 102 identity 5, 29 – 30, 50 – 52, 211 integration 1 – 2, 51, 211, 259 language law 265, 273

G grammaticality 234 Grin, Franc¸ois 160, 260, 276, 311, 314

H Haarmann, Harald 12, 72 Habermas, Ju¨rgen 38, 122 Hall, Stuart 11, 49, 90 Haugen, Einar 13, 70, 72, 159 – 60 Heller, Monica 95, 211 – 12 historicity 236 – 7 Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle 6, 138 – 9 Hungarian language 182, 186, 195 – 6, 292 – 300, 302 – 3

I identity 5 – 6, 29 – 30, 72, 90 formation process 69 European (see European identity) linguistic 73, 99, 192, 211 – 2 regional/local/national 54, 93 – 4, 99 social 5, 88 identification 11, 29, 49, 53 – 54, 62, 72 ideology 11, 27, 30 – 33, 237 language 10, 89 – 90, 210, 236 – 7 native speaker ideology (see native speaker) Irish language 272, 276 – 7, 279


J Jenkins, Jennifer 6, 13, 181, 191, 194, 206, 233 – 4, 236, 252 Jernudd, Bjo¨rn 14, 261, 290, 329


LMT (Language Management Theory) 160, 259, 261 – 4, 271, 276, 290 adjustment design 268 – 9 evaluation 263, 267 – 8, 304 implementation 263, 304 Lorraine, France 157 – 8, 165 – 7

K Kaplan, Robert 6, 80, 159, 161 knowledge-based economy 33, 287 knowledge-based society 33

L Labov, William 212 – 13 Laclau, Ernesto 11, 49, 53, 56, 58 – 9 Ladin language 74 – 5, 77, 79, 81 – 2 Ladin valleys, South Tyrol 74, 79 – 80 language acquisition 138, 210 acquisition and focus on form 193 discrimination 265 diversity (see diversity) education (see education) equality 37 – 9, 72 integration 137 – 9, 142, 147 minorities (see minorities) skills 260, 312 – 13 standardization (see standardization) variation/varieties 88 – 9, 105, 188, 207, 209 – 11, 236 language law 39, 54 – 5 in books 265, 266, 269 in action 265, 267 – 8 source of 266 language policy and planning 5, 34 – 6, 101 – 2, 115 – 6 acquisition planning 24, 71 – 2, 138 – 39, 159 – 60, 316 – 18, 335 corpus planning 72, 82 – 3, 159 status planning 71, 159 LINEE (Languages in a Network of European Excellence) 2 – 4, 6 – 7, 15, 24 – 5, 27, 29 – 42 linguistic human rights 124 linguistic imperialism 96, 182, 196 – 7

M macro-micro levels (of analysis) 13, 35, 41, 95, 157, 161, 162 – 3, 262 – 3, 270 – 6 malaise identitaire 168 migrants Moroccan in Barcelona, Spain 145 Polish in Southampton, UK 139, 141 Romanian in Castello´, Spain 139, 141, 149 – 50 Vietnamese in Czech Republic 315 minorities 32, 70, 158 German in Lorraine (France) 157 – 9, 166 Ladin in Italy 74 autochtonous language 70 – 1, 73 monolingualism 180 – 1, 205 – 6, 236, 312 multicompetence 13 – 4, 36 – 7, 180, 205, 210 – 11 multilingualism (see European multilingualism) goals of 184, 188 as political concept 123 – 25 and conceptual contradiction 10, 119 – 23 perceptions of 213 – 214 multinational companies 287 – 8, 290

N national identity (see identity) nationalism 94, 99 native speaker (NS) English 179, 181 – 182, 234 ideology 13, 32, 181, 233, 236– 7, 243 vs. non-native speakers (NNS) 179, 181 – 182, 190, 195, 251

342 Index negative integration 275 Nekula, Marek 160, 261, 291, 301 Nelde, Peter 69 – 70, 80 Neustupny´, Jirı´ 14, 261 – 3, 290, 329

P Phillipson, Robert 13, 96, 179 – 82 Platt (Low German) 166 plurilingualism 36, 203 – 4, 208 – 11 power 10 and conflict 37 – 9 and ideology 32 and language 88 – 90, 299 – 300 and mobility 70 asymmetries 70, 95 distribution of 159 – 160 Prague, Czech Republic 158, 184, 186, 193, 198, 291 Pula, Istria 57 – 9, 62

social cohesion 141, 148 Southampton, United Kingdom 137, 139 – 41, 149 standardization 69, 88 – 9, 236 – 7 standard language ideology (see native speaker ideology) Strasbourg, France 71, 166 Survey Ladins 69, 73 – 4, 76, 79 – 81 Szeged, Hungary 182, 184, 186 – 7, 193, 198, 203

V Vandermeeren, Sonja 163 – 4, 181 Vietnamese citizens 314 – 17, 320, 327, 329, 333 Vietnamese language 323, 327, 330, 332 – 3 Vietnamese students 316, 322, 327, 329

R regional innovation systems 292 – 4 Rhaeto-Romanic languages 75 Ricento, Thomas 159 – 61, 211 Russian language 295, 298

W Wodak, Ruth 89 – 90 Wo¨lck, Wolfgang 73, 163 – 4 Woolard, Kathryn 11, 87, 89

S Skinner, Quentin 12, 117 – 18 socio-profiles 163 – 4

Z Zˇizˇek, Slavoj

49, 59